VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

[Oldgateboatdriver]

One more week and it will be exactly 2 years since VAdm Norman left his desk.

2 years of investigation, a ship built and operational for a full year.

Exactly! Thank you Admiral.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Defence chief Vance slated to testify this month in Vice-Admiral Norman case

OTTAWA -- Canada's top military officer is scheduled to take the stand later this month at a pre-trial hearing for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

Norman's lawyer confirms the legal team subpoenaed Gen. Jonathan Vance and is on the schedule when the hearing resumes at the end of January.

More on link:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-chief-vance-slated-to-testify-this-month-in-vice-admiral-norman-case-1.4256206

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So do you think that handing out free popcorn on that day at NDHQ would b frowned upon.....

 

[Halifax Tar]

So do you think that handing out free popcorn on that day at NDHQ would b frowned upon.....

I think you'll be alright.  But let me know how it goes

 

[FSTO]

I may take a stroll down to the Bytown Wardroom that day. Just to see who's hanging around the building across the street!

 

[FSTO]

Well, well, well. Somebody has something to hide?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-norman-case-1.4996881

Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case
Social Sharing

Former Liberal cabinet minister wants to be heard in breach-of-trust case
Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 29, 2019 5:05 PM ET | Last Updated: 5 minutes ago

Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison is seeking standing at the breach-of-trust case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Former federal cabinet minister Scott Brison wants to be heard at the pretrial hearing involving the military's former second-in-command.
His lawyers were granted standing Tuesday as the court fight over the disclosure of federal government documents ignited again in Ontario Superior Court.
Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who is charged with one count of breach of trust and is accused of leaking cabinet secrets, have accused Brison of political interference in the shipbuilding deal at the centre of the case.
They accuse Brison of trying to kill a $668 million plan to lease a naval supply ship from the Davie shipyard, in Levis, Que. on behalf of a rival, Irving Shipyard.
His lawyers deny any meddling.
"Mr. Brison did not review this procurement at the behest of Irving because he is 'Irving's Boy,"' reads Brison's application for standing.
"This pejorative comment ... and others like it, appear to suggest that the applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving. Such allegations are utterly false."
The long-time MP has already denied wrongdoing under questioning in the House of Commons, prior to his resignation earlier this monh.
Brison is expected to be a Crown witness
His lawyers appeared in court Tuesday to deliver emails from his personal account covered by a defence subpoena, which asked for, among other things, correspondence between him and representatives of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Paper trail concerns
Norman's lawyer said those items of correspondence should have come up in the federal government's hunt for relevant documents.
Marie Henein said it's another indication that the search for documents relevant to the vice-admiral's defence has fallen short
"I have no confidence that it has all been captured," she said.
Robert MacKinnon, the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the search, denied the system had failed and said that emails from private accounts are still being collected.
He said Brison's lawyers contacted him and offered the emails, but wanted to deliver them personally.
Brison seeks privacy protections
In the application for standing, lawyers said Brison appreciates Norman's right to mount a full defence and does not want to hinder his efforts to obtain all relevant documents.
Brison is prepared and ready to cooperate, but wants legal standing in the case to "protect against unmerited intrusions into his privacy, and to ensure that disclosure requests are clear and complete," the document reads.
Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance was expected to appear as a witness today, but his testimony was postponed to tomorrow.
Much of the day was taken up by Norman's lawyers questioning the Privy Council Office bureaucrat in charge of the search for government records.
Patsy Bradley testified that retrieving some records at National Defence has been a challenge because of a policy that requires the contents of dormant email accounts of political staff to be "wiped" after six months.
That is potentially significant because Norman has claimed — as part of his broader defence — that he was carrying out the orders of the previous Conservative government, which went to great lengths to push through a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy. The emails and notes of political staff at the time could be significant to his defence.

 

[FJAG]

If there actually is a policy to “wipe after six months” it contravenes the provisions of the Library and Archives Canada ACT and the DND’s subordinate records retention requirements

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks FJAG

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/pipe.shtml

The Online version of the Pipe Rolls go back at least to Michaelmas 1130.  Domesday predates that.

I hate electrons. 

 

[Rifleman62]

First: I would not believe Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison testimony under oath would be truthful.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-cds-norman-case-1.4996881  (video at link)

Codename 'Kracken': Mark Norman's defence accuses military of using aliases to conceal documents - 29 Jan 19
    Scott Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers today released a list of elaborate codenames they claim defence officials used in an attempt to bury documents sought by the defence in relation to his breach-of-trust case. Lawyers for the military's former second-in-command claim that, in order to thwart document searches related to his case, defence officials have taken to using a variety of aliases in their communications. One of those codenames — 'Kracken' — could be a (misspelled) reference to the giant monstrous squid of legend best known to modern audiences for appearances in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

Norman's lawyers entered into the court record at today's pretrial hearing in Ottawa a full list of aliases they say were used by defence officials for their client — including the substantive VCDS [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff], MN3, C34 and 'The Boss.' Norman's defence team is battling with the federal government for the release of documents they claim are relevant to his defence.

