Modeling Journey

... but we now know, courtesy of Justice Oliphant.

The inquiry he so significantly shaped passed other tests important to the Prime Minister. Barred from examining what Johnston dismissed as the “well-tilled ground” of Air Canada’s 1988 Airbus purchase, Oliphant could only add explanatory detail and damning conclusions to what was mostly known about Mulroney’s links to Schreiber, now jailed in Germany.

... as representative of Canadians, for not being "forthright" about his contacts with Karlheinz Schreiber?

William Kaplan, a lawyer and author, added his voice Thursday to those calling on the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to act following Justice Jeffrey Oliphant's finding that Mulroney had not been "forthright" about his dealings with lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber when he was questioned by government lawyers in connection with his 1996 libel suit.

I must congratulate Justice Oliphant on the clarity of his decisions. His Final Statement pulls no punches  when it comes to his assessment of the statements made to his Commission by Karlheinz Schreiber, and by Brian Mulroney.

He is clear and precise, and his conclusions are set out in a way that anyone reading them can understand the chain of logic that lead him to his conclusions, even if one does not necessarily agree with his conclusions in all cases.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

The old idiom says: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

The meaning? That you should learn from your mistakes, and not allow people to take advantage of you repeatedly.

And here is the Junior Bush's version of that old saying:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

It is a turnaround of dramatic proportions. Heading into the leadership debate, Liberal leader and Prime Minister John Turner enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But, Progressive Conservative challenger Brian Mulroney is poised to pounce. Mulroney aggressively attacks Turner on the issue of patronage. Turner is visibly flustered and can offer little rebuttal, explaining that he had no choce but to accept former prime minister Trudeau's last round of patronage appointments.

This is interesting:

Little bits of information are making their way past the restrictions imposed on the Harper government commission into the payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to former PM Mulroney. The commission has a mandate which surprisingly limits it inquiries to the recently disclosed cash payments to our former prime minister in assorted hotel rooms.

Under no circumstances is it supposed to widen its inquiry into what happened to the payments allegedly made by Schreiber to various Canadians from the fees he was paid when Airbus sold planes to Canada.

But – like the proverbial little Dutch boy who tried to stem the leaking dyke by putting his finger in the fissure – driblets of information keep making their way from the Airbus fees into the discussion of exactly what Mulroney did to justify his $300,000 cash payments (Schreiber's amount) or $225,000 payments (Mulroney's number).

The Cat makes a fearless forecast: Karlheinz Schreiber will surprise the commission (and delight hordes of media types thirsting for the opening of the Airbus inquiry) by somehow placing into public view further evidence which tantalizingly suggests that the Airbus matter has not been finally resolved by the Mounties' investigation (an investigation which, by the way, did not turn up the cash payments in the hotel rooms to the former PM).

And then Karlheinz will sit back and wait for the public pressure to get to the bottom of the missing millions to swell yet again, perhaps resulting in a new inquiry.

And perhaps his disclosures, if he does make any and can make any, might lead the three opposition parties to legislate a new inquiry, designed to get to the bottom of Airbus in a full and frank way.

After all, everyone who is a stakeholder (Schreiber, Mulroney, Canadians whose faith in democracy need bolstering) has an interest in putting this to bed, after all possible facts and angles have been thoroughly explored.

Rome had its circuses, established to entertain the masses and keep revolution at bay. Canada, it seems, has its enquiries into the dealings of one Karlheinz Schreiber and a former prime minister, now the subject of a commission.

One of the first things raised was the background to a bank account set up in Europe for someone whose initials might or might not be BM. We have been given three versions of who the mysterious BM might be.

Let's start with the most recent one, heard a day or so ago:

"Moores, who died of cancer in 2005, had set up two Swiss bank accounts, one for himself, marked 34017, and the other marked 34117, under the moniker "Devon."
Beth Moores, who had worked for GCI, told the inquiry Tuesday that the Devon account was opened for her for "fun" - she was given power of attorney on it.

