Skip navigation

Brian Mulroney's last (day on the) stand

Today will likely be Brian Mulroney's last day testifying before the Oliphant commission, and I'm hoping that commission counsel Richard Wolson asks about this CP report, in which I dispute whether my former boss cancelled Karlheinz Schreiber's Bear Head project as he contends.

Since 1996, Mr. Mulroney has cited his cancellation of the project as evidence of his bona fides. The problem is that it never happened. And the Oliphant Commission has unearthed plenty of evidence that it never happened:

-- The Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier, was still generating memos about the project only weeks after Mr. Mulroney says he cancelled the project. When he testified before the Oliphant Commission, Mr. Tellier was asked whether he would have been writing memos about Bear Head if he had thought the project was dead. And he answered, "no."

-- Four months after he says he cancelled the project, according to Mr. Mulroney's own testimony, he called Paul Tellier down to his Langevin office, where he was meeting with Messrs. Doucet and Schreiber, and asked him where things stood on the Bear Head project. A short memory? Perhaps. However, interestingly, though my office was directly opposite Mr. Mulroney's, he did not call me to the meeting.

-- Mr. Schreiber, former Mulroney aide and lobbyist Fred Doucet, and minister Elmer MacKay - Mr. Schreiber's friend and champion of his project - have all testified that the prime minister did not inform them that the project was cancelled. Mr. Mulroney had carved out a separate channel with these gentlemen in regard to the project, and the record shows that they all carried on their activities as if Bear Head was very much alive.

  1. Randy Ranson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Like General George A. Custer, Commanding the 7th Cavalry at Little Big Horn, this is Mulroney's Last Stand. May he meet the same ignominious fate.
  2. Brooks Sask from Canada writes: What a sad spectacule, an old man trying desperately to preserve some dignity, It must be a terrible feeling knowing that the whole country knows that you are lying, you brought it on yourself.
  3. Northsider from The Great White North from Canada writes:
    Clarification of the terminology is absolutely necessary in this matter...Bear Head is a physical location in Nova Scotia, and that iteration of Thyssen's Canadian effort was "dead" as of December 8, 1990. However, then came at least three other iterations, including Montreal East, and a USA consideration. To me it seems that the Inquiry, the media, Mr. Wolson etc. are making a material error when referring to "Bear Head" to describe those post-Nova-Scotia iterations, thus leaving the door open to confusion. Mr. Mulroney, and many documents entered in evidence refer to "Thyssen"...the RCMP/Justice letter referred to "Bear Head" which for me was indeed "dead" as of December 8, 1990 as testified by Mr. Mulroney. "Montreal-Est" however, was very much alive.
  4. A READER from Canada writes: How much can the cost of the project change when you relocate it somewhere else? It doesn't make sense no matter what "configuration" this project morphed into.

    It seems he's trying really hard to make sure the Thyssen project would go through. Such a patriot wrapping himself up in the flag.

    Too bad all those foreign leaders he spoke to are all dead. Why did it take Mr. BM so long to come out to clear his family name if it was so important to him.
  5. Just Visiting from Canada writes: The fact that participants in the meetings are all dead could be overcome if Mr. Mulroney were to request notes of those meetings prepared by the leader's offices with whom he met. Translators could also be solicited for any recollections they might have.

    The fact that Mulroney has not tried to get notes from these allegedly exonerating meetings speaks to his dishonesty. That the commission itself has not sought this kind of evidence independently raises questions about the competence of this inquiry and its staff.

    - JV
  6. L B from Canada writes: everytime the old fool opens his mouth he puts his foot in it,I would love to see him pay back all the money he got back to the canadians Mulroney is pretty slick and he is crook but he is not the only who as been in a high office there is more just like him I would like to know when do they get charged?
  7. John Hinkley from Canada writes: In another new's source Brian Mulroney is quoted as saying: "He says his ideal inquiry would have gone back to 1988 and investigated the entire Airbus affair, not just what he says is a small chapter. Such an inquiry would have brought in everyone "from prime ministers to lobbyists to journalists that brought about this travesty."
    **********************************************************

    Is this another bluff from the master of obfuscation or is it Brian's mouth getting ahead of his ego?

    His staf of 8 PR and legal people must be running for the hills!
  8. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: Northsider from The Great White North

    Oh yeah? So how do you explain the following quote from the article?

