Friday, June 05, 2009

Patrick Kinsella's lawyer denies in court his client had anything to do with BC Rail sale; defence argues otherwise

A lawyer for BC Liberal insider Patrick Kinsella says there is "no evidence that he was part of the sale process" in the $1 billion BC Rail privatization but defence lawyers in the BC Legislature raid case argued otherwise Friday.

James Sullivan, representing Kinsella, was opposing a defence application in front of BC Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett to obtain the records of Kinsella's companies in connection to his $297,000 contract with BC Rail.

And defence counsel Michael Bolton, representing David Basi - the former BC Liberal ministerial assistant facing breach of trust and fraud charges along with fellow ex-MA Bob Virk - also said he wants any records Kinsella has connected to CN Rail as well.

Bennett heard spirited arguments from Sullivan, Bolton and Kevin McCullough, counsel for Virk, about the potential relevance of evidence Kinsella may posess.

"We're seeking from Mr. Kinsella records that relate to the Progressive Group and Progressive Holdings from 2001 to 2005, all communications, correspondence, invoices, cheques and briefing reports connected to Mr. Kinsella's dealings with BC Rail, connected to the sale of BC Rail and the divestiture of the Roberts Bank Subport," Bolton said.

"We're also seeking communcations related to the CN Rail purchase of BC Rail and connections with CN Rail during that period," he added.

Bolton said the defence also wanted to know whether Kinsella was "an agent, advisor, consultant or lobbyist for CN Rail on these issues."

That statement brought a strong objection from Sullivan.

"Our position is that there is absolutely no evidence to any of this," he told Bennett. "My friend is putting information in front of you for which there is no evidence."

Bennett replied that the in the defence application they had "made a number of statements where you've referred to Mr. Kinsella...."

That in turn brought McCullough to his feet.

"That Mr. Kinsella was the BC Liberal Party campaign co-chair? That's widely known!" McCullough exclaimed. "How is it Mr. Sullivan can help you at all for likely relevance?"

Bolton then told Sullivan that: " A number of the facts in the application regarding the bidding process are correct and have been supported by the evidence."

But Sullivan was not satisfied.

"We object to all of the material - we don't think you should consider any of it," Sullivan said.

That prompted Bolton to rise and use some colourful language to describe Kinsella's role.

"I feel confident that everything in this application is supported by the evidence or is notorious public information, such as Mr. Kinsella's role as BC Liberal Party campaign co-chair," Bolton said.

Bennett intervened: "I don't need you to editorialize."

But Bolton continued: "The government ran in the 1996 election saying they'd sell BC Rail and lost. In 2001 the Liberals promised no sale and won."

"It's a notorious fact that this was a highly politicized process. Kinsella played a signficant role, whether you call him a lobbyist or consultant, for BC Rail, for four years after the election. We can give you articles about whether Mr. Kinsella should have registered as a lobbyist," Bolton said.

Sullivan objected again.

"Here's the problem - they say 'Mr. Kinsella was there' - there was no evidence he was part of the sale process," Sullivan said.

But Bennett said he would have his chance to reply later.

Bolton continued: "I dont' suggest Mr. Kinsella was doing anything other than his ordinary business, or that he was in any way engaged in any criminal activity. I don't think anything Mr. Kinsella did amounted to a criminal offence, not that we know of."

The hearing continues.



Anonymous said...

So I guess that the emails of the CEO of BC Rail Kevin Mahoney were written to mislead Chris Trumpy?

How does Mr. Sullivan explain his client signing a confidentiality agreement regarding the sale if Kinsella was not involved?

I hope that Justice Bennett understands the issues and is presented with a full account of the sale of BC Rail.

Anonymous said...

Whenever officers of the court are asked to disclose, they claim there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing. Then 2 years later when the truth comes out, they claim to have forgotten inculpatory details. No matter, because they get away with everything.

BC Mary said...


Now they're starting to get somewhere. About time.

My calendar is marked for the BC Rail trial taking place (as you said yesterday) in September, October, November, December 2009 + January 2010.

Will 5 straight months be enough time for them to actually get to the point of what happened to BC Rail?


Anonymous said...

So Kinsella's denies knowing anything.

Next Kinsella's mouth-piece will claim he has never even met John Gotti (sorry I mean Gordon Campbell) and plead the 5th.

I notice some of the Young Liberal fart-catchers are climbing out of Skulski's rear passage to slag you Bill.

What these patronage-whores don't get is this has nothing to do with Left, Right or Centre politics, it has all to do with criminality.

But then . . . these kids all want to "grow-up" and be just like Erik the Spiderman.


Anonymous said...

James Sullivan, lawyer for BC Liberal insider Patrick Kinsella, says there is "no evidence that he was part of the sale process". A classic non-denial.

'If it looks like an agent, talks like an adviser and walks like a consultant, then it probably is a lobbiest.'
Anybody figured out how Kinsella was spending his time in the 30 days leading up to May 12?

Anonymous said...

Spider man Spider man, does whatever a Spider can, spins a web just like that, he's got radioactive blood hey hey, there goes the spider man.

Gee I wonder how Christy feels now after an email was read into court authored by Spider man.

All I can say is get your popcorn ready, they will be selling tickets to this show!!

DPL said...

Nobody saw or knows anything, or so it seems. A lot of people seem to think they are fireproof. Sure hope when everyone is sworn in they don't suddenly forget even their own names

Norm Farrell said...

The shredder at Kinsella's office has been serviced and is ready to go.

Probably a few smoking guns in there.

zebraeye said...

Does anybody know how much time the then attorney general coleman had betwween being told about the raid and when the raid actually took place? If there are some discretionary moments, would he have not mitigated the possible out come of the raid?

Bill Tieleman said...

Apologies for last posts here today - an email glitch didn't let me know I had postings waiting.

DPL said...

I don't remember Coleman being the Attorny General. He was the Solicitor General as far as I can remember.

Anonymous said...

I recall 3 weeks. Colemand did make contact with cabnet officals (campbell) but said, 'they never talked about the raid'???

yeah right...

BC Mary said...


that question has always bothered me, too.

Three "Concerned Citizens" considered the possibilities in a column titled "Before police raided the B.C. Legislature, there was time to destroy evidence" on my blog.

Here's the URL: