The Bizarre Case of "Admiral Mark Norman"


Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#1
Please excuse the lengthy Opening Post set up in a "connect the dots" sequence...

From: http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/...al-mark-norman
December 24, 2018
By Scott Taylor

Last Tuesday, a witness at the pre-trial hearing of Vice Admiral Mark Norman dropped a bombshell when he told the court that senior DND officials had deliberately omitted Norman’s name from key documents in order to avoid a paper trail. In other words, an alleged cover-up in this case was pre-meditated and intentional.

This testimony certainly supports the assertion of Norman’s legal team that the government is deliberately stonewalling them from accessing documents which would be vital to the Vice Admiral’s defence.

The identity of the witness is protected by a court ordered publication ban, as the still-serving servicemember fears possible retribution career-wise from his Chain-of-Command.

On the plus side of this equation is the fact that this individual had the moral integrity to bring the truth forward, regardless of the damage this might do to his superiors and the institution.

The flip side of this is the depressing realization that there are still those in senior offices within the Defence Department that mistakenly think they can deliberately circumvent the access to information law, and then rely upon the loyalty of their subordinates to keep their subterfuge a secret.

This high-profile saga began almost two years ago when it was announced in January 2017 that VAdm Norman, then Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, was suspended with pay and under investigation.

At that time, DND offered no details as to why the number two officer in the Canadian Forces was so suddenly dismissed.
Without access to the facts, the media turned to speculation and within hours Norman was being branded guilty of everything from sexual misconduct to international espionage.

To dampen the feeding frenzy on Norman’s reputation, information was eventually provided that Norman’s alleged wrongdoing involved an information leak regarding a shipbuilding contract.

In March 2018, a full fifteen months after he was publicly fired, one charge of breach of trust was laid against Norman. It is alleged by the Crown prosecutors that Norman leaked classified government information regarding a $700-million contract to lease a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. Norman has steadfastly denied the allegations.

To help prove their case, Norman’s defence team, headed by top notch lawyer Marie Henein, requested access to all of the pertinent emails, reports, memos, etc, which would have been generated at those top level DND offices in the two week window bracketing the admiral’s suspension.

Anyone familiar with DND bureaucracy will realize that something as touchy as public dismissal of a top officer would generate a flurry of correspondence between all of these very senior personnel who had to undertake this very sensitive task. Thus it came as a bit of a shock to the officer assigned to collect all of these documents when his supervisor smiled and stated there was none.

In his testimony at the pre-trial hearing, the witness recounted his Commanding Officer’s reaction to the request which was filed under the access to information law, “He gives me a smile and says… Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back nil return.”

Stunned not only by this blunt admission of premeditated obstruction by his Commanding Officer, and the fact that, “he seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness told the court that he felt compelled to do the right thing and come forward to testify in support of Norman.

Essentially this amounts to the witness’s unnamed Commanding officer telling a detective on a criminal case not to bother dusting for fingerprints because the culprits were smart enough to wear gloves when they committed the crime.

If true, and it must be kept in mind that the Commanding officer in question has yet to have his version heard in court – this would reveal a very dangerous culture of cover-up existing within the upper echelons of the Defence Department.

While the five-day pre-trial hearings were to have been wrapped up last Tuesday, there remain a number of unresolved issues concerning the defence team’s claim of obstruction on the part of the prosecution. Three days of additional pretrial hearings have been added and will be held in January. The actual trial will not begin until next June.

In the meantime, the shipbuilding contract that sparked all of this intrigue and controversy has been completed, on time and on budget. From all accounts, the MV Asterix, converted at the Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec, and now leased to the RCN, is already providing our Navy with yeoman service.

That being the case, the leak allegedly made by Norman to the media is credited with thwarting an alleged 2015 attempt by Irving shipyard of Halifax, NS, to have the newly elected Liberal government scrap the contract which Harper’s Conservative’s had signed with Davie Shipbuilding.

If leaking info about Irving Shipyard allegedly trying to scuttle a project serves to keep that project on the rails, and in turn the MV Asterix project is an unqualified success, in the big scheme of things what actual harm was done?

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/irvi...rman-1.4889254

Irving Shipbuilding wants a say in deciding which documents the federal government discloses in the criminal case against the country's former second-highest military commander. (???)

Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman told court today that lawyers for the powerful company are seeking standing in an upcoming hearing that will decide which confidential and secret cabinet records are turned over to the defence.