    "Four months after he says he cancelled the project, according to Mr. Mulroney's own testimony, he called Paul Tellier down to his Langevin office, where he was meeting with Messrs. Doucet and Schreiber, and asked him where things stood on the Bear Head project. A short memory? Perhaps. However, interestingly, though my office was directly opposite Mr. Mulroney's, he did not call me to the meeting."

    You are splitting hairs as fine as Mulroney does.
  9. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: To comment on the main article: I'm sure Mulroney would want a wider enquiry if he could obfuscate his way through it and then use that as ammunition to fight back any possible police investigation.

    However, talk is cheap and he is only saying that he would have liked a wider enquiry to clear his name because he knows it hasn't happened. More smokescreens from the master.
  10. Rant N. Rave from Canada writes: Is it so politically incorrect to simply ask those forthright questions that we all speak of? The family "honour and integrity" that Lyin' ... errrr, Brian alludes to would be more believable if he simply answered the questions in full without 'beating around the bush' and eluding the truth. To claim that someone is innocent until proven guilty comes with a primal understanding that the accused fills in the blanks, answers the questions honestly and at least appears to be sincere. Cryin'... errr, Brian does none of this. Instead, he rambles on with these bizarre tales on clandestine transactions that he wanted no part of ( "I should have asked for a cheque") with a questionable business associate with whom Lyin'.... errr, Brian admitted had a shady track record BEFORE the Bear Head deal, the timelines do not add up nor do the tax evasion issues. I suggest that if Cryin' Brian wanted to shore up the support and attention of the media and the Canadian public he would admit that the $2 million that he cleaned out of the public coffers was ill-gotten due to the unanswered questions and resulting suspicions created by himself. Give the money back, admit that the suspicions were warranted and self induced, than spend his efforts trying to clear his ("honourable"?) family name and any ties to the AirBus/Bear Head issues once and for all. But instead he wants us to hear his lame stories of his childhood, and how his father managed to get a job as an electrician, and how his mom cooked up a great dinner for Christmas ...??????????????????????? Poor Brian.......boofriggin'hoo! WHO FRIGGIN' CARES?! Just answer the questions, Lyin' ... errr, Cryin'... oops, Brian.
  11. Len E from Canada writes: I have been watching the inquiry with great interest. I found it interesting that in Mulroney's words, his lawyers and tax professionals entered into negotiations with Canadian tax authorities and Quebec tax authorities, and negotiated the amount of tax owed upon the money he voluntary disclosed. Wouldn't the tax he owed be simply the same amount as anyone would owe based on the normal tax formula for those years? What would need to be negotiated? Then it was said that he paid tax on $37,500.00 a year for 3 years?! Why would he have been allowed to pay tax on $37,500.00 a year for 3 years if he was actually paid $225,000.00 as he claims? Why would he be forgiven tax on any portion of that amount? Am I understanding this correct in that he got to keep at least half of this money tax free? Is that some kind of benefit for people like this who disclose taxable amounts after the fact? I need to know! Tax time comes every year!
  12. Northsider from The Great White North from Canada writes: To A READER from Canada post of 19/05/09 at 10:10 AM EDT : To me it makes all of the sense in understanding the sequence of events - the confusion of globally referring to the Project as "Bear Head" is not concerning the "cost" of the Thyssen Project in different jurisdictions or iterations, rather it is the real & true meaning of the RCMP/Justice Letter to the Swiss Government which referred to "Bear Head" (along with Airbus & the Helicopter companies) (RCMP may not have even known about the other iterations for that matter) - and BM's later testimony in his Libel lawsuit...BM did not concentrate on "Bear Head" as in his mind the true "Bear Head" project was "dead"...the money from KHS was related to the Thyssen "Montreal-Est" iteration or some other Thyssen manufacturing location, and therefore not subject to the Libel lawsuit, and outside the scope of the Libel lawsuit Discovery process. It was chalk & cheese, and, as BM testified this morning relative to the Kaplan notes etc., the $$$ was concerning a separate matter to anything contained in the "Airbus Matter" ... or RCMP Letter, and any linkage of the $$$ with the "Airbus Matter" was not only incorrect, it was "a red herring". Mr. Wolsom has repeatedly asked BM why he didn't voluteer the $$$ information during the Libel Discovery questions, and once you accept the separate timeframes of the various iterations, BM was under no conceivable obligation to include the $$$ disclosure when it had absolutely no relevance to "Airbus" or "Bear Head". As for Mr. Spector, I would suggest that the true "Bear Head" was factually "dead" as of December 8, 1990, and any further discussions past that date were related to a separate iteration of the Thyssen Project.
  13. Hound Dog from Canada, Canada writes: This whole situation does not make sense.