Norman is accused of leaking cabinet secrets in relation to a $668 million contract to lease a supply ship for the navy. The Crown alleges that the former commander of the navy tipped off a now-former CBC reporter about the results of a secret Liberal cabinet committee decision to put the project on hold in November 2015. The government eventually went ahead with the lease arrangement but launched a police investigation into the leak.

Records buried?

Last month, the court heard that senior staff at National Defence avoid using Vice-Admiral Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made at a pretrial hearing last month by a member of the military who handles access to information requests. The military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

Ironically, Norman's lawyers obtained the list of codenames through an access to information request. In a year-end interview with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, flatly denied the Department of National Defence uses aliases to hide documents. "We don't hide names. We don't use codenames," he said. "If it was done, if it has been done, it's wrong, dead wrong and we'll stop it."

Vance was slated to testify Tuesday, but his appearance was pushed back a day as former federal cabinet minister Scott Brison's lawyers were granted standing in the case. Norman's lawyers have accused Brison of political interference in the shipbuilding deal at the centre of the case. They claim, in a court filing, he tried to kill the $668 million plan to lease a naval supply ship from the Davie shipyard, in Lévis, Que. on behalf of a rival, Irving Shipyard.

His lawyers deny any meddling. "Mr. Brison did not review this procurement at the behest of Irving because he is 'Irving's Boy,"' reads Brison's application for standing. "This pejorative comment ... and others like it, appear to suggest that the applicant made his decision to review the naval supply ship procurement at the behest of Irving. Such allegations are utterly false."

The long-time MP has already denied wrongdoing under questioning in the House of Commons, prior to his resignation earlier this month. Brison is expected to be a Crown witness. His lawyers appeared in court Tuesday to deliver emails from his personal account covered by a defence subpoena, which asked for, among other things, correspondence between him and representatives of Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Paper trail concerns

Norman's lawyer, Marie Henein, said those items of correspondence should have come up in the federal government's hunt for relevant documents. Henein said it's another indication that the search for documents relevant to the vice-admiral's defence has fallen short. "I have no confidence that it has all been captured," she said. Robert MacKinnon, the Justice Department lawyer responsible for the search, denied the system had failed and said that emails from private accounts are still being collected. He said Brison's lawyers contacted him and offered the emails, but wanted to deliver them personally.

Brison seeks privacy protections

In the application for standing, lawyers said Brison appreciates Norman's right to mount a full defence and does not want to hinder his efforts to obtain all relevant documents. Brison is prepared and ready to cooperate, but wants legal standing in the case to "protect against unmerited intrusions into his privacy, and to ensure that disclosure requests are clear and complete," the document reads.

Much of the day was taken up by Norman's lawyers questioning the Privy Council Office bureaucrat in charge of the search for government records. Patsy Bradley testified that retrieving some records at National Defence has been a challenge because of a policy that requires the contents of dormant email accounts of political staff to be "wiped" after six months.

That is potentially significant because Norman has claimed — as part of his broader defence — that he was carrying out the orders of the previous Conservative government, which went to great lengths to push through a $668 million plan to lease a supply ship for the navy. The emails and notes of political staff at the time could be significant to his defence.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

First: I would not believe Former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison testimony under oath would be truthful.

Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?

Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?

It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Codename 'Kracken': Mark Norman's defence accuses military of using aliases to conceal documents [/b]- 29 Jan 19
    Scott Brison denies being 'Irving's Boy,' seeks privacy protections in Mark Norman case

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyers today released a list of elaborate codenames they claim defence officials used in an attempt to bury documents sought by the defence in relation to his breach-of-trust case. Lawyers for the military's former second-in-command claim that, in order to thwart document searches related to his case, defence officials have taken to using a variety of aliases in their communications. One of those codenames — 'Kracken' — could be a (misspelled) reference to the giant monstrous squid of legend best known to modern audiences for appearances in the Pirates of the Caribbean films.

Yup - proof of a coverup....or that the acronym for Commander Royal Canadian Navy is CRCN....pronounced cracken.

There are codenames as well - Sea Jock, the Sad Em, Cerberus..... :facepalm:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Then, good sir, it must be a Headquarter Army/Air Force thing because in the Navy, we have always pronounced it (I'll spell phonetically) sea-are-sea-an. We never consider the "C"s to be pronounced like hard "K"s.

Moreover, He was VCDS when all this happened. Or is that pronounced "vi-kay-dee-esse" 

 

[FSTO]

Then, good sir, it must be a Headquarter Army/Air Force thing because in the Navy, we have always pronounced it (I'll spell phonetically) sea-are-sea-an. We never consider the "C"s to be pronounced like hard "K"s.