The shipyard has what's known as a third-party interest because some of the documents being sought by the defence team relate to a proposal it submitted to the federal government.

The Crown, the defence and a lawyer representing seven federal departments were before a judge Friday to update him on the battle over the release of cabinet documents relevant to the case — which has touched off a political fracas on Parliament Hill.

Norman was charged with one count of breach trust after being accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy from the Davie shipyard in Levis, Que.

He denies the charge. In a court filing, his lawyers allege political interference in the file and claim that Treasury Board President Scott Brison tried to scuttle the leasing plan at the behest of the Irvings. Both Brison and the company have denied the allegation.

Prior to a critical cabinet meeting — the one that Norman is accused of compromising — the Irvings sent a letter to four federal cabinet ministers asking them to give the company's own supply ship proposal a closer look before signing off on the Davie deal. A spokesman for Irving Shipbuilding declined comment on the court case Friday.

The disclosure of documents has become a political flashpoint, with the Conservative opposition pressing the Liberal government every day in question period on the government's refusal to release memos, emails and briefing notes.

Robert MacKinnon, the lawyer representing the federal government, told the court today that the defence request could produce as much as 135,000 pages and officials are searching for the relevant records. So far, none of the documents have been turned over to the defence. A lawyer for Norman said it's imperative that the defence team sees them before a full hearing in December, when the relevancy of the records to the case will be debated. (the rest of the article is at the LINK above)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cR47KIR-U (you might have to copy&paste this URL)

From: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...gnation-letter

There used to be, back in the dress-for-success ’80s, a one-liner about women who put career over family.“Oops,” went the line, sometimes seen on a T-shirt. “I forgot to have kids.”

I thought of it Thursday when I read of Scott Brison’s sudden resignation, and, it appears, his happy realization that doh!, he did remember to have kids and now that the girls, twins, are four, it is time to more fully devote himself to them.

Blah...blah...blah...(& he's hired on as the Vice-Chairman at BMO)

But there’s also this: Brison is one of the key figures at the heart of the prosecution against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military who is accused of leaking cabinet secrets. His name appears on the Crown’s list of witnesses when the case goes to trial in August, two months before the federal election, though it is not from government lawyers he can expect the rough ride.

Brison was vice-chair of the ad hoc committee meeting, at which, shortly after the Trudeau Liberals took office in 2015, he allegedly was “the driving force” behind the Liberals’ decision to delay awarding a contract for a supply ship to Quebec’s Davie Shipbuilding. It was he who walked into the meeting with a letter of complaint about that contract from rival Irving Shipbuilding Inc. co-CEO James Irving, begging for the Davie contract to be “competitively evaluated.” The letter had been sent to new Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote and new Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, and copied to Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Brison.

Only Brison brought it to the meeting, and he admitted to the RCMP he raised it there.

And as described in the factum filed by Norman’s defence lawyers in their third-party records motion that resumes in Ottawa later this month, it was Brison’s statements to the RCMP — that the leaks about the contract delay, allegedly by Norman, were so grave they hindered his and the government’s ability to do their due diligence on the Davie contact — that acted as the foundation for the Norman prosecution.

Thus, the defence says, did Brison ground both the prosecution theory that Norman’s alleged conduct was “a serious and marked departure” and that he “was not acting in the public good” — by supposedly precluding Brison and the government from having a proper look at the Davie contract — and ground the criminal charge against him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_8Kejp5Gc (Again, you might have to Copy&Paste this ULR)

That's the basics of the story. The Privy Council is reporting back to the PMO (sound familiar a la SNC Lavalin & Micheal Warnick?), and the PMO deciding (with Irving Shipbuilding's input) what documents Admiral Mark Norman's Defence Team can and can't be made aware of. Political interference in a criminal trial? Say it isn't so....
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+1
#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLPeWtOgElg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOtJpIyKDtQ
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#3
Here's the two YouTube Links from the OP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cR47KIR-U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_8Kejp5Gc
 
bill barilko
+3
#4
No surprises here sad to say-except the gov't of the day may have met it's match in Norman's defence team who can quite possibly can use those games DoD is playing with FOI requests to have the whole deal thrown out of court.