    Mulroney claims he took $225,000 only from Schreiber but kept it in safe deposit boxes both here in Canada and in the US for almost 6 years before declaring it as income.

    As per Mr. Mulroney he never needed the money therefore one can only assume he never used or spent the money until then too. If he did spent it or use it, then he must have considered income and not a retainer as he has argued, thus he should be declared sooner.

    However Mr. Mulroney's spokesperson, Luc Lavoie, is quoted as stating that “the ex-prime minister was not a rich man" that he had made the "colossal mistake" of accepting the “$300,000 in cash from Schreiber”.

    Mr. Lavoie went on further to state that Mr. Mulroney “needed the money” to bridge a financial gap between the time he left office and the time he could re-establish himself in private life.

    So what is it? Did Mr. Mulroney really need the money?

    And was it $225,000 or $300,000?

    Maybe there is 4th payment of another $75,000 that has not be declared or discovered?
  14. Dave from Alberta from Keep lyin' Brian, Canada writes: It is so comical to see this man dance.

    I can't wait for the findings of the Commission. It will find that his version of the facts don't add up. It may find that he is not a credible witness.

    This is what happens when you "dance with the lady who b(r)ought ya"
  15. an online reader from Canada writes: Corporation #1998901 BN #Corporation Name(s): BEAR HEAD MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES B.M.I. INC.

    Old Name(s) and Change Date(s)
    BEAR HEAD DEFENSE INDUSTRIES LTD. - 1986/04/08

    Dissolved - Section 212 of CBCA 1995/12/28

    Active 1986/01/27

    Current: 1 Last Update Date: 1986/05/03
    Min: 1 Last Amendment:
    Max: 10 Director(s) name(s): KARLHEINZ SCHREIBER
  16. C Montcler from Canada writes: I'm not sure why clicking on Spector leads me here but since I am, just a reminder that "no man was ever a hero to his valet" ! Spector was the ultimate valet of politicians. He's looking for free publicity these days so beware!
  17. Graeme 4windsor from Windsor, Canada writes: Re "online reader" makes interesting observation. For all English lit. students who don't know the meaning of obfuscation, just watch lying Brian to see how it's done. When you go before the courts to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you do not obfuscate by withholding key information that would lead to a different conclusion. BM received $300,000 (I believe Schrieber) and only declared $225,000, what else would you expect. Voluntary declarations are made to avoid being audited and having to pay the tax amount due and a like manner in penalties and interest. But to make matters worse, he only had to pay tax on half that amount. It is pure sleaze and dirt. We always called BM a snake, just watch his tongue dart in and out and my first instinct was correct. He should be sued for the return of the $2.2 million.
  18. john may from writes: Guy Pratte said both RevCan and RevQue knew the amount was $225,000 over 3 years but cut a deal where the taxes were based on half that amount. Presumably expenses were deducted before arriving at a taxable income of $112,500 but within a few days RevCan officials will give evidence and clear this up.
    BM says he left it all to his advisers so slagging him is an exercise in ignoring the evidence to date.
    Graeme4 is the kind of person who you would not want to serve on a jury because he doesn't pay attention to the evidence.
  19. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: john may

    So, Mulroney takes $225,000 or $300,000 depending on whom you believe; hides it in safes and New York accounts for SIX YEARS; declares it only when he realises that the cat is out of the bag; and then negotiates (or has his lawyer do it so that he is not directly involved) to pay tax on only HALF of this wodge of cash.

