Justin Trudeau remains the one person who had motive to have Barry and Honey Sherman murdered

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

Both Commissioners were removed during ongoing investigations by the 2 Commissioners into Justin Trudeau’s wrongdoings. Justin Trudeau was being investigated by the removed Commissioners for “accepting prohibited gift or other advantage” while campaigning in the 2015 federal election.

Providing food or refreshments at a reception constitutes a gift.” Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada

Justin Trudeau’s actions on the day of the targeted murders of his 2015 election campaign fundraisers made Justin Trudeau a prime suspect. Justin Trudeau being convicted of violating ethics laws days later on December 20, 2017 made Justin Trudeau the one person to have motive to conspire to murder Barry and Honey Sherman to:

  1. end the ongoing RCMP investigation of his August 26, 2015 fundraiser,
  2. dismiss the Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner over Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser and
  3. prevent a conviction for violating the Canada Elections Act – “accepting prohibited gift or other advantage

A conviction for violating the Canada Elections Act Section 502(2) (h.01) meant Justin Trudeau would lose his seat in the House of Commons for “accepting prohibited gift or other advantage”.

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

  •  (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 Aaltorequiring 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:

  1. ending the ongoing RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser,
  2. the dropping/dismissal of the Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner over Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser and
  3. 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.

Government document provides compelling evidence that Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 fundraiser violated the Lobbying Act and the Canada Elections Act

Justin Trudeau is involved in the targeted murders of his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers

Published on: Dec 15, 2023

There is reasonable suspicion Justin Trudeau is involved in the targeted murders of his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry & Honey Sherman. Justin Trudeau had motive. At the very least Justin Trudeau counseled an offence that resulted in the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman. Accordingly, Justin Trudeau could be charged with murder.

The December 13, 2017 targeted murders of Barry & Honey Sherman has everything to do with Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser.

The fundraiser is deemed a “prohibited gift” by 2 federal laws – the Lobbying Act and the Canada Elections Act. MP Justin Trudeau violated the 2 federal laws by attending the fundraiser because Barry Sherman’s pharmaceutical company Apotex had registered to lobby the Government of Canada 2 days before he and Honey Sherman hosted Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser.

Accordingly, the Office of Lobbying Commissioner had the RCMP investigate Justin Trudeau for violating the Lobbying Act. Because the Lobbying Commissioner implicated Barry Sherman by having the RCMP investigate Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser Barry Sherman filed a lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner and (REDACTED) third party defendant Justin Trudeau.

The lawsuit was filed because the Lobbying Commissioner concealed that Justin Trudeau was the one who broke federal laws, not Barry Sherman. The Lobbying Commissioner concealed Justin Trudeau’s Lobbying Act offence by redacting Justin Trudeau’s name.

“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.

We know Justin Trudeau was the subject of the RCMP investigation because:

1) 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 therefore conclude that the private interests of Justin Trudeau (REDACTED) were discussed/advanced prior to Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 pay-for-access election campaign fundraiser.

2) the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying initiated the investigation based on a 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, … ” Macleans

Justin Trudeau tried to quash the Apotex/Bernard Sherman lawsuit just days before the targeted murders by giving the Lobbying Commissioner $400,000 to fight the lawsuit.

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.

Because the Lobbying Commissioner failed to quash the Apotex/Bernard Sherman lawsuit Justin Trudeau had her removed as the Lobbying Commissioner on the day of the targeted murders – December 13, 2017.

 

On December 13, 2017 Justin Trudeau committed the offence of obstruction of justice by having both the Lobbying Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner removed and appointed new ones.

Both Commissioners were removed during ongoing investigations by the 2 Commissioners into Justin Trudeau’s wrongdoings. Justin Trudeau was being investigated by the removed Commissioners for “accepting prohibited gift or other advantage” from lobbyists.

It is imperative Canadians know and realized that the Apotex lawsuit threatened Justin Trudeau’s political career. The lawsuit could have resulted in Justin Trudeau losing his seat in the House of Commons.

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; …

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

Justin Trudeau went to great lengths to quash the Apotex lawsuit (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) days before Barry & Honey Sherman were murdered.