Moreover, He was VCDS when all this happened. Or is that pronounced "vi-kay-dee-esse" 

Many of us will say KRAKEN informally but the current CRCN has made it well known that he is not amused when the squid term is used.

 

[dapaterson]

Many of us will say KRAKEN informally but the current CRCN has made it well known that he is not amused when the squid term is used.

Just squirt black ink at him while you run away.

 

[Rifleman62]

Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?

Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?

It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.

That sure set you off.

I am not your personal Google. Look at his past record of leaks and excuses.

It was my opinion.

Your angry comments are also from the comfort of internet anonymity. Don't know what it has to being gay, maritimer, man , breathing, short, ........

 

[Rifleman62]

Trial article. IMO, from reading the proceedings from various sources,it appears to stalling, covering up, etc. Who is ordering these Public Servants to do this do you think?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-for-its-legion-of-prosecutors-mark-norman-case-has-gone-snafu?video_autoplay=true#comments-area

Christie Blatchford: For its legion of prosecutors, Mark Norman case has gone SNAFU - 29 Jan 19
    In all the searches the various government departments conducted for records about the Norman case, there were no searches
      done for 'Norman' or 'Mark Norman'

OTTAWA — Honest to Pete, it never changes here at the third-party records motion at the breach-of-trust trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The defence team arrives at the downtown Ottawa courthouse all bright-eyed and cheerful, hoping that finally, this will be the day the government lawyers (their number is legion, and growing) will co-operate or perhaps that the documents they have been seeking for months will fall from the sky. Every time, they are doomed to disappointment, and probably, internally, rage.

As a reminder, the two sides — the defence team is one, with federal prosecutors and the Justice Department lawyers forming the impenetrable wall of government on the other — are fighting over documents the defence wants. These are records the defence believes will show that Norman did nothing more than follow the wishes of the former Stephen Harper government in obtaining an interim Auxillary OIL Replenishment (iAOR) ship, that certainly he did nothing wrong or, at worst, that he did nothing that virtually everyone in Ottawa doesn’t do all the time, which is to say, treat information as hard currency. And so it was Tuesday, when the motion hearing resumed.

Lead prosecutor Barbara Mercier said she wanted to put her position very clearly. “I fear we’re losing our way a little bit. My friend (by which she meant lead defence lawyer Marie Henein) is very good at taking us where she wants to go.” She suggested the court should narrow the focus. It is rarely wise to tell a judge she’s being led about by the nose (nor in this case is it accurate), and in short order Ontario Court Judge Heather Perkins-McVey pointed out that “the integrity of the process has been put at issue,” that no one has been “led astray,” and reminded Mercier that “things don’t always remain in tight little boxes.”

As a hint of how the records-gathering, records-disclosing process has been impugned, let me just say this: In all the searches the various government departments have conducted for responsive records about the Norman case, and among all the search terms they have used, there were no searches done for “Norman” or “Mark Norman.” By this impeccable reasoning, if you wanted to search your company’s files for documents, emails and other communications about one John Doe, there would be no need to search for “Doe” or “John Doe.”

The person who is in charge of this monumental effort is a Justice paralegal named Patsy Bradley. She appears to be a lovely, competent person, but, in the way that many of us become our names, she is also a bit of a Justice Department patsy. She can answer some questions about the searches that were done and the documents retrieved, but not others. In other words, she is at a sufficiently low level that she must defer to Justice lawyers about matters such as what constitutes privilege and cabinet confidence, and thus is a useful witness for the government. And she was looking to lead Justice lawyer Robert MacKinnon for clues as to what she couldn’t or shouldn’t say so obviously — he was like a coach giving hand signals from the stands — that the judge noticed her discomfort and took a break so Bradley could clarify her marching orders.

Among the things she disclosed Tuesday was that since October, when the defence filed their third-party records motion, is that there have been about six meetings with the various government departments that likely have records and justice lawyers. As Henein snapped at one point, “It’s not clear to me how Mr. MacKinnon can be giving legal advice to about seven government departments at the same time…” Here, the judge finished Henein’s sentence, saying, “Without a conflict.”

Another illustration.

After the hearing last sat in December, the judge was presented with a secure laptop containing the documents the government has agreed she should review, first for relevance and later to vet for solicitor-client privilege and the like. One of these documents were the notes of a witness named Melissa Burke, who was sufficiently concerned the defence might not get her notes of a key meeting (this was because no one from the government had showed the slightest interest in getting them for almost two years) that she contacted one of the defence lawyers, Christine Mainville.