    To you, this is all perfectly OK and BM is blameless. It seems to me that he may be able to avoid prosecution on the original actions he performed to get that cash because he has covered his tracks, and he is within his rights legally to cut a deal with CRA, but ethically it all stinks! No wonder CRA is always short billions of taxes it should have collected if the rich and famous and corporations are allowed to pull this kind of stunt.
  20. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hound Dog from Canada, Canada writes: This whole situation does not make sense. ** Never will with people like Schreiber and Mulroney testifying. As per Mr. Mulroney he never needed the money therefore one can only assume he never used or spent the money until then too. If he did spent it or use it, then he must have considered income and not a retainer as he has argued, thus he should be declared sooner. However Mr. Mulroney's spokesperson, Luc Lavoie, is quoted as stating that “the ex-prime minister was not a rich man" that he had made the "colossal mistake" of accepting the “$300,000 in cash from Schreiber”. Mr. Lavoie went on further to state that Mr. Mulroney “needed the money” to bridge a financial gap between the time he left office and the time he could re-establish himself in private life. So what is it? Did Mr. Mulroney really need the money? And was it $225,000 or $300,000? Maybe there is 4th payment of another $75,000 that has not be declared or discovered? ** All excellent questions. The guy sure looks like a crook and the more he talks, the deeper he digs the hole.
  21. Taxman In the Zoo from Calgary, Canada writes: Len E from Canada writes: "I have been watching the inquiry with great interest. I found it interesting that in Mulroney's words, his lawyers and tax professionals entered into negotiations with Canadian tax authorities and Quebec tax authorities, and negotiated the amount of tax owed upon the money he voluntary disclosed. Wouldn't the tax he owed be simply the same amount as anyone would owe based on the normal tax formula for those years? What would need to be negotiated?............" I don't like it either but its a fact of life. Blame Perrin Beatty. Usually, its a tradeoff due to incomplete facts and given that this happened more than a decade ago and the details are still coming out, perhaps it was the best of a bad situation. However, some managers here are slap happy for settlements, even when we have them dead to right. An unhappy taxpayer (or is that evader) is a political liability that few want to deal with. This was not always the case but Mr. Beatty - as Revenue Minister - ended the effective, fair and politically neutral collection of tax. This is understandable since nearly all the big time evaders have strong CON affiliation. Auditors who have worked with the IRS are amazed with the difference. One group thought they were getting "reasonable" co-operation when the IRS stepped in and arrested everyone - at gun point! Is there any wonder that they can afford to squander so much on their military, the drug war, farm subsidies, tax breaks for the rich, etc. etc. What Canadians need to understand is that a broad base for tax and simplicity is the answer. This must be backed up with effective enforcement. When this happens, nearly all of us will pay much less. Instead we get GST reductions and tax free accounts. What is not understood is that the wealthy are the main beneficiaries of these changes.
  22. M Poland from Canada writes: What I really don't get is that the amount of money involved in this affair is relatively small [so why go through all of this for it?]. [Truly, I wouldn't cross the line for any amount of money, but I guess some will ...] While not excusable [IMHO], if there were millions at stake it would be understandable. The man made millions as a, ahem, lawyer, and made a good [cost-free] living as a Prime Minister, and likely stood to make millions more once back in private [corporate] life. Mind you, I'm sure the Liberals are to blame ....
  23. Richard Keefer from Omemee, Canada writes:
    Here's a possible answer for the $300,000 (Schreiber) versus $225,000 (Mulroney) conundrum:

    That both Schreiber and Mulroney were telling the truth,
    or at least in a hair-splitting sense for the latter.

    Let's say that the hair-splitting Mulroney split the "commission", "retainer" or whatever we politely want to call it with a third party, Monsieur or Madame X. Then he could feel that he had received only a net amount of $225,000, after a disbursement of $75,000.

    I'm as puzzled as other posters over the disparity, and perhaps more so over the failure of the Clarence Darrow-like counsel for the inquiry not probing whether the $225,000 was a net or gross amount,-- and if the former, which lucky disbursees shared in the spoils. Don't ask, and it would appear former Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney will not sing out unsolicited information.

    Not to be anti-Francophone, but instead in honour of the splendid Depression-era V-16 "Madame-X" Cadillacs.
  24. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Mr. Schreiber had no reason to lie about the amount. This is a rich man with clients in Europe who trust him with millions to be paid out for lobbying. On the other hand, Mr. Mulroney admits that he was low in cash, stole our furniture out of 24 Sussex Dr. when he moved which was later paid for by the Conservative Party after it was made public.

    Also I think it is disgraceful that Mr. Mulroney through a highpriced lawyer was able to get a reduction of the amount on which he should have paid tax to 50% , which meant that eventually instead of paying on $75,000, he paid on $37,500. I know a lot of youngsters who, as a result of not being able to find suitable work after graduating, tried starting their own businesses, did their income tax returns from programmes on the internet and eventually ended up having to pay a lot of penalties and back taxes to Revenue Canada. It seems unfair that Mr. Mulroney was able to get away with reduced taxes, especially as he did not have to use his own name and the request for lower taxes was made in the name of "A Taxpayer". What kind of underhand dealing this is -encouraged by Revenue Canada?
  25. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: john may from writes: Guy Pratte said both RevCan and RevQue knew the amount was $225,000 over 3 years but cut a deal where the taxes were based on half that amount. Presumably expenses were deducted before arriving at a taxable income of $112,500 ...............................................Graeme4 is the kind of person who you would not want to serve on a jury because he doesn't pay attention to the evidence.
    =================================================

    If you had paid attention to the evidence you would have heard several times that Mr. Mulroney did not deduct his expenses from the amount of income declared for tax.
  26. kevin sullivan from writes: After his political retirement I often saw Mr. Mulroney going about business on Bay Street, acknowledging hellos and friendly barbs; I wonder how public he will be now.
    While many of the points discussed - the enveloped cash, hotel visits, unpaid tax etc - singly might be viewed as innocuous or, at worst, ethically questionable, when taken together become a whole greater than it's parts. A pattern of behaviour emerges that is difficult either to defend or ignore.
    When debating third world friends about aspects of Canada, I often agreed with criticisms of cold winters and high taxes, but could parry that by comparing our transparent system and their corrupt, bribery-ridden public services. Now I can no longer use that defence.
    Mr. Mulroney stated that media accusations have shamed him and his family. I submit his performance this week has done far more to hurt those who love him and those who defend his integrity. In the end I wonder if he feels its been worth this cost.
  27. David Campbell from Toronto, Canada writes: I have a half dozen spare copies of Stevie Cameron's 'On The Take'
    (for which she was driven out of the country by the RCMP)- if anybody is interested.
  28. John Hinkley from Canada writes: Too bad regular hard-working Canadian citizeNs can't get the same preferential tax deals that guys in the know who cheat the tax system can get.

    This double standard just isn't fair to regular Canadians.

    CANADA AND CANADIANS DESERVE BETTER!
  29. marilyn ludlow from Canada writes: I heard that the $300,00. got reduced to $225,000. because RevCan

    has a cut off and amounts over $225,000. are subject to a complete

    audit. Makes sense.

    On the other hand they talked today about $300,00 and 4 payments

    which would make $1,200,000. the same amount that was in the account that KHS took the $500,000 from

    Remember his notation (1234) 300x4=1200 close enough!
  30. Terry Krysak from Richmond, Canada writes: I find it fascinating that Mulroney is able to provide a multitude of detail about people, places, names, titles, conversations (when he wants to), dates etc, yet many times he has NO RECOLLECTION of events related to this affair that most of us would remember. Mulroney is the king of obfuscation and misdirection.

    The Stench of this fish gets worse each minute of his testimony progressed.

    I agree with Richard Keefer that the reason he only received $225,000 is that $75,000 whent to someone as a success fee.
  31. an online reader from Canada writes: --------- " Chris Halford. Mr. Lavoie went on further to state that Mr. Mulroney “needed the money” to bridge a financial gap between the time he left office and the time he could re-establish himself in private life. So what is it? Did Mr. Mulroney really need the money? "
    Posted 19/05/09 at 4:11 PM EDT

    Forensic Accountants hired to try and peruse Schreiber's accounts . Blind trusts of politicians in office don't require scrutiny ?