Obstruction of justice is committed when the accused (Justin Trudeau) wilfully attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in an existing or proposed judicial proceeding. The most extreme form of obstruction is the killing of a witness or a plaintiff in a judicial proceeding.

On December 13, 2017 “Apotex lawsuit plaintiff Barry Sherman” and his wife Honey Sherman were targeted and killed.

Motives for the targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman:

1) Terminate the RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau for accepting a prohibited gift (26 Aug 2015 campaign fundraiser) from registered government lobbyist (registered 24 Aug 2015) Barry Sherman.

2) Terminate an Apotex/Bernard Sherman lawsuit in which Justin Trudeau (REDACTED) was a third party defendant.

Toronto Police investigation of Barry & Honey Sherman murders sealed by the Crown to cover up who committed the targeted murders

There is compeling evidence that shows that 5 years ago Justin Trudeau conspired to have his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers murdered. Justin Trudeau had motive to conspire to murder Barry and Honey Sherman. An ongoing RCMP investigation of his election campaign fundraiser for the Lobbying Commissioner and an Apotex lawsuit put Justin Trudeau in legal jeopardy. The fundraiser was a prohibited gift. Justin Trudeau accepting the prohibited gift meant that he violated the Lobbying Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Violating the Lobbying Act had no legal consequences for either Justin Trudeau or Barry Sherman.

“The RCMP have never, ever followed up. The RCMP then rubber-stamps or whitewashes whatever Lobbying Act activity has happened.” House of Commons

However, violating the Canada Elections Act meant that Justin Truduea could have lost his seat in the House of Commons and he couldn’t be a candidate in another election for 5 years. It would have meant the end of his political career.

“The Canada Elections Act also sets out a series of disqualifications that apply exclusively to electoral candidacy. … Current disqualifications include the following: A person found guilty of an illegal or corrupt electoral practice (as defined in section 502 of the Canada Elections Act) is disqualified from contesting a federal election for either five or seven years and, if he or she has been elected, may be required to vacate his or her seat in the House of Commons. Illegal practices include wilfully exceeding the spending limit or obstructing the electoral process. Corrupt practices include voting more than once or accepting a prohibited gift or other advantageParliament of Canada

Conspiracy

465 (1) (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;

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” provided motive for Justin Trudeau to conspire to commit murder.

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. 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 of Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser. That court order put Justin Trudeau in legal jeopardy. Justin Trudeau could have been “required to vacate his seat in House of Commons” for violating the Canada Elections Act – accepting a prohibited gift or other advantage.

On December 13, 2017, the day of the targeted murders of Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman, Justin Trudeau had both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner removed as commissioners. Their removal was done during ongoing investigations by both commissioners into Justin Trudeau violating federal laws while campaigning in the 2015 federal election. Both commissioners were essentially fired for investigating Justin Trudeau for violating federal laws during the 2015 election campaign.

The 10 NOV 2017 Court Order and Justin Trudeau removing the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner on the day of the targeted murders of his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman are elements of a conspiracy to commit murder. The RCMP are involved. They became involved the day the Lobbying Commissioner had the RCMP investigate Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser/fundraisers.

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.

The RCMP started investigating Justin Trudeau and his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser/fundraisers after the Lobbying Commissioner found evidence that federal laws were broken by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaign:

“There is basis to conclude that the private interests of (REDACTED) were advanced to a high degree, & that a sense of obligation was created by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaign” Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada (OCL)

A Nov 3, 2016 OCL taped recorded interview with Barry Sherman was the primary material evidence OCL used to have RCMP launch a “full investigation” of Justin Trudeau’s Aug 26, 2015 fundraiser. OCL determined the tape recording provided evidence Justin Trudeau broke federal laws. Apotex filed a lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner regarding the redacted name in transcripts of that Nov 3, 2016 taped recorded interview.

The Toronto Police know who murdered Barry and Honey Sherman. So does the Crown. The Crown sealed the Toronto Police murder investigation files and evidence to protect the people who committed the murders for Justin Trudeau’s benefit.

Crime scene evidence: restraint marks, Honey Sherman’s bloody lip & nose, the surreptitious entry, the person who entered the Shermans’ home Dec 14, 2017 for 29 minutes & the ongoing RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s election campaign fundraiser/fundraisers implicates RCMP officers in their murders.