Then the ass covering will really start.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#5
Inside the ship at the centre of the Mark Norman case

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhrkCgPSwHw
 
bill barilko
+3
#6
This whole thing is something the Liberals should have dropped as quietly as possible long ago but somehow they're convinced-as sitting gov't often is-that they are in the right and of course their lawyers want to stay until the bitter end-billable hours and all that.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilko View Post

This whole thing is something the Liberals should have dropped as quietly as possible long ago but somehow they're convinced-as sitting gov't often is-that they are in the right and of course their lawyers want to stay until the bitter end-billable hours and all that.

Norman will not let this go away if he is innocent .
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#8
The below is titled, "The Maritime Mafia & Scott Brison":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFM8xJ5BSUM

Resigned from Cabinet to spend time with the kiddies.
 
bill barilko
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Norman will not let this go away if he is innocent.

Point taken but it might not be his decision to make.

I agree that in theory he would/could/should sue the federal gubmint once the dust settled.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

Please excuse the lengthy Opening Post set up in a "connect the dots" sequence...

From: http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/...al-mark-norman
December 24, 2018
By Scott Taylor

Last Tuesday, a witness at the pre-trial hearing of Vice Admiral Mark Norman dropped a bombshell when he told the court that senior DND officials had deliberately omitted Norman’s name from key documents in order to avoid a paper trail. In other words, an alleged cover-up in this case was pre-meditated and intentional.

This testimony certainly supports the assertion of Norman’s legal team that the government is deliberately stonewalling them from accessing documents which would be vital to the Vice Admiral’s defence.

The identity of the witness is protected by a court ordered publication ban, as the still-serving servicemember fears possible retribution career-wise from his Chain-of-Command.

On the plus side of this equation is the fact that this individual had the moral integrity to bring the truth forward, regardless of the damage this might do to his superiors and the institution.

The flip side of this is the depressing realization that there are still those in senior offices within the Defence Department that mistakenly think they can deliberately circumvent the access to information law, and then rely upon the loyalty of their subordinates to keep their subterfuge a secret.

This high-profile saga began almost two years ago when it was announced in January 2017 that VAdm Norman, then Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, was suspended with pay and under investigation.

At that time, DND offered no details as to why the number two officer in the Canadian Forces was so suddenly dismissed.
Without access to the facts, the media turned to speculation and within hours Norman was being branded guilty of everything from sexual misconduct to international espionage.

To dampen the feeding frenzy on Norman’s reputation, information was eventually provided that Norman’s alleged wrongdoing involved an information leak regarding a shipbuilding contract.

In March 2018, a full fifteen months after he was publicly fired, one charge of breach of trust was laid against Norman. It is alleged by the Crown prosecutors that Norman leaked classified government information regarding a $700-million contract to lease a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. Norman has steadfastly denied the allegations.

To help prove their case, Norman’s defence team, headed by top notch lawyer Marie Henein, requested access to all of the pertinent emails, reports, memos, etc, which would have been generated at those top level DND offices in the two week window bracketing the admiral’s suspension.

Anyone familiar with DND bureaucracy will realize that something as touchy as public dismissal of a top officer would generate a flurry of correspondence between all of these very senior personnel who had to undertake this very sensitive task. Thus it came as a bit of a shock to the officer assigned to collect all of these documents when his supervisor smiled and stated there was none.

In his testimony at the pre-trial hearing, the witness recounted his Commanding Officer’s reaction to the request which was filed under the access to information law, “He gives me a smile and says… Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back nil return.”

Stunned not only by this blunt admission of premeditated obstruction by his Commanding Officer, and the fact that, “he seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness told the court that he felt compelled to do the right thing and come forward to testify in support of Norman.

Essentially this amounts to the witness’s unnamed Commanding officer telling a detective on a criminal case not to bother dusting for fingerprints because the culprits were smart enough to wear gloves when they committed the crime.

If true, and it must be kept in mind that the Commanding officer in question has yet to have his version heard in court – this would reveal a very dangerous culture of cover-up existing within the upper echelons of the Defence Department.

While the five-day pre-trial hearings were to have been wrapped up last Tuesday, there remain a number of unresolved issues concerning the defence team’s claim of obstruction on the part of the prosecution. Three days of additional pretrial hearings have been added and will be held in January. The actual trial will not begin until next June.

In the meantime, the shipbuilding contract that sparked all of this intrigue and controversy has been completed, on time and on budget. From all accounts, the MV Asterix, converted at the Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec, and now leased to the RCN, is already providing our Navy with yeoman service.

That being the case, the leak allegedly made by Norman to the media is credited with thwarting an alleged 2015 attempt by Irving shipyard of Halifax, NS, to have the newly elected Liberal government scrap the contract which Harper’s Conservative’s had signed with Davie Shipbuilding.

