• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
499
Points
910
Haggis said:
A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.

Haggis - please keep your facts to yourself.  They impede the narrative.

:facepalm:
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
385
Points
930
Eye In The Sky said:
The MND did confirm today that the government will be picking up VAdm Norman's legal fees, the amount to be determined.

What a bunch of spineless c*****! You charge a guy on the absolute flimsiness of reasons, deny him financial support that is rarely refused to public servants, obstruct access to documents that are critical to his defence and conduct another whisper campaign to destroy his reputation. Then once your Captain Dreyfus like case is rightly tossed out on its ear you belatedly decide to cover his legal fees but you don't have the intestinal fortitude to tell this news to his face? The PM, Defence Minister and the former President of the Treasury Board are absolute f****** disgraces to their offices. 
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
565
Points
940
PPCLI Guy said:
Haggis - please keep your facts to yourself.  They impede the narrative.

:facepalm:
The MilPoints should have read sarcasm emoji;  some people require small word explanations when it comes to using facts.
 

drunknsubmrnr

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Haggis said:
A stay of proceedings doesn't bar someone from entering the US.  It is not a finding of guilt.

Doesn’t matter. It’s all visible to the border agent. It’s up to them whether they let him in or not, and people have been turned away for having a stay on their record.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
660
Points
1,040
From Pardons Canada:

If your criminal offence has been stayed in court, then it is not a full conviction however the criminal record will still show up on a criminal background check or RCMP or CPIC report. Whether your criminal offence was an assault, theft, fraud or anything else that was stayed in court, it will show up for life until you apply to get it removed.

This will get in the way of getting employment, volunteering and traveling to the US as it can still be seen by the public.

It is important to apply for a file destruction in order to remove your stayed offence from public record. Once completed, your offence will no longer show up on a criminal background check or RCMP file and you will be safe for work, travel and volunteering. You do not need a full record suspension or pardon as a stayed offence is not a full conviction but a file destruction will be enough.

Here is a recent article on the CBC about how a stayed sexual offence has severely affected the person’s ability to get work:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/appeal-court-orders-do-over-for-criminal-record-check-legal-challenge-1.5116208

https://www.pardons.org/pardons-canada-how-to-remove-a-stayed-offence/

My understanding is it's at the discretion of the border agent.  If they feel like being a jerk that day and not letting you in, you are pooched.  It also depends on the crime.  Marijuana?  You are never getting in to the US ever. Lesser crimes?  Somewhere in the middle. It also means you have to apply for a waiver for the rest of your life every time you want to enter if you are flagged.

The US doesn't recognize portions of our legal system like Stays, Peace Bonds or Discharges. 
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
This is 100% true, and even if the 12 month window for the Crown to resume a prosecution passes, the status remains in CPIC until updated. Some information that is in CPIC is migrated into the US NCIC and NICS, both of which are used by the CBP.
However, it seems doubtful to me that Norman will have any problem crossing any borders.
It also true that the US does not recognize various status under the Canadian Criminal Justice System, and we do not recognize parts of their CJS.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
674
Points
910
I should stop posting before coffee.  Let me be more clear.

The USCBP will not normally deny entry for stays or convictions unless the crime is a serious one, a crime of moral turpitude (crimes of violence or dishonesty where harm was intended) or drug offences.  A stay on any charge, in an of itself, is not an automatic bar to entry into the US.

That being said, the decision to allow entry to a foreign national is the prerogative of the examining USCBP officer.

Better?

Cloud Cover said:
It also true that the US does not recognize various status under the Canadian Criminal Justice System, and we do not recognize parts of their CJS.

Very true.  Pardons and Record Suspensions are a perfect example (as stated earlier).  If one is deemed inadmissible to the US, one can apply for a Waiver of Inadmissibility.  The process is lengthy.

When someone is coming into Canada with a record from another country, the offences on their record are compared against those in our Criminal Code.  Some nations have unique criminal offences which don't exist in our laws.  Adultery and homosexuality, for example, are not illegal in Canada but are criminal offences elsewhere.  The Canadian equivalent to a US Waiver of Inadmissibility is known as a Rehabilitation.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/in-an-inspired-performance-henein-did-incalculable-damage-to-the-trudeau-brand/wcm/c352e56c-cba2-414e-92b0-49bcc135a578

In an inspired performance, Norman lawyer Marie Henein did incalculable damage to the Trudeau brand

Henein put on a piece of political theatre that was as understated as it was devastating. She flayed the prime minister without ever mentioning his name

Richard Warnica Updated: May 8, 2019

You see the phrase ‘political performance’ a lot in this business. But the truth is, most politicians, even good ones, can’t perform worth a damn. They’re hams, most of them, by necessity. In politics, nuance doesn’t sell.

That’s what made what Marie Henein did Wednesday so remarkable. For more than 30 minutes, she performed in the truest sense. She put on a piece of political theatre - complete with shrugs, half smiles and quiet asides - that was as understated as it was devastating.

In front of the assembled Ottawa press corps, Henein flayed the prime minister without ever mentioning his name. She never said the words “SNC-Lavalin,” either even as she linked her client’s case, indelibly, to that festering scandal.

<snip>

The SNC-Lavalin affair has come to define the later part of Trudeau’s tenure in office. And on Wednesday, Henein kept the focus on Trudeau, and his brand, from the moment she sat down.

“Before we get started,” she began, “I’d just like to introduce the” - at this point she paused for half a beat and allowed herself the slightest smile - “all female team that represented Vice-Admiral Norman.” She delivered her next line in a stone-faced deadpan. “Fortunately Vice-Admiral Norman didn’t fire the females he hired.”