Crime scene evidence shows murderers gained access to the Sherman home by the front door. No forced entry means Barry and Honey Sherman’s murderers knocked on front door. It is plausible that Honey Sherman let her murderers in after her murderers identified themselves as police officers. Restraint marks and Honey Sherman’s bloody lip and nose supports assertion that she was forcibly restrained by police officers.

Keable Commission supports assertion that RCMP officers are viable suspects in Barry & Honey Sherman targeted murders. 15 RCMP officers were charged/tried for: conspiracy, B&E, kidnapping & forcible detention. Indicted RCMP officers claimed they “were just following (PM Pierre Trudeau) orders.

Former Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders said he has had to be careful with what he said about the case because he knows “for a fact” that the Shermans’ killers are watching his televised remarks.

Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders also stated that his officers interviewed the mystery man who spent 29 minutes inside the home of Barry and Honey Sherman while they lay dead in the basement.

“I can tell you we knew who the person was, why they were there, (the person) was interviewed,”

Note, only one person entered the home yet Police Chief Saunders said Toronto Police knew why “they” were there – they means the person of interest was part of an organization. The RCMP is an organization. RCMP were at the time investigating Justin Trudeau’s fundraiser/fundraisers. Wiretapping is tool in RCMP investigations, especially when it involves the Prime Minister of Canada. It is highly plausible that a RCMP officer entered the Shermans’ home to remove wiretaps and/or incriminating evidence.

Parties to offence

Where two or more persons are playing an active role in the commission of a crime, each becomes a co-principal to that offence. When this is the case, it is not necessary to determine exactly which person committed which element of the offence. Rather, every act done to commit the offence is deemed to have been committed by all co-principals. A person can be a principal to an offence despite not actually committing the offence with their own hands. This occurs where they instead direct an innocent agent to commit the offence in their place.

Related briefing: Justin Trudeau is the one person who had motive to have Barry and Honey Sherman murdered

Analysis of evidence in the “targeted” killings of Barry & Honey Sherman concludes murders were politically motivated

5 years ago Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed. Mass media and government officials claim no motive for the double homicides has been found despite there being substantial evidence to support an inference that the murders were politically motivated.

What was the primary motive for the targeted murders of Barry & Honey Sherman? To answer that one must first examine why lead Toronto police investigator, Det.-Sgt. Susan Gomes publicly stated that Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed? “I believe they were targeted,” The word “targeted” was specifically chosen to describe Toronto’s 2017 homicides #64 and #65. What was Det.-Sgt. Susan Gomes revealing to the public by calling the double homicides “targeted” killing?

Targeted killing is defined as an assassination by a “government authority” of an individual(s) for a perceived threat. That’s what Toronto Police were telling Canadians when they said Barry & Honey Sherman were “targeted” & killed. Toronto Police stated publicly from the very beginning that “there was no sign of forced entry into their home”. That is referred to as surreptitious entry. Toronto Police publicly stating that the murderers entered the home of Barry and Honey Sherman via surreptitious entry is of major significance. It supports the discovery finding that the Shermans were targeted and killed by a “government authority”.

Evidence of markings being found on the wrists of both Barry and Honey Sherman, indicated they had been tied up, yet no ties or ropes were found at the scene. This too has major significance in that it confirms both Barry and Honey were restrained, forcibly detained (were handcuffed) before being killed. Both being forcibly restrained, leaving marks, provides evidence it wasn’t a murder suicide. No ties or ropes were found at the scene proves the killers took the “restraints” (handcuffs) with them.

Restraint markings on their wrists, the Toronto Police Services stating that the Shermans were targeted and killed and that their murderers gained access via surreptitious entry all lead to the conclusion that Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed by police officers. Which police officers? RCMP. Why?

1) Targeted killing is defined as an assassination by a “government authority” of an individual(s) for a perceived threat. A RCMP officer is a government authority. They are authorized by the federal government to uphold and enforce government enacted and imposed laws across Canada.

