Only days before Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed Justin Trudeau was attempting to quash an Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner regarding the election campaign fundraiser Barry and Honey Sherman hosted for Justin Trudeau that allegedly ran afoul of lobbying rules.
Government documents provides material evidence that Justin Trudeau did in fact attempt to have the Apotex lawsuit quashed. Justin Trudeau used public funds to attempt to quash the Apotex lawsuit. $400,000 was misappropriated by Justin Trudeau for his own benefit.
“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.”
“In December 2017, the Office received access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for third party legal fees associated to legal challenges.” Lobbying Commissioner
The $400,000 in third party legal fees that the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying received was for the Apotex lawsuit against the Commissioner of Lobbying. The third party legal fees were Justin Trudeau’s. Third Party definition
“A person who is not a party to a lawsuit, but who is usually somehow implicated in it; someone other than the principal parties”
Budgetary report confirms the PMO paid the Lobbying Commissioner $400,000 to obstruct justice. To defeat a court order requiring the Commissioner to unredact Justin Trudeau’s REDACTED name in documents justifying a RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s Aug 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser.
The RCMP investigation was commenced as a result of a Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (OCL) tape recorded interview with Barry Sherman on Nov 3, 2016. During the tape recorded interview, Mr Sherman openly discussed a fundraiser held at his house on August 26, 2015, which featured Liberal candidates Michael Levitt and Justin Trudeau.
Because the OCL launched a RCMP investigation of the August 26, 2015 fundraiser for Justin Trudeau based on the content of the Nov 3, 2016 tape recorded interview Apotex filed a lawsuit seeking a transcript of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying interview with lobbyist Barry Sherman, or a copy of the recording.
The Lobbying Commissioner didn’t have the money needed to fight the Apotex lawsuit. This was made known on December 1, 2017. Just 12 days before Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered.
Justin Trudeau responded by giving the Office of Commissioner of Lobbying $400,000 in public funds to quash the Apotex/Barry Sherman lawsuit & a court hearing that was to be held February 2018 to address the Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd refusing to comply with a court order that “redacted” documents that detail the taped interview between OCL & Barry Sherman must be uncensored & handed over to Apotex.
The court order was made as a result of the Commissioner of Lobbying redacting Justin Trudeau’s name from material evidence in an ongoing RCMP investigation. Complying with the court order would have proven the Lobbying Commissioner REDACTED Justin Trudeau’s name from the transcript in order to conceal OCL finding that Justin Trudeau broke the law:
“There is basis to conclude that the private interests of (REDACTED) were advanced to a high degree, and that a sense of obligation was created by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaigns,”
The above statement informs Canadians that the REDACTED name wasn’t Barry Sherman because his name is included “unredacted” in the statement above. The REDACTED name could only be either 2015 election campaign candidates Michael Levitt or Justin Trudeau because the August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser that was being investigated by the RCMP was for Liberal candidates Michael Levitt and Justin Trudeau. Phil McIntosh, director of investigations at the Office of the Lobby Commissioner stated:
“while conducting the administrative review, the directorate found evidence indicating that Mr. Sherman engaged in political activities that risk creating a sense of obligation on the part of one or more public office holders” through the fundraising event held at his home on Aug. 26, 2015.
The Lobbying Commissioner receiving access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for third party legal fees associated to legal challenges eliminated Michael Levitt as the name of the person the Lobbying Commissioner REDACTED.
Despite having received $400,000 in misappropriated public funds the Lobbying Commissioner couldn’t quash the Apotex lawsuit and a court order requiring her to unredact Justin Trudeau‘s name – the third party and “a defendant” in the Apotex lawsuit.
On December 13, 2017 “Apotex lawsuit plaintiff Barry Sherman” and his wife Honey Sherman were targeted and killed.
NOTE:
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.”
2 days before Barry Sherman hosted the August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser for 2015 federal election campaign candidate Justin Trudeau Apotex registered to lobby the Government of Canada.
Compelling evidence indicating that Mr. Sherman engaged in political activities that created a sense of obligation on the part of 2015 election campaign candidate Justin Trudeau (REDACTED).
Why Apotex lawsuit plaintiff Barry Sherman and his wife Honey Sherman were targeted and killed
Canada Elections Act
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 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