The reference to Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott could not have been clearer if it was stencilled in red paint on a white wall in letters a hundred metres tall.

But Henein was far from finished. Again and again, she hammered in references to the SNC-Lavalin affair without ever making them direct. “The decision to stay this prosecution,” she said, “was discretion exercised by prosecutors and the (Director of Public Prosecutions), unimpacted by any political considerations, as it should be.”

She delivered that last line with a staccato flair, underlining each word as a separate sentence. She slipped in the next one, the most devastating one, as a casual aside. “That is in fact how things are supposed to work,” she said. “Politics are supposed to stay out of the prosecutorial process.”

Henein took pains to praise the prosecutors in the Norman case for their integrity and professionalism. She was not as kind about the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, which she blamed collectively for withholding a host of documents, over months and even years, that she felt were crucial to her client’s defence.

“You should be very concerned when anyone tries to erode the resilience of the justice system or demonstrates a failure to understand why it is so fundamental to the democratic values we hold so dear,” she said.

<snip>

But she followed that, too, up with a thinly veiled barb about the SNC affair, which centred on alleged political interference into the DPP’s decision on whether or not to offer the SNC Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.

“If it tells you anything, it should tell you that when she (the DPP) thinks she should prosecute, she goes ahead” - at that Henein paused almost imperceptibly and smiled just for an instant - “and when she thinks she shouldn’t, she declines to do so. That’s the way it should be.”

The defence allegations once again put the prime minister on the defensive.

<snip>

Henein was later asked if Norman was owed an apology. He has been through a great deal, she replied. “There is a ship, a supply ship, that is in operation, on time and under budget, thanks, in part, to Vice-Admiral Norman.” Here her voice dipped and got a little gravely. “I think it’s time” - she waited half a beat - “to say sorry to him.”

<snip>
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Don Martin's summation of the story line of the Vice Admiral's misfortune.

"Don Martin: The fall guy could be the general who suspended Mark Norman"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-s-blog/don-martin-the-fall-guy-could-be-the-general-who-suspended-mark-norman-1.4415666
 

X Royal

Sr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
230
Starting to look like the Conservatives held information all along that could have put the end to Norman's charges.
They are playing the nobody asked so we didn't tell game and let VAdm Norman swing in the wind for their own political gains.
Only after Normans defense interviewed them did their information come out.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
36
Points
530
Wrong.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mark-norman-is-indeed-in-a-war-but-one-hes-fighting-with-few-allies/wcm/0ec00eb8-3a98-4644-89f1-4495374b78ec

As the Norman case got more headlines and the issue of whether the Justin Trudeau government would waive cabinet confidence and thus free civil servants to speak honestly, it became clear that most of the documents the defence is seeking date to the Harper era. In apparent reply to all this, Harper even tweeted that he had never claimed cabinet confidence. Yet asked for that waiver — or any evidence the current government had even asked Harper for it — repeatedly by the defence, the government refused to answer. Only on Nov. 1, 2018 did the government finally say it wouldn’t claim that confidence, but rather “the public interest immunity.”

Can't find the original article re former PM Harper releasing his Cabinet documents. Wiped from the internet.

 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
Rifleman62 said:
Wrong.

https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-mark-norman-is-indeed-in-a-war-but-one-hes-fighting-with-few-allies/wcm/0ec00eb8-3a98-4644-89f1-4495374b78ec

Can't find the original article re former PM Harper releasing his Cabinet documents. Wiped from the internet.

Funny I cant find them either but I do seem to remember Harper ok'ing cabinet documents from his time as PM.  Or at least saying he had no objection to their release.
 

X Royal

Sr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
230
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-evidence-from-harpers-conservative-government-helped-collapse-the-case-against-mark-norman?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1R-emuTwz75O9P0sl1swE1SiQcxtqRNFxurUtfiH7h_qd5giDM3QgLFVc#Echobox=1557451118

How do you explain this?
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
499
Points
910
Rifleman62 said:
Believe what you want to believe. Vote Liberal if you wish.

How does voter intention change one's view of the veracity of what was reported in the National Post? 

 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
X Royal said:
Starting to look like the Conservatives held information all along that could have put the end to Norman's charges.
They are playing the nobody asked so we didn't tell game and let VAdm Norman swing in the wind for their own political gains.
Only after Normans defense interviewed them did their information come out.

I believe that it's up to the prosecution to establish guilt, not the defendant to establish innocence. If investigators knew that the majority of the leaks occurred under the former government, then the onus was on them to conduct the appropriate interviews.
 

X Royal

Sr. Member
Reaction score
9
Points
230
FJAG said:
This might cover it.

Email from Harper to Michael Wernick and others last November.

Dutn7uSVYAEpK7j.jpg


https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1075067216201179136

:cheers:
How about non documented occurrences which have now became evident?
Not "DOCUMENTS" is a big difference here.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
385
Points
930
X Royal said:
How about non documented occurrences which have now became evident?
Not "DOCUMENTS" is a big difference here.

Early 2018 was when the VAdm was charged.
Maybe the former government cabinet minsters were waiting for the RCMP to interview them?
Maybe they thought the whole thing was a farce and they were waiting for the judge to throw the case out or the Crown come to its senses and withdraw the charge?
Maybe they took the current PM at his word that this would be an open and honest government and all relevant documents would be released due to the rock solid base that the case rested on?
Who knows what darkness lies in the hearts of men?
 
Top