Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Oliphant Commission counsel Richard Wolson should be fired

If what I learned from the Fifth Estate’s produces Harvey Cashore yesterday is true, then Oliphant Commission counsel Richard Wolson should be fired.

Apart from his unnecessarily aggressive demeanor towards Karl Heinz Schreiber and his predilection to phrasing his questions as inverted sentences, I have to really doubt Richard Wolson’s performance on the job.

I wonder whether he will be this aggressive and convoluted in questioning the Right Honourable Lin’ Brian?

Richard Wolson is going on ad nauseum about the fact that he contends Schreiber did not give a full account of all of his meetings with Brian Mulroney, in previous court cases on this smatter.

Oliphant Commission counsel Richard Wolson should be fired because he appears to be setting Schreiber up, and not giving a full account of the CIRCUMSTANCES of that previous testimony by Schreiber, by Wolson HIMSELF

The following took place yesterday:

In particular, he asked why Schreiber had not mentioned the meeting he says was held June 23, 1993, where he and Mulroney, who had not yet stepped down as prime minister, agreed in principle to work together once he returned to private life to promote the Bear Head project. He suggested Schreiber, who is known for boasting publicly about his friendship with Mulroney before their falling out, was trying hide their relationship.

"Why didn't you tell the prosecutor that you met at Harrington Lake to have an agreement with Mr. Mulroney to do business with him in the future? Why didn't do you that, sir?" Wolson said.

"I don't know," Schreiber said.

"I don't recall why I would not have told him. Everybody knew," Schreiber said later

What Richard Wolson is taking advantage of here, to falsely depict Schreiber as being evasive, is something that I learned from Harvey Cashore on CBC’s POLITICS with Don Newman, which is that when Schreiber was giving these accounts of his meetings with Mulroney, his testimony was halted by the JUDGE in response to one of the motions by a lawyer in that case.

And tell me that Richard Wolson doesn’t know these to have been the CIRCUMSTANCES?

If he didn’t, then he is incompetent. If he did, then he is suspect. Either way, Canadians don’t need a prosecutor on a matter as immense as the Schreiber/Mulroney hearings who is either incompetent or suspect, since that will only mean we will never get to the bottom of this matter involving possible corruption at the highest levels of government


Dr Mike said...

Wolson is proceeding as if this is a criminal trial & KHS is on trial for his life.

This is a fact finding mission pure & simple to investigate the nature of the business relationship between these two men & to determine if anything untoward occured.

Beating KHS with a rubber hose is only going to muddy the waters & the result will be skewed.

Dr Mike

CAITI said...

Wolson fails to realize that he prosecuting this case on bahalf of Canadians, not some other biased party......which is manner that he is conducting himself in.

This Commission is already suspect enough, given that:
1) Harper fought having it in the first place
2)The dude who set the parameters for inquiry was selected by harper and was acquainted in the past with Mulroney and he works for a school that gets huge ash from the feds...or not as the case may be...namely Waterloo U.
3)The scope of the inquiry excludes AIRBUS......wha?
4)Who the hell is Oliphant and what are his possible biases?
5)And why is this Wolson dude seemingly so abrasive in his treatment of Schreiber and why is he making inquiries of Schreiber that Schreiber is at a disadvantage to answer and for which Wolson already does (OR SHOULD!) know the answer, about why Schreiber's previous testimony was truncated.

This thing stinks from my vantage point!

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...

Just what the doctor ordered, Dr. Harper that is.


Anonymous said...

Kephalos said:

Let's wait to see how Wolson does with other witnesses.

I agree that he has had an "unnecessarily aggressive demeanour towards Karl Heinz Schreiber". If Wolson will treat all witnesses in a similar manner, fair enough. But I have some reasonable doubt.

Let's not forget that none of these characters (Mulroney, his close friends and Schreiber) would ever make it on Canadian Idol as choir girls. The simple fact is Airbus closed a sale because some palms were greased and nobody has gone to jail. Justice?

The entails of the Wolson Q&A portent two bad signs. First, Wolson appears to have already decided a case against Schreiber, and is in the process of trying to build evidence for a picture he has already taken.

The second omen is that more than once Wolson accused Schreiber "You didn't tell the whole truth to the judge."

In court, the witness does not talk to the judge; rather the witness answers questions asked by the lawyers, and the lawyers talk to the judge. So the suggestion "Mr. Schreiber, you did not tell the judge the whole truth” is misleading simply because Wolson did not disclose what Schreiber was asked.

By equal measure, some lawyer at Justice screwed up totally in a 1997 discovery re Mulroney’s $2,100,000 settlement with Canada. The Justice lawyer did not ask the simple question "Mr. Mulroney, did you ever receive any compensation from Mr. Schreiber?"

Posted by Kephalos to C A I T I - O N L I N E at April 15, 2009 8:41 PM