September 13, 2022, NCIO
There remains one person who had motive to conspire to murder Barry and Honey Sherman on December 13, 2017. That person was being investigated by the RCMP for the Lobbying Commissioner at the time of the targeted murders. That person took extraordinary steps on the day of the murders to attempt to quash 2 ongoing investigations involving himself.
Who had the most to gain by the “targeted” murders of Barry & Honey Sherman? Justin Trudeau did. Justin Trudeau would have lost his seat in House of Commons as a result of a Court Order dated 10 NOV 2017 rendered by Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary ordering the Lobbying Commissioner to “unredact the Preserved Redactions and to deliver such redacted materials to the Applicants”. The Court Order was part of an Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner – Federal Court Number T-761-17 APOTEX INC. ET AL v. KAREN SHEPHERD ET AL. Nature of the proceeding S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review.
At the time of the targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman the RCMP were investigating Justin Trudeau’s 26 Aug 2015 election campaign fundraiser for the Lobbying Commissioner, as required by the Lobbying Act“
Advice to peace officers
(7) If, during an investigation under this section, the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence under this or any other Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, the Commissioner shall advise a peace officer having jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offence and immediately suspend the Commissioner’s investigation.
Investigation continued
(9) The Commissioner may not continue an investigation under this section until any investigation or charge regarding the same subject-matter has been finally disposed of.
The Lobbying Commissioner and Justin Trudeau were unable to quash the Apotex lawsuit court order dated 10 NOV 2017 rendered by Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary before Justin Trudeau was convicted of violating federal laws on December 20, 2017. An attempt was made by Justin Trudeau to quash/end the ongoing RCMP investigation of his 26 August 2015 fundraiser and the court order by replacing the Lobbying Commissioner.
On December 13, 2017, the day Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered, Justin Trudeau had both the Lobbying Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner removed and appointed new ones. Link to December 13, 2017 video of the House of Commons appointments … “on division” – ParlVu
At the time of the targeted murders, the RCMP were conducting a criminal investigation of Barry and Honey Sherman’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser for 2015 election candidate Justin Trudeau. The RCMP investigation was commenced using Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (OCL) tape recorded interview with Barry Sherman on Nov 3, 2016.
“A few days before the fundraiser, an investigator from the commissioner’s office visited Apotex headquarters in Toronto, where Sherman agreed to a tape-recorded interview. During the conversation, he openly discussed the other fundraiser held at his house on August 26, 2015, which featured then-Liberal candidate Michael Levitt, now an MP, along with Trudeau. Sherman said his wife Honey organized the logistics, that the guest list was somewhere between 100 and 150 people and that he believed the proceeds were split between the Liberal Party of Canada and Levitt’s electoral district association. A ticket reportedly cost $1,500.” Macleans
Because OCL launched an RCMP investigation of the August 26, 2015 fundraiser for Justin Trudeau based on the content of the tape recorded Nov 3, 2016 interview Apotex filed a law suit seeking a transcript of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying interview with lobbyist Barry Sherman, or a copy of the recording. The Apotex lawsuit is Federal Court Number T-761-17 APOTEX INC. ET AL v. KAREN SHEPHERD ET AL. Nature of the proceeding S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
Why would Justin Trudeau fear the Apotex lawsuit, not the RCMP’s investigation of Justin Trudeau’s Aug 26, 2015 campaign fundraiser? Parliament of Canada standing committee meeting involving Karen Shepherd informs you why:
The Apotex lawsuit posed a serious threat to Justin Trudeau’s political career. If Apotex was successful the lawsuit would have provided compelling evidence that Justin Trudeau had violated the Canada Elections Act – Accepting a prohibited gift or other advantage.
Prohibition
477.9 (1) No candidate shall accept any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence them in the performance of their duties and functions as a member of the House of Commons if the candidate were to be elected, during the period that
(a) begins on the day on which they are deemed to have become a candidate; and
gift or other advantage means
(a) an amount of money if there is no obligation to repay it; and
- (b) a service or property, or the use of property or money, that is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value.