    By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau Tue. May 5 - 5:49 PM
    Schreiber: Conversation about tax lawyer’s death sheds light on his possible role in handling commissions for Mulroney . OTTAWA — A day or two after Bruce Verchere (mulroney's blind trust) shot himself in the head in his Montreal home, Frank Moores called Karlheinz Schreiber.
  32. David from Ottawa from Canada writes: I hope they ask him how he managed to smuggle $75K across the border in cash without notifying authorities. That is illegal as well.
  33. David from Ottawa from Canada writes: Also, if the money was earned for legitimate reasons, why on earth would he not have claimed his expenses against that income? Another obfuscation?
  34. Spurgeon Gillis from Canada writes: “It was an intervention by Judge Oliphant that ultimately drew a more detailed account of where the money went. ‘Mr. Mulroney, at that time did you have children or a child attending school in the United States perhaps’, the commissioner asked. ‘I happen to be a father who has a child that has been educated out of the country, and I'm wondering if some of the money went to that?’” We can save ourselves some time here – this Inquiry is a sham. Anyone interested in the rule of law should be very concerned. Oliphant is a stooge. Mulroney has not had to answer any difficult questions, despite what the Media keep telling us, and they have played their part well. Jeffrey Simpson – apparently omniscient – said Mulroney’s accepting of the cash-stuffed envelopes was “definitely not” “a criminal act.” Watch Alan Gregg and Chantal Hébert twisting and turning to avoid making any specific assertions about Mulroney’s behaviour (Andrew Coyne, to his credit, seems to want to get at the truth of the matter). It is disturbing that Mulroney has managed to get away with this, especially when it involves $2.1 million of our money. But worse, this travesty is being facilitated by the proceedings of an official public inquiry.
  35. Richard Keefer from Omemee, Canada writes:
    Well, a corrupt system looks after its own,-- down to costs for this charade that are utterly obscene, and from low-to-lower, in paying Mulroney's costs. So let me guess, the reward for a delayed and ineffective investigation, for counsel sandbagging it,-- appointments and promotions for all? Why not promote Wolson to the bench?

    Unless Canadians clear out the filth in Ottawa, we will find ourselves in a much sorrier state. When bribery and corruption are legalized from the top down, everyone will look after her/his own. Whether it's out of anger, or following the self-interested example of our leaders, cash will be king, and evasion will be a creeping affair of testing how far the amnesia and evasions Canadians have just seen will work on a grass-roots level. If a large portion of the tax base disappears, either tax rates will have to increase for the honourable few and those who can't opt out, or we will see the worst evil a government can inflict on its people,-- debasement through inflationary policies.

    At the local level we can marginally influence, Canada's slacker MPs are hugely overpaid, perhaps in the assumption this will quell any consciences these carpetbaggers still have. We need to replace them with people who are committed to cleaning up our system and re-instilling the concept of public service.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Spector Vision

Back to Globe Politics

Spector Vision

Norman Spector blogs on politics, government and the mass media.

Blogroll

javax.servlet.ServletException: Processing template "tgamv3/v5/story/WBStory.html" with config "null"
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.processRequest(HTMLTemplate.java:231)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.doGet(HTMLTemplate.java:137)
	at GIS.Servlets.StoryHTMLTemplate.doGet(StoryHTMLTemplate.java:96)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:126)
	at GIS.Common.Servlet.service(Servlet.java:106)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:103)
	at com.caucho.server.http.FilterChainServlet.doFilter(FilterChainServlet.java:95)
	at com.caucho.server.http.Invocation.service(Invocation.java:291)
	at com.caucho.server.http.CacheInvocation.service(CacheInvocation.java:132)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleRequest(RunnerRequest.java:341)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleConnection(RunnerRequest.java:271)
	at com.caucho.server.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:136)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)

Nested exception: GIS.Common.GICheckedException: Other exception in file: '/opt/GIS/HTML_Templates/tgamv3/v5/story/WBStory.html'  while processing select element with added parms:{}
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1511)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:945)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.generate(HTMLTemplate.java:316)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.processRequest(HTMLTemplate.java:222)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.doGet(HTMLTemplate.java:137)
	at GIS.Servlets.StoryHTMLTemplate.doGet(StoryHTMLTemplate.java:96)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:126)
	at GIS.Common.Servlet.service(Servlet.java:106)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:103)
	at com.caucho.server.http.FilterChainServlet.doFilter(FilterChainServlet.java:95)
	at com.caucho.server.http.Invocation.service(Invocation.java:291)
	at com.caucho.server.http.CacheInvocation.service(CacheInvocation.java:132)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleRequest(RunnerRequest.java:341)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleConnection(RunnerRequest.java:271)
	at com.caucho.server.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:136)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)