If leaking info about Irving Shipyard allegedly trying to scuttle a project serves to keep that project on the rails, and in turn the MV Asterix project is an unqualified success, in the big scheme of things what actual harm was done?

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/irvi...rman-1.4889254

Irving Shipbuilding wants a say in deciding which documents the federal government discloses in the criminal case against the country's former second-highest military commander. (???)

Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman told court today that lawyers for the powerful company are seeking standing in an upcoming hearing that will decide which confidential and secret cabinet records are turned over to the defence.

The shipyard has what's known as a third-party interest because some of the documents being sought by the defence team relate to a proposal it submitted to the federal government.

The Crown, the defence and a lawyer representing seven federal departments were before a judge Friday to update him on the battle over the release of cabinet documents relevant to the case — which has touched off a political fracas on Parliament Hill.

Norman was charged with one count of breach trust after being accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy from the Davie shipyard in Levis, Que.

He denies the charge. In a court filing, his lawyers allege political interference in the file and claim that Treasury Board President Scott Brison tried to scuttle the leasing plan at the behest of the Irvings. Both Brison and the company have denied the allegation.

Prior to a critical cabinet meeting — the one that Norman is accused of compromising — the Irvings sent a letter to four federal cabinet ministers asking them to give the company's own supply ship proposal a closer look before signing off on the Davie deal. A spokesman for Irving Shipbuilding declined comment on the court case Friday.

The disclosure of documents has become a political flashpoint, with the Conservative opposition pressing the Liberal government every day in question period on the government's refusal to release memos, emails and briefing notes.

Robert MacKinnon, the lawyer representing the federal government, told the court today that the defence request could produce as much as 135,000 pages and officials are searching for the relevant records. So far, none of the documents have been turned over to the defence. A lawyer for Norman said it's imperative that the defence team sees them before a full hearing in December, when the relevancy of the records to the case will be debated. (the rest of the article is at the LINK above)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cR47KIR-U (you might have to copy&paste this URL)

From: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...gnation-letter

There used to be, back in the dress-for-success ’80s, a one-liner about women who put career over family.“Oops,” went the line, sometimes seen on a T-shirt. “I forgot to have kids.”

I thought of it Thursday when I read of Scott Brison’s sudden resignation, and, it appears, his happy realization that doh!, he did remember to have kids and now that the girls, twins, are four, it is time to more fully devote himself to them.

Blah...blah...blah...(& he's hired on as the Vice-Chairman at BMO)

But there’s also this: Brison is one of the key figures at the heart of the prosecution against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military who is accused of leaking cabinet secrets. His name appears on the Crown’s list of witnesses when the case goes to trial in August, two months before the federal election, though it is not from government lawyers he can expect the rough ride.

Brison was vice-chair of the ad hoc committee meeting, at which, shortly after the Trudeau Liberals took office in 2015, he allegedly was “the driving force” behind the Liberals’ decision to delay awarding a contract for a supply ship to Quebec’s Davie Shipbuilding. It was he who walked into the meeting with a letter of complaint about that contract from rival Irving Shipbuilding Inc. co-CEO James Irving, begging for the Davie contract to be “competitively evaluated.” The letter had been sent to new Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy Foote and new Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, and copied to Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Brison.

Only Brison brought it to the meeting, and he admitted to the RCMP he raised it there.

And as described in the factum filed by Norman’s defence lawyers in their third-party records motion that resumes in Ottawa later this month, it was Brison’s statements to the RCMP — that the leaks about the contract delay, allegedly by Norman, were so grave they hindered his and the government’s ability to do their due diligence on the Davie contact — that acted as the foundation for the Norman prosecution.

Thus, the defence says, did Brison ground both the prosecution theory that Norman’s alleged conduct was “a serious and marked departure” and that he “was not acting in the public good” — by supposedly precluding Brison and the government from having a proper look at the Davie contract — and ground the criminal charge against him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_8Kejp5Gc (Again, you might have to Copy&Paste this ULR)

That's the basics of the story. The Privy Council is reporting back to the PMO (sound familiar a la SNC Lavalin & Micheal Warnick?), and the PMO deciding (with Irving Shipbuilding's input) what documents Admiral Mark Norman's Defence Team can and can't be made aware of. Political interference in a criminal trial? Say it isn't so....

You go Marie!
 
