Author Topic: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty  (Read 140506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #775 on: February 13, 2019, 21:40:35 »
Quote
Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on Today at 19:23:50
What this government wants or does not want is irrelevant.

Unless they actually are interfering politically (it is not beyond them, my personal opinion here), they were stupid enough to ask for RCMP investigations in a moment of anger and that's the end of it: After that, investigating, reviewing the evidence and deciding if an accusation is warranted, then proceeding with and setting its schedule is entirely in the hands of the police, prosecutor's office and ultimately the Court. The government has no say nor any further decision to make ... at least in a country under the rule of law.


NP comments today which appears to refute the above:

Quote
crumb13 Feb 2019 5:39 AM

There is, to my mind, an even bigger issue of abuse of process by government. I hearken back the government's attempt to put a gag order on their whole investigation of the embarrassment that the ham-handed attempt to finagle the contract for the supply ship to the Irvings caused. Having spent weeks investigating in secret, when VAdm Norman was publicly identified and put on ice without charges the RCMP applied for a press gag on reporting any detail of their investigation.

The judge who heard this application rejected it, ruling that the RCMP's affidavit failed to convince him that one was justified. He went on to opine that it also left him unconvinced that there was legal justification for their investigation having been pursued to the length it had been already. And he published that affidavit, albeit heavily redacted.

A read through the RCMP affidavit, as heavily redacted as it was, shows that at several points the RCMP, having reported to (redacted) that they could find no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, were then directed to double down on their efforts and use increasingly intrusive and questionable surveillance tools.

When, at the final juncture, they again reported that they could find no evidence of an offense, the investigation culminating in the dawn raid on the Norman family home. Why this was necessary and done is an open question, although one can see the chilling effect of this drama on anyone else who might irritate or cause embarrassment to the government.

We can understand why the judge was querulous; given the amount of time and effort that went into determining that there was no evidence that VAdm Norman had committed any offense, the logic that uses this lack of evidence to justify raiding his home and suspending him from his position is indefensible. But this was done, at someone's direction.

Whose; one wonders?
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,567
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,279
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #776 on: February 13, 2019, 22:05:37 »
Link?

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,813
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #777 on: February 13, 2019, 22:56:55 »
The person who wrote that is referring to the ITO a search warrant, and this decision of Judge Phillips to make the redacted ITO available: The Globe and Mail Inc. v. R., 2017 ONSC 2407
http://canlii.ca/t/h3h48

The decision contains, among other interesting statements, this gut wrenching observation about the case:

"[34]           It is part of Canada’s history for military procurement and political considerations to go hand in hand.  From Ross rifles to Sea King helicopters, supplies for the armed forces have often been buffeted by political winds.  The results are perhaps not always well received by those on the receiving end of the supply chain.  Here, it would appear that in late 2015, a long-awaited initiative to replace the Navy’s supply ship was maybe headed off the rails due to political considerations, a possibility that allegedly upset a man most eagerly awaiting completion of the contract.  In my view, that mindset and alleged communication arising from it is hardly the stuff of stigma or moral turpitude.  At its highest, it appears that the potential allegation against Vice-Admiral Norman is that he was trying to keep a contractual relationship together so that the country might get itself a badly needed supply ship.  A reasonable member of the informed public might understand the frustration of being Vice-Admiral of a Navy that cannot on its own go more than a tank of gas away from port.  Nowhere is there any suggestion that the man was even thinking of trying to line his own pockets, or get any personal advantage whatsoever.  An officer of his rank would be expected to develop and maintain relationships with those in the business of supplying the Navy and his communications with such people are not, therefore, in and of themselves untoward."
...

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,567
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,279
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #778 on: February 16, 2019, 12:19:26 »
PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to 'engineer issues' in Norman case, court hears

Judge hearing breach of trust case reads out redacted comments from prosecution notes during pre-trial hearing

Murray Brewster CBC News Posted: Feb 15, 2019 1:04 PM ET

The top lawyer at the Privy Council Office apparently asked federal prosecutors if it was possible to "engineer the issues at stake" in the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The remarks - made on Sept. 14, 2018 and attributed to PCO lawyer Paul Shuttle - were contained in prosecution notes entered into evidence at a pretrial hearing involving the former vice-chief of the defence staff, who faces one count of breach of trust.

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey made reference to them on Friday as the Crown attempted to explain why it redacted notes being sought by Norman's defence team.

The judge acknowledged there is a lot background missing from the reference.

"You wonder what that is about," said Perkins-McVey. "We don't know the context, what they were speaking about."

Defence attorney Christine Mainville agreed and suggested she wasn't prepared to jump to conclusions either, saying a lot of references in both the censored and uncensored versions of the notes "remain ambiguous."

But she also noted during Friday's pretrial hearing that notes of meetings between the Crown and officials at the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet, will be important to the defence when it moves at the end of March to have the charges against Norman dismissed.

<snip>

"There no direction from the Privy Council Office to PPSC on how to direct the case," he said. "There was no direction or input from the Prime Minister's Office to our office on how to direct the case."

As he spoke, Justice Perkins-McVey flipped through the censored version of the meeting notes and asked, "What about comments from Paul Shuttle, like, 'Is there a way to engineer the issues at stake?'"

The Crown did file an uncensored version with the courts on Friday.

MacFarlane insisted the meetings were meant to identify a potential witness who could speak to the issue of cabinet confidences. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million shipbuilding deal to lease a supply ship for the navy in 2015.

The judge seemed skeptical of that explanation.

"There was certainly a discussion of evidence," said Perkins-McVey, referring to the notes but not quoting further from them. "There was discussion of the evidence-gathering process. Obviously this was done well before."

The Liberals are not doing well in the comment section - and this is a CBC article.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,123
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #779 on: Yesterday at 14:48:17 »
Mark Norman's defence team hits Trudeau, Butts with subpoenas

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-trudeau-wernick-butts-1.5029737

Subpoenas have been issued to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former and current top officials — including ex-principal secretary Gerald Butts — for any notes, emails or texts they may have related to the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The notes are being sought by the legal team defending the former vice chief of the defence staff against a single charge of breach of trust. Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a shipbuilding deal.

The subpoenas were issued earlier this month as Toronto lawyer Marie Henein was preparing a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of alleged political interference.

The court order for notes includes both the prime minister and Butts, and also Trudeau's Chief of Staff Katie Telford, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and Zita Astravas, chief of staff to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

More on link above.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,813
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #780 on: Yesterday at 15:19:43 »
PCO lawyer asked prosecutor if there was a way to 'engineer issues' in Norman case, court hears

Judge hearing breach of trust case reads out redacted comments from prosecution notes during pre-trial hearing

Murray Brewster CBC News Posted: Feb 15, 2019 1:04 PM ET

The top lawyer at the Privy Council Office apparently asked federal prosecutors if it was possible to "engineer the issues at stake" in the criminal case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.


And here is another example of Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick at work again. Is engineering a weak and spurious criminal prosecution and with this revelation now possibly a malicious legal prosecution part of the PCO duty to support and promote the government agenda?? 

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 92,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: 16 Jan 2017 - VCDS relieved of duty
« Reply #781 on: Yesterday at 16:42:29 »
There are no notes. Remember?
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression