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.“