Mowich
Conservative
#11
The SNC Lavalin scandal pisses me off but this.............this sickens me. And pisses me off. The libs sacrificed Admiral Norman in order to get their other big donor- Irving - the contract. Once Marie gets him cleared of the charge, she should sue the feds for a multi-million dollar settlement along with a full public apology.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#12
Taxpayers cover cost of lawyers for Trudeau, others in SNC Lavalin affair but no help for Vice Adm. Norman

Quote:

The Department of National Defence has declined to pay the legal bills for Vice Admiral Mark Norman in his ongoing court case.
But it’s a different story for other government officials, who will find that all their legal bills will be covered by the taxpayer.
The DND will be paying for lawyers for some of those who will be testifying for the Crown at Norman’s trial which is to start in August. Jody Thomas, the department’s deputy minister, has approved the applications to pay the legal fees for six department or Canadian Forces individuals. Sources say some of those are linked to the Norman case.
At the same time Robert Fife and Steve Chase of the Globe and Mail have reported that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior officials in his office have retained outside legal counsel in case of an RCMP investigation into allegations of political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group.
Cameron Ahmad, Trudeau’s communications director, told the journalists that Treasury Board rules allow for outside lawyers to be hired at public expense. “As per the Treasury Board Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification, counsel has been retained to advise on the matter in question,” Ahmad confirmed to the Globe, which noted that the rules allow for hiring of outside counsel when government officials are either sued, threatened with a suit, charged with an offence or under threat of being named in a legal action.
But when Vice Admiral Norman applied for the same treatment under the exact same policy the DND turned him down.
The DND rejected Norman’s request for financial assistance in 2017 as it claimed the senior officer was guilty of disclosing confidential information. Government officials reached that stunning conclusion — contained in a Justice Department letter leaked to Postmedia — even though Norman had not been charged at the time and no formal internal investigation was carried out by the Canadian Forces or the DND.
Norman, once the second highest ranking officer in the Canadian military, was charged last year with one count of breach of trust.
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance suspended Norman from his job in January 2017 after the RCMP alleged he tipped off Davie Shipbuilding that the Liberal government was considering delaying a key navy program in which the Quebec firm would convert a commercial ship into a naval supply vessel. Details about the government’s decision were also leaked to journalists, and the resulting embarrassment, along with the financial penalties that would have been imposed, forced the Trudeau government to back down on its plans.
There have been suggestions that officials from the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister’s Office may have been involved in the decision to decline Norman financial support under the Treasury Board policy. But the DND says that is not the case.
The decision was made by then DND Deputy Minister John Forster. “It was done following consultations with the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Legal Advisor (DND/CF LA), who reports to the Department of Justice,” the DND noted in a statement to Postmedia. “None of our records suggest that the Clerk of the Privy Council and/or PMO were involved or consulted in the decision making process.”
Forster will be appearing as a witness for the Crown when Norman’s trial begins in August.
The Justice Department is involved in the ongoing legal battle with Norman in that it is supposed to coordinating the release of federal government records to the court during the pre-trial hearing. The court has also heard that the Justice Department has offered legal advice to people who have had documents subpoenaed by Norman’s lawyers.
The Conservative party has been pushing the DND to cover Norman’s mounting legal costs as the case against the senior naval officer drags into its second year.

Quote:

Conservative MP Leona Alleslev asked Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan at the Commons defence committee Feb. 28 about whether he would grant approval for Norman’s legal fees to be covered under the federal program. Sajjan refused to answer, claiming that Norman’s case was before the courts.
But Alleslev countered that her question about whether Norman’s legal bills would be covered had nothing to do with the officer’s criminal trial or the pre-trial hearings that have been underway.

Lawyers observing the case have told Postmedia they estimate the cost at this point for the prosecution to be between $10 million and $15 million.
Norman has two main lawyers but his legal costs are not known. Sources, however, say the significant delays in getting basic documents for his defence is pushing his family into bankruptcy.
A GoFundMe page has been set up by retired Canadian Army officer Lee Hammond to help finance Norman’s legal costs. Hammond had originally set his fundraising goal at $50,000 but has now increased that to $500,000 to cover the increasing legal costs.