But Giorgio Pelossi, Schreiber's former accountant, told a Commons ethics commission in February 2008 that he and government lobbyist Frank Moores had set up two secret Swiss bank accounts, one for Frank Moores, and one for Mulroney.

"At the time we set up the account, [Schreiber] told me if the deal with Airbus would be done, he will have to give 25 per cent to Mr. Moores and 25 per cent to Mr. Mulroney," Pelossi said in 2008. Pelossi has also said he wrote "B.M." and "F. Moore" next to corresponding account numbers on a business card to remind him which account was going to hold funds for Moores and which one would hold funds for Mulroney."

Pelossi said he was present when Schreiber opened the account for the mysterious BM:

"No. I was present when the account was set up, and I never heard anything about the account since that date. What I know is what you know, which is what was in the media."

Now, about the handwritten initials BM. Where did that come from? A business card of a European lawyer, with handwritten notes on it, made by Giorgio Pelossi.
This is what appears in his writing on the card:

"F. Moore & BM"

Just below it, two account numbers (34107 and 34117 – the latter has the word DEVON handwritten in capital letters by Pelossi next to it).

Why Devon?

"Mr. Giorgio Pelossi:
I remember that he put this name just to facilitate the identifying of both accounts. You see they are similar, one is 34107 and the other one is 34117. He just put this Devon to identify that as their account."
Hon. Robert Thibault:
Why was it necessary for you to be present to set up those accounts?
Mr. Giorgio Pelossi:
It was Schreiber who asked me to be present. I went specially from Lugano to Zurich on that day only for this, to meet Mr. Mulroney. We had lunch together. After lunch, at two o'clock, we went to the bank.
Hon. Robert Thibault:
You met with Mr. Mulroney?
Mr. Giorgio Pelossi:
Otherwise there was no reason."

Just who is Mr Pelossi?

"In 1969 Schreiber made the acquaintance of a young auditor in Switzerland named Giorgio Pelossi. In the ensuing years, Pelossi became a key player in Schreiber's business affairs."

Stevie Cameron, investigative journalist with a detailed knowledge of events Airbus, has this to add to our knowledge of Pelossi:

"1976: Pelossi takes over administration of Schreiber's parent company; both men move to Calgary; Schreiber cultivates a number of provincial Tory cabinet ministers and sets up businesses with them. Commutes back and forth to his home in Germany.

1977: S.A. Miliar, a company set up by Schreiber and Pelossi, enters into an agreement with Airbus to try to sell planes to Pacific Western Airlines - no luck.
1986: Schreiber, Moores and Pelossi open new bank accounts in Zurich. Schreiber begins aggressive lobby for Thyssen who want to build a tank plant in Nova Scotia; it is bitterly opposed by Canada's Jewish community who know Thyssen's plan is to sell tanks to Middle East governments hostile to Israel.

1991: Schreiber continues lobbying for a Thyssen plant in Nova Scotia despite hostility from the Canadian military and senior bureaucrats. Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany approves tank sales to the Saudis; the deal is worth $446-million and half the money goes to secret commissions. Schreiber takes 1-million German marks in cash to a parking lot meeting with Liesler Kiep, the treasurer of Kohl's party, and Frankfurt tax accountant, Horst Weyrauch. Schreiber says the money was a cash donation to the CDU. Giorgio Pelossi and Schreiber have a major falling-out and end their relationship."

Why did Pelossi and Schreiber part company that way?

"Giorgio Pelossi believed he had a valid contract for 20 percent of every deal Schreiber made - based on this contract Schreiber signed with him in 1976."

The Star (December 2, 2007) has some more detail about Pelossi:

"The case against him [Schreiber] in Bavaria centres on his role in brokering the sale of Airbus jets to Canada and Thailand, helicopters to the Canadian coast guard, German-built "Fuchs" (fox) tanks to Saudi Arabia during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, as well as his long-running effort to win Canadian government approval for a light-armoured vehicle plant in Cape Breton.

German prosecutors allege the Saudi deal violated the terms of a contract that prevented the use of commissioned middlemen.