At this, MacKinnon said the notes were on the secure laptop. “Not that I can find,” said the judge. “I spent a month trying to find these documents…” on the laptop. She ordered the government to produce a proper, readable list of witnesses and their documents, saying rather furiously, “That should have been done months ago!” And so it went, as they say in the military, SNAFU (Situation Normal All F—ed Up).

That said, there was one amusing frisson of excitement. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, has been summonsed to testify at the hearing. At the beginning of the day, MacKinnon stood up to ask Perkins-McVey for a “20-minute notice” so that the general could be brought from his secure location, which of course could not possibly be disclosed. Hours later, Vance having taken his leave from a side room adjacent to the court after his muscle and aides waited for reporters and lawyers to be called back into court and the corridor was thus empty, it was agreed he should return at 10 a.m. Wednesday. After all, the judge said, “We don’t want to take him from his secret location” until necessary. She was grinning. Sometimes, it’s all you can do.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Do you know the man?  Do you have first hand knowledge of a record of mendacity?  Proof of other instances where he has lied under oath?

Or are you basing it on a label? Because he is from the Maritimes?  Because he is a man?  Because he is gay?  All of those types of people have also lied before, right?  Are is it because he is a politician?  Or perhaps even because he is a Liberal?

It is no small thing to accuse someone of committing a crime.  I am interested in how you have come to the level of certainty one assumes is required to level an accusation of having committed a crime, even if it is from the comfort of internet anonymity.

I have met the man a few times as he is a friend of a friend; and tends to be a similar social gatherings I attend.  To be blunt as soon as he found out I was a member of the CAF he cornered me and prodded me for information and opinions,  especially while the Cons were in power.  My reply to him was always "You know I cant talk about that".

He's a greasy cars salesman, as far as I am concerned, and I am happy to see him finally leaving politics.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-breach-trust-access-1.4996445?fbclid=IwAR0PGyIFKWiqvJIxmtpWNirCUS3i4SXwVgG-FTQQsLd1is8EMmImISsEB_s

Two probes launched into claims that military blocked information requests in Norman case - 29 Jan 19

There are now at least two investigations underway into allegations Department of National Defence officials intentionally tried to subvert the federal access to information system in the breach-of-trust case involving the military's former second-in-command. CBC News has learned military police have joined the federal information commissioner in probing claims that senior staff at National Defence have avoided using Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's name in internal correspondence as a way to keep his records out of the public domain. The allegations were made by a member of the military who handles access to information requests at a pretrial hearing last month.

Norman is charged with one count of breach of trust for alleging leaking cabinet secrets to an executive at the Davie shipyard, located in Levis, Que. His defence team is seeking access to thousands of pages of government documents related to the plan to lease a supply ship to the navy — an effort the federal government's lawyers have fought against, arguing many of the documents are not relevant to the criminal case.

'Alarmed and disgusted'

In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records. Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.

A spokesman for National Defence acknowledged Monday that the Canadian Forces National Investigative Service opened a criminal investigation into the allegations shortly after information commissioner Caroline Maynard opened her own probe. "This is an ongoing investigation. As such, no timelines are available," said spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email statement. He suggested that National Defence is working in concert with the information commissioner. "We have contacted the [Office of the Information Commission] and agreed to work together and provide any information required to conduct the investigation," said Le Bouthillier. "The OIC understands DND is investigating and appreciates that we are taking this seriously. Given these ongoing investigations, ‎it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."

Sources have told CBC News that interviews have carried out by military police over the last three weeks with an eye to laying charges. An expert in military law and the access to information system was startled to hear about the involvement of military investigators.

'Military police have got no authority'

The information commissioner, said retired colonel Michel Drapeau, "has the means to investigate and the duty to investigate and all of the necessary powers." In cases where the commissioner suspects the law has been broken, the procedure dictates calling in the RCMP — not military police — he said. The military's national investigative service is set up to be at arm's-length from the chain of command, but Drapeau said it's still incredibly unusual for an organization accused of wrongdoing to essentially investigate itself. He also said he wonders what background the force has to examine potential breaches of the information act. "Military police have got no authority and no expertise and no competence to do that."

 

[daftandbarmy]

In testimony, the military member (whose name is protected by a publication ban) told the court he approached his commander in July 2017 asking for help with an access-to-information request for internal documents about Norman. His commander, he said, smiled and said there were no records because officials were being careful to avoid using the vice-admiral's name in memos, email and briefings. That would mean any search for records about Norman would come up empty. During a year-end interview last month with CBC News, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said he was "alarmed and disgusted" by the notion that someone might have been trying to bury the records. Vance has been subpoenaed to testify Tuesday as Norman's pretrial hearing resumes in an Ottawa courtroom.

Why did Monty Python come to mind when I read this? Oh, yeah, now I remember! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI

 

[Rifleman62]

It does sound like a circus by the gov't. The follow on Biggus Dickus is apropos.