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#13
Mark Norman's lawyer blasts DoJ over tweets

Quote:

OTTAWA - Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyer Marie Henein has called out Justice Canada for making what she says are "inaccurate" public statements about her client's high-profile case while conceding a delay in her attempts to get it tossed.
The statements she criticized came earlier this month in the form of several Twitter posts and a public fact-sheet in which the department said it wanted to "clarify" Henein's requests for internal records held by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other top officials.
They appeared aimed at rebutting Henein's allegations that the government has been dragging its feet in producing those records and thousands of other documents related to Norman's breach-of-trust charge.
Directed at a journalist and Trudeau's former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, the tweets from March 6 asserted at one point that "the government is providing documents to the judge for her review at the pace directed by her and will continue to do so."
A similar comment was contained in the fact-sheet, which was posted to the Justice Department's website and sent to other journalists.
Except Justice Heather Perkins-McVey has previously questioned why it is taking the government so long to gather the requested documents, which she must review before deciding whether they should be released to Norman's lawyers.
The tweets, copies of which were provided by Henein's office to The Canadian Press, have since been deleted and Henein told the court during a brief pre-trial hearing Monday that the department changed the fact-sheets after complaints from her office.
Copies provided by Henein's office showed that the amendments included removing the comment about Perkins-McVey directing the department to produce the documents at a certain pace.
Henein nonetheless questioned why Justice Canada officials felt the need to comment publicly on the case, adding that the department has been posting statements that "we take the position are inaccurate."
"We've made our position known in writing to the Department of Justice as to the propriety of that sort of behaviour," she said. "We take issue with a number of the statements that they posted."
Justice Canada spokesman Ian McLeod said Monday that tweets were sent to two journalists "as media relations outreach."
"We later removed the tweets, and are providing clarifications to media directly via e-mail," he said.
The court also heard that an abuse-of-process hearing scheduled for next week, in which Norman's lawyers were to argue that the case against him should be tossed, will be delayed because they still don't have the requested documents.
Norman's team has been fighting since October for internal communications from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office about the case, which included issuing subpoenas last month for emails, BlackBerry messages and other records.
Subpoenas were issued for Trudeau, Butts, Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford and Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick, among others, as Henein tries to find records to prove political interference in Norman's case and have the charges dismissed.
Justice Canada lawyer Robert McKinnon told the court most of the subpoenaed material had been delivered to Perkins-McVey for her review.
But Henein, who has accused the government of trying to delay Norman's actual trial, which is scheduled to start in August and run through most of the election, said she still hadn't seen any of the material.
As a result, she said, she wouldn't be able to make her abuse-of-process case next week.
The court will now aim to hold the five-day hearing in April.
McKinnon also indicated it could take another two to four weeks for the government to finish handing over some encrypted information and records involving former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Norman, who previously served as the military's second-in-command, was charged last year with breach of trust for allegedly leaking government secrets to help a Quebec shipyard with a $700-million naval contract.
He has denied any wrongdoing and his lawyers have accused him of having been a victim of political games and interference by the Trudeau government.

I agree with Mowich you go girl, she is a pit bull
Last edited by Twin_Moose; Mar 19th, 2019 at 09:57 AM..
 
Hoid
#14
Let's just hear the proof they have on him.

The endless speculation is pointless.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Mark Norman's lawyer blasts DoJ over tweets



I agree with Mowich you go girl, she is a pit bull

Exactly what one needs when going after vermin, TM.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#16
In a way I hope it isn't thrown out of court keeping the focus on Liberal corruption right before the election. For the Liberal and Norman's sake it would be nice to have it dismissed and quietly disappear until the lawsuit
 
Mowich
Conservative
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

In a way I hope it isn't thrown out of court keeping the focus on Liberal corruption right before the election. For the Liberal and Norman's sake it would be nice to have it dismissed and quietly disappear until the lawsuit


I don't see the liberals changing their obstructionist ways now, TM. This has been going on since last October, fps and still Marie is waiting on the DND for documents. If there were any bright lights in the party, this obvious attempt to lay blame on Vice-Admiral Norman, would have been dealt with last year.
 
Hoid
#18
Demanding that DND produce a gajillion documents is laughable.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

In a way I hope it isn't thrown out of court keeping the focus on Liberal corruption right before the election. For the Liberal and Norman's sake it would be nice to have it dismissed and quietly disappear until the lawsuit

Were I the Vice-Admiral the last thing I would want is to have this 'quietly disappear', TM. I would want to see every single piece of evidence that backs up Ms Henein's claim of obstruction come to light. I would want to see the little potato, his former AG, Geppetto and Brison hauled before the Judge and have to admit their complicity in the cover-up. And, I'd want to see the media cover every single minute of it in excruciating detail. He deserves no less for the ignoble treatment he's had to endure from this corrupt government.
 