The prosecution also contends that, rather than declaring the commissions on his tax returns, Schreiber arranged to have them sent to shell companies in Liechtenstein and Panama, then funnelled into his personal bank accounts with some of the funds later going to reward German government and industrial officials.

A star witness for the German prosecution is Giorgio Pelossi. He's a certified public accountant, based in Lugano, Switzerland, who worked for Schreiber until they had a falling out in 1991. Soon after Schreiber's arrest in Toronto, Pelossi's credibility and motivations were called into question.

Schreiber claimed Pelossi was fired for embezzling money from his businesses. Then, in early 2000, Pelossi was briefly taken into custody and accused of laundering money for the Italian mob.

Pelossi had denied the allegations."

It seems that Mr. Pelossi asked Mr. Schreiber for $3 million.

There we have it: one account, one notation of "BM", and three explanations of who the account was opened for: Pelossi says for Brian Mulroney; Beth Moore says it was opened for her; and Frank Moore said it was opened for a different deal entirely.
Will we ever know which version is the truth?

Perhaps time will tell. After all, the German prosecutors have a mountain of information about Mr Schreiber's affairs. As Stevie wonder puts it:

1999: In January, 1999 German prosecutors have received Schreiber's banking records from Switzerland and by October, 1999 they have interviewed 51 witnesses,conducted 30 bank searches and 33 searches at homes and offices. They have 10,000 pages of evidence. They issue arrest warrants for Pfahls, Kiep and Thyssen executives. Pfahls, in Taiwan, disappears. In May, Schreiber flees Switzerland for Canada with the aid of Elmer MacKay who puts him up at his home in Nova Scotia. In July Schreiber moves to Toronto under an assumed name, Mr. Herman. On August 31, the RCMP arrests him on a German warrant but he is granted bail, secured by MacKay, Lalonde and others. He hires Eddie Greenspan to fight his extradition back to Germany. In late 1999, the secret funding scandals he ignited begin to break in Germany and Kohl, CDU party chairman for 25 years and chancellor from 1983 to 1998, admits he accepted secret donations.

Perhaps there is something in that mountain which could shed light on the mysterious "BM"?

Greg MacArthur in the October 31 Globe & Mail gives a very interesting summary of the relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. He says this about one of the visits Schreiber says he had with Mulroney (Schreiber's allegations have not been proven in a court of law):

" Feb. 2, 1998: Mr. Mulroney meets Mr. Schreiber in a private suite in Zurich. Mr. Schreiber says that Mr. Mulroney wanted to know if there was any evidence that could connect him to the cash payments."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.wmulroneytimeline1031/BNStory/National

The Committee should explore with Schreiber details of the private suite, in preparation for its questioning of Mulroney.

For example: where was it? Whose suite is it? What floor? What room? How long did they stay there? How long was Mulroney in Zurich during that visit? Who else was there? Did Mulroney travel alone? Was there anybody at the front door - or any guestbook that needed to be signed? What else did they talk about? What exactly was said at that meeting? Who set it up? How was it set up?

Oh, and perhaps the Committee could also explore with both Schreiber and Mulroney exactly what was said at these other meetings:

" June 25, 1993: Mr. Mulroney's last day as Prime Minister.

July 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $100,000 from his Swiss bank account — a Canadian funds account coded 'Britan.'

Aug. 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at a Montreal airport hotel and gives him $100,000 cash.

August, 1993: Mr. Mulroney rejoins his old law firm of Ogilvy Renault.

Nov. 3, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws another $100,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 11, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel's Gold Key Lounge and gives him $100,000

July 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Dec. 8, 1994: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Pierre Hotel in New York City where he gives Mr. Mulroney $100,000."

The Committee should pay particular attention to the conversations these two men had at these hotels.

How long did they talk? What topics did they discuss? Did either man refer to any reason why Schreiber was handing over wads of cash to the former prime minister? Did they discuss the pasta business in detail? What exactly did each man say about the pasta business? What exactly did each man say about other projects Mulroney was to work on? Did they discuss the progress of any transactions? What was said? Who else was present? Who set up the meetings?