Nested exception: GIS.Common.GICheckedException: Other exception  while processing transformation element with added parms:{cacheTime=5000, type=xsl, url=/usr/local/web_htdocs/tgamv3/v5/includes/content/blogs/blogroll-election2008.opml}
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1625)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectProducer.emitChoiceNode(JELSelectProducer.java:48)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectOneProducer.generate(JELSelectOneProducer.java:92)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1502)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:945)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.generate(HTMLTemplate.java:316)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.processRequest(HTMLTemplate.java:222)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.doGet(HTMLTemplate.java:137)
	at GIS.Servlets.StoryHTMLTemplate.doGet(StoryHTMLTemplate.java:96)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:126)
	at GIS.Common.Servlet.service(Servlet.java:106)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:103)
	at com.caucho.server.http.FilterChainServlet.doFilter(FilterChainServlet.java:95)
	at com.caucho.server.http.Invocation.service(Invocation.java:291)
	at com.caucho.server.http.CacheInvocation.service(CacheInvocation.java:132)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleRequest(RunnerRequest.java:341)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleConnection(RunnerRequest.java:271)
	at com.caucho.server.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:136)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)

Nested exception: java.lang.ClassCastException: org.apache.xerces.dom.ElementNSImpl cannot be cast to com.caucho.xml.QElement
	at com.caucho.xsl.Generator.getXslLocal(Generator.java:2141)
	at com.caucho.xsl.Generator.generate(Generator.java:294)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.generate(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:819)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.newTemplates(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:437)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.newTransformer(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:312)
	at GIS.Universal.XMLTransformer.transform(XMLTransformer.java:262)
	at GIS.Universal.XMLTransformer.transform(XMLTransformer.java:166)
	at GIS.HTMLComments.HTMLProducers.XSLProducer.generate(XSLProducer.java:85)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1615)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectProducer.emitChoiceNode(JELSelectProducer.java:48)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectOneProducer.generate(JELSelectOneProducer.java:92)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1502)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:945)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.generate(HTMLTemplate.java:316)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.processRequest(HTMLTemplate.java:222)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.doGet(HTMLTemplate.java:137)
	at GIS.Servlets.StoryHTMLTemplate.doGet(StoryHTMLTemplate.java:96)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:126)
	at GIS.Common.Servlet.service(Servlet.java:106)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:103)
	at com.caucho.server.http.FilterChainServlet.doFilter(FilterChainServlet.java:95)
	at com.caucho.server.http.Invocation.service(Invocation.java:291)
	at com.caucho.server.http.CacheInvocation.service(CacheInvocation.java:132)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleRequest(RunnerRequest.java:341)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleConnection(RunnerRequest.java:271)
	at com.caucho.server.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:136)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)

Nested exception: java.lang.ClassCastException: org.apache.xerces.dom.ElementNSImpl cannot be cast to com.caucho.xml.QElement
	at com.caucho.xsl.Generator.getXslLocal(Generator.java:2141)
	at com.caucho.xsl.Generator.generate(Generator.java:294)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.generate(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:819)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.newTemplates(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:437)
	at com.caucho.xsl.AbstractStylesheetFactory.newTransformer(AbstractStylesheetFactory.java:312)
	at GIS.Universal.XMLTransformer.transform(XMLTransformer.java:262)
	at GIS.Universal.XMLTransformer.transform(XMLTransformer.java:166)
	at GIS.HTMLComments.HTMLProducers.XSLProducer.generate(XSLProducer.java:85)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1615)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectProducer.emitChoiceNode(JELSelectProducer.java:48)
	at GIS.Jel.JELSelectOneProducer.generate(JELSelectOneProducer.java:92)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:1502)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:945)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:782)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.parse(HTMLTemplateParser.java:751)
	at GIS.Common.HTMLTemplateParser.generate(HTMLTemplateParser.java:476)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.generate(HTMLTemplate.java:316)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.processRequest(HTMLTemplate.java:222)
	at GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate.doGet(HTMLTemplate.java:137)
	at GIS.Servlets.StoryHTMLTemplate.doGet(StoryHTMLTemplate.java:96)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:126)
	at GIS.Common.Servlet.service(Servlet.java:106)
	at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:103)
	at com.caucho.server.http.FilterChainServlet.doFilter(FilterChainServlet.java:95)
	at com.caucho.server.http.Invocation.service(Invocation.java:291)
	at com.caucho.server.http.CacheInvocation.service(CacheInvocation.java:132)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleRequest(RunnerRequest.java:341)
	at com.caucho.server.http.RunnerRequest.handleConnection(RunnerRequest.java:271)
	at com.caucho.server.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:136)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)