Walter
+4
#20
Norman is the second torpedo which will finish off the good ship Justine.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Norman is the second torpedo which will finish off the good ship Justine.


Well put, Walter. Bombs away!
 
Decapoda
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Norman is the second torpedo which will finish off the good ship Justine.

Second...or maybe third. There's every possibility that this new revelation of Liberal confidentiality breaches in the Glenn Joyal Supreme Court appointment process will require further investigation.

Trudeau may think that he and his cronies can violate ethical standards for their political gain by demeaning and jeopardizing the SCC selection process and the integrity of SCC appointees, but I have a feeling he's about to find out that he's not immune to the consequences of such action.
 
Hoid
+1
#23
I have a feeling that regardless of what happens or why - you will decide you were right all along.
 
Decapoda
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I have a feeling that regardless of what happens or why - you will decide you were right all along.


I have decided you are a total f**king moron with your head firmly planted up your ass... I believe I'm right about that. Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with my assessment? Anyone...anyone at all??
 
Hoid
#25
You mad
 
Decapoda
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You mad


Was that a question or just a couple of random words you managed to conjur up and cobble together? We're all on pins and needles waiting for your next contribution.
 
Hoid
#27
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Second...or maybe third. There's every possibility that this new revelation of Liberal confidentiality breaches in the Glenn Joyal Supreme Court appointment process will require further investigation.

Trudeau may think that he and his cronies can violate ethical standards for their political gain by demeaning and jeopardizing the SCC selection process and the integrity of SCC appointees, but I have a feeling he's about to find out that he's not immune to the consequences of such action.

I have a feeling you are right, Dec.

I keep thinking of that old adage 'Be careful what you wish for'. I wished for this government to fail. I wished for the little potato to be shown for the shallow, arrogant, entitled person I felt he was since the incident in the HOC when strode arrogantly across the floor, grabbed MP Brown by the arm telling MPs to 'get the bleep out of the way and elbowing MP Ruth Brosseau in the chest as he shoved his through the other MPs on the floor. Then without so much as a backward glance, apology or pause continued on his way. I remember thinking then that this man was all show and no go. Talk about True Colors - they were on full display that day. He followed that little bit of drama up by again crossing the floor to engage in a verbal argument with Tom Mulcair.

That is the real Justin Trudeau. Anyone who would so blatantly break House protocol believes themselves to be above such petty little inconveniences and thus free to do as they see fit. They are sad, small and extremely narcissistic people. They do not make good leaders as the opinion of others really doesn't matter to them. They would never be ready to hold an office as important as that of the Prime Minister of Canada. He does not deserve the title of the Right Honorable for he is neither. With every day that goes by and this sordid tale continues, Justin Trudeau brings shame upon himself and in reflection, Canada.

If anyone needs to 'speak up' it is our Prime Minister.
 
Decapoda
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

Is there anyone on this forum that disagrees with my assessment? Anyone...anyone at all??





Crickets....






Not looking too good, Hemorrhoid.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

I have a feeling you are right, Dec.

I keep thinking of that old adage 'Be careful what you wish for'. I wished for this government to fail. I wished for the little potato to be shown for the shallow, arrogant, entitled person I felt he was since the incident in the HOC when strode arrogantly across the floor, grabbed MP Brown by the arm telling MPs to 'get the bleep out of the way and elbowing MP Ruth Brosseau in the chest as he shoved his through the other MPs on the floor. Then without so much as a backward glance, apology or pause continued on his way. I remember thinking then that this man was all show and no go. Talk about True Colors - they were on full display that day. He followed that little bit of drama up by again crossing the floor to engage in a verbal argument with Tom Mulcair.

That is the real Justin Trudeau. Anyone who would so blatantly break House protocol believes themselves to be above such petty little inconveniences and thus free to do as they see fit. They are sad, small and extremely narcissistic people. They do not make good leaders as the opinion of others really doesn't matter to them. They would never be ready to hold an office as important as that of the Prime Minister of Canada. He does not deserve the title of the Right Honorable for he is neither. With every day that goes by and this sordid tale continues, Justin Trudeau brings shame upon himself and in reflection, Canada.

If anyone needs to 'speak up' it is our Prime Minister.

As the conservative ad said . Just not ready . Nice hair though .