The Committee needs these kinds of details because the Schreiber - Mulroney relationship is at the stage of a He said/He said point counterpoint dialogue; details are one of the ways to help the Committee decide where the truth might lie, given the conflicting statements.

And whether there are others who might corroborate the story of either man.

There is a lot of speculation about just how much was paid in commissions for the sale of aircraft by Airbus to Air Canada, who was paid a commission, whether these were cash payments or deposits into bank accounts, what bank accounts were involved, and other issues.

Schreiber did not really answer questions asked on Thursday about what payments he made during his dealings regarding several matters, nor did he name any names.

The attached article covers some ground as per Macleans of those heady days when the RCMP was sued by Mulroney for sending a request to the Swiss regarding certain accounts they thought were being opened for the purposes of commissions being paid. In the article, reference is made to several people, and to several banks.

The article quotes Mulroney's assertions at the time that he did not influence Air Canada in the decision to purchase any aircraft from Airbus:

" Mulroney's dramatic action followed a series of media inquiries and reports last week. First, on Thursday, Maclean's sent a letter containing detailed questions about Mulroney's alleged involvement in the Airbus scandal to his Montreal law office. The next day, his lawyer, Fred Kaufman, issued a statement to the magazine saying that the former prime minister flatly denied any wrongdoing. "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he did not in any way influence or try to influence Air Canada's decision to purchase aircraft made by Airbus," Kaufman wrote. "Nor was he ever a party to any agreement to influence this decision or to receive any consideration, directly or indirectly, for so doing." The statement went on: "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he does not now have, nor did he ever have, directly or indirectly, a bank account in any foreign country.""

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010517

Perhaps the Ethics Committee should read the article, talk to the journalists who wrote it, and consider calling the persons named in the article.

The article also mentions some speculation by a German newspaper that the commissions made for various transactions might have reached $46 million. It also mentions - but does not name - a "former business partner of Schreiber's" who gave the RCMP information about bank accounts. Be interesting to find out who that person was, and whether he or she is available for questioning by the Ethics Committee.

The article also contains this very interesting quote from Frank Moores (which Schreiber might not agree with, perhaps the Committee could ask him about it?):

" Moores also denied that he ever lobbied for Airbus, a statement he has made several times since 1988. "There is not a darn thing that I can say at this time except to say what I've said for - what, two or three years now - that is, that it is totally inaccurate," he said."

The article has some information on Moores stint on the Air Canada board:

" In March, 1985, Mulroney fired the entire Air Canada board of directors and replaced them with a group that contained many of his political associates, including Moores. When news reports revealed in July, 1985, that Moores was lobbying for other airlines, he was forced to drop them as clients. But a few weeks later, he was also forced to leave the Air Canada board because of his involvement with the Airbus consortium, which was then seeking the Air Canada contract. It was that same year that Airbus signed the contract with IAL. Then, in 1986, with the deal done between Airbus and IAL, Schreiber and Moores opened the two bank accounts in Zurich."

Interesting reading that old article by Stevie Cameron. I wonder when she will appear before the Ethics Committee?

Karlheinz Schreiber does not give clear answers to questions; that we know now. But sometimes, hidden deep inside his rambling answers, we might spot nuggets which might be gold ...

One of the central issues facing the Ethics Committee is whether two prime ministers of Canada, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, met at Harrington Lake, and discussed what to do about a Canadian who was facing extradition.

Schreiber says he wrote a letter to Harper which he gave to Mulroney to hand deliver to the PM at Harrington Lake. He is on record as saying that he was told that the letter was indeed handed over or discussed with Harper, and that he was to wait until after the court case dealing with his extradition before, perhaps, the Minister of Justice would do something.

Harper denied receiving the letter from Mulroney. He also denied having received any messages from Mulroney on behalf of Schreiber. It seems that he also denied having discussed Schreiber at all during that Harrington Lake meeting.