Corrupt practice
(2) Every person is guilty of an offence that is a corrupt practice who
(h.01) being a candidate, knowingly contravenes subsection 477.9(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage);
Consequences of illegal, corrupt practices
(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to
(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons; or
Highlights of the Federal Court Proceeding T-761-17 provides compelling evidence that the Apotex lawsuit was the primary motive for the targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman. Murdered because the Lobbying Commissioner couldn’t defeat the court order of Prothonotary Kevin Aalto “requiring the Commissioner to unredact the Preserved Redactions and to deliver such redacted materials to the Applicants“. Court order issued 1 month before the December 13, 2017 targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman. Court order dated 10-NOV-2017 rendered by Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary. 16 days after Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed the Lobbying Commissioner tried December 29, 2017 to keep the redacted evidence implicating Justin Trudeau from being made public. Filed a motion for “Setting aside portions of the order of Prothonotary Aalto dated November 10, 2017 … those portions of the Order Under Appeal which preserved redactions contained in the Rule 318 Record and requiring the Commissioner to unredact the Preserved Redactions and to deliver such redacted materials to the Applicants;”
Justin Trudeau paid the Office of Commissioner of Lobbying $400,000 (used Federal funding) in December 2017 to obstruct/defeat Barry Sherman/Apotex lawsuit.
“In December 2017, the Office received access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for third party legal fees associated to legal challenges. … An unanticipated court action against the Office resulted in unplanned legal costs of almost $300,000 in 2017–18. These additional costs have been paid through access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for litigation.” Lobbying Commissioner 2017–18 Departmental results report
According to the T-761-17 Federal Court documents (PDF backup of T-761-17 made available on NCIO website) a court hearing was to be held 08-FEB-2018 to address the Lobbying Commissioner refusing to comply with the decision of Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary dated 10-NOV-2017 that “redacted” documents that detail the (audio) taped interview between OCL & Barry Sherman must be uncensored & handed over to Apotex. The Prothonotary order was made as a result of the Commissioner of Lobbying redacting Justin Trudeau’s name from material evidence in the ongoing RCMP investigation. Complying with Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary order would prove OCL REDACTED Justin Trudeau name from OCL transcripts in order to conceal OCL finding that Justin Trudeau was being investigated by the RCMP for violating the Lobbying Act. The RCMP investigation began with this statement:
The Canadian Jewish News reported August 21, 2015, 5 days before Barry and Honey hosted the 2015 election campaign fundraiser for Justin Trudeau that:
Sherman said he spent an hour with Trudeau last week, discussing various issues, including Israel. He felt Trudeau fully appreciates the threats facing Israel, including “the existential war facing the west from extremists.”
A reasonable person would conclude that private interests of Justin Trudeau (redacted) were discussed/advanced prior to Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 pay-for-access election campaign fundraiser.
Justin Trudeau is a prime suspect in the targeted murders of his 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman because of the Apotex lawsuit – Federal Court Number T-761-17 and because of what transpired the day Barry & Honey Sherman were murdered, December 13, 2017. Justin Trudeau had Karen Shepherd removed as Lobbying Commissione, effective December 30, 2017.
“resolution of the House of Commons dated December 13, 2017, the Senate and House of Commons have approved the appointment of Nancy Bélanger as Commissioner of Lobbying … on the recommendation of the Prime Minister … effective December 30, 2017” Order in Council PC Number: 2017-1564
The Lobbying Commissioner was removed during an ongoing Apotex lawsuit pertaining to an active RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau and his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser. Toronto Police Services stated that Barry and Honey Sherman were in fact “targeted”. That means the murders were planned and deliberate and if the police found evidence that money was payed to have the Shermans murdered the murders was “contracted murder”.
“murder is planned and deliberate when it is committed pursuant to an arrangement under which money or anything of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by one person to another, as consideration for that other’s causing or assisting in causing the death of anyone or counselling another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing that death.” Criminal Code of Canada 231 (3)
The planned and deliberate murders of Barry and Honey Sherman resulted in:
- ending the ongoing RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser,
- the dropping/dismissal of the Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner over Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser and
- preventing Justin Trudeau from losing his seat in the House of Commons for a conviction for violating the Canada Elections Act – “accepting prohibited gift or other advantage” from registered government lobbyist Barry Sherman/Apotex.
In a homicide criminal investigation that’s motive.
If the Apotex lawsuit was successful in getting the REDACTION of Justin Trudeau’s name removed from files the Lobbying Commissioner used to justify having the RCMP investigate Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser Justin Trudeau would have lost his seat in the House of Commons and he would have been barred from being a candidate in an election/re-election. The Apotex/Barry Sherman lawsuit would have ended Justin Trudeau’s very corrupt political career.
Conspiracy
465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
Person counselling offence
22 (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.
Idem
(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.