2) RCMP officers contend that they are authorized by government appointed adjudicators to enter private premises to install listening or video devices or recover evidence in support of “an ongoing criminal investigation”. The power so granted authorizing surreptitious entry allows the RCMP to utilize whatever means to achieve entry they found most expedient. Thus, access could be obtained by forcing doors or windows or via Realtor lock box, or simply through trickery or coercion. Further, if RCMP officers acting under Part IV.1 are implicitly authorized to make entry, s. 25 of the Code would permit them “to effect such entry by overcoming force” a property owner is normally entitled to assert, to prevent anyone, including the police, from entering the premises without permission.

Motive for targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman

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. 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 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 (Barry Sherman) filed a law suit (Court number T-761-17) seeking a transcript of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying interview with lobbyist Barry Sherman, or a copy of the recording.

Justin Trudeau responded by paying the Office of Commissioner of Lobbying $400,000 to obstruct/defeat Barry Sherman suit & a court hearing that was to be held on Thursday, the 8th day of February 2018, at 9:30 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 prove Lobbying Commissioner REDACTED Justin Trudeau’s name from the transcript in order to conceal that Justin Trudeau broke the law:

“There is basis to conclude that the private interests of (REDACTED) were advanced to a high degree, & that a sense of obligation was created by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaign.”

In an email to Brian H. Greenspan photographic evidence was provided that showed that the Sherman’s home was under surveillance by the RCMP.

Only the RCMP has jurisdiction (government authority) to conduct a criminal investigation for the Federal government’s Office of Commissioner of Lobbying.

Direct quote from Administering the Lobbying Act (December 2011) :

The peace officer having jurisdiction to investigate the matter, generally the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in the case of the Lobbying Act, will consider the case in consultation with legal counsel at the Department of Justice and federal prosecutors at the Department of Public Prosecutions. Together, they will determine whether or not to lay charges.”

Since the ongoing RCMP investigation involved a high profile government of Canada official the RCMP claim that they are authorized to make surreptitious entry, or simply through trickery or coercion. RCMP officers also claim that they are permitted “to effect such entry by overcoming force a property owner”.

In Eccles v. Bourque, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739, it was contended that s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code authorized trespass by the police in order to effect an arrest. The basis is that the police (RCMP) are entitled, in limited circumstances, to enter private property without consent to effect an arrest – detain a person.

People detained or arrested by police officers and the RCMP are usually forcibly restrained using handcuffs, either metal or plastic. A traditional form of plastic handcuffs are cable ties. Cable ties leave unique marks on wrists of those being arrested by police (RCMP). Forensic pathologist confirmed that the markings on the wrists of both Shermans, indicates they had been restrained (forcibly detained) with ties before they were murdered. Toronto Police confirmed Barry and Honey Sherman’s murderers took the restraints with them.

Why would the restraints be removed from the wrists of the victims and from the crime scene? Restraints are material evidence that could be traced back to the murderers. Canadian police forces have and use a specific type of cable tie. The markings on the wrists of Barry and Honey Sherman can be matched with impressions made by any specific type of tie mfg today.

Crime scene evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that Barry & Honey Sherman were murdered by police officers. Both had restraint marks on their wrists (were handcuffed) & Honey Sherman had cuts on her lip & nose, suggesting that she had struggled with assailants & was forced face down on pool tiles. The evidence is telling us that at some point Honey Sherman sensed that the intruders were going to kill her and out a fear for her life she put up a fight. The cuts on her lip & nose is telling us she was forced to the ground by a police officer(s) who used his or her knee to forcibly hold Honey Sherman’s head and face to the ground as they handcuffed Honey Sherman’s hands behind her back.

It is important to note that police officers and the RCMP do not have the authority to make surreptitious entry or “to effect such entry by overcoming force a property owner”. The Supreme Court of Canada, Wiretap Reference, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 697 Date: 1984-12-20 ruled that police surreptitious entry is unlawful:

“Until such time as Parliament speaks specifically on this matter, I am of the view that an unlawful entry to install a listening device is an unauthorized and unjustified use of police powers. If the authorization to intercept did purport to sanction such an entry, the authorization would be invalid in that respect. Judges simply do not have the power to permit anyone, even police officers, to commit unlawful acts.