Schreiber was shocked by Harper's statement, because he was told - by a nameless "friend", according to Schreiber's Tuesday testimony - that his plight was indeed discussed between Harper and Mulroney.

http://davidakin.blogware.com/Dec_2004_ETHI_BLUES.doc

What work awaits the Ethics Committee in order to clarify and resolve the issue?

Simply this: ask Schreiber who the "friend" was, then call that person and explore under oath - in proper detail - the conversation that friend had with Schreiber, the reasons why the friend made those statements, if they were made, and where the friend got the information from ...

The Cat agrees with Andrew Coyne's view regarding the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber letter and what was behind it:

"Here’s the relevant section of his testimony, as best I could transcribe it. What did Mulroney promise he would do with the letter, he was asked. To take it to Harper, Schreiber answered.

And what was the outcome of that exchange? “The outcome was the message was very well received.”

There were no guarantees, he was told, and the courts would have to deal with the matter first, but after that the justice minister, Vic Toews, would look into it and “do the right thing.” It was, he said, “a shock” to hear Harper deny on television that he and Mulroney had discussed Schreiber at the meeting.

It could all be a lie, of course: Schreiber lying to the committee, Mulroney lying to him.

It could even be that Harper lied to Mulroney.

But if in fact there were such a deal -- Schreiber’s liberty in exchange for his compliance -- we would have a serious problem on our hands.

That Mulroney was anxious to obtain such a letter is suggested by the reported involvement of Elmer MacKay, the former solicitor general and friend to both Mulroney and Schreiber, in its drafting.

Schreiber claims that Mulroney put MacKay up to it: “he would never have been able to help me if this was not resolved.”

That Harper might wish to be reassured that Schreiber had patched things up with Mulroney is also plausible: we already knew by then about the $300,000 in cash, and it wouldn’t do to have Schreiber making fresh accusations against the former Prime Minister. But that he would offer that the minister of justice would stay his extradition? This cannot be."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071129_182431_4620

Good news for those interested in protecting Canada's democratic form of government, and particularly for those seeking to protect and preserve the office of the Prime Minister of Canada (including PM Harper in the latter group): the majority of MPs on the Ethics Committee have voted to call Messrs. Schreiber and Mulroney to appear before them in order to answer questions about the tiff between Schreiber and Mulroney....

Ethics committee calls on Mulroney, Schreiber to testify

The Committee will also ask questions about the role of the Harper government with respect to the Schreiber letters addressed to PM Harper - the Lettergate affair.

The Tory MPs voted against any inquiry by the Ethics Committee into whether any of the rules of ethics - which applied to Mulroney as PM and as MP at the time Schreiber alleges (which allegation is not proven in court) that he cut a deal with Mulroney - were breached.

It is good to see the MPs representing the majority of the voters in Canada cooperate on investigating such a serious matter, especially after their rocky start to such a course.

Canadians might have answers to several serious questions within a week or two, especially as Parliamentary privilege will protect both Mulroney and Schreiber with respect to any statements they make to the Ethics Committee.

It is also good to actually see ethical behaviour taking place in Parliament, as compared to the lip service we seem to have been getting lately from the "new" Tory government.

Talk about bombshells!

The Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber saga just gets better and better!

No former PM Mulroney has been reported to call on Harper to skip the preliminary independent advisor part and go for a full public enquiry!!!

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/275877


" Mulroney said he will meet with the adviser but he will come to that meeting with a message.
"I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the role played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities, as well as journalists, the only solution is for the government to launch a full-fledged public commission of inquiry," he said in a statement.

The statement was read to The Canadian Press by longtime spokesman Luc Lavoie."

With the NDP, LPC and now Mulroney calling for a full public enquiry, why should PM Harper not do it?

It would clear the air, give Mulroney and Schreiber a chance to say their say to the enquiry, and perhaps enlighten the Canadian public as to just what in hell has been going on in Ottawa over the years with the Tory governments ..

The Cat supports Brian on this one!