Rus­sell Wanger­sky

Sackville Tribune - - FRONT PAGE -

Ap­par­ently, Britz was also found to have as­so­ci­ated with a “Sub­ject A.”

Turns out, “Sub­ject A” was her hus­band, Ger­ald MacMullin.

The is­sue? MacMullin’s ve­hi­cle was spot­ted at sev­eral dif­fer­ent times near Hells An­gels mem­bers and at events held by the gang, in­clud­ing fu­ner­als.

MacMullin is a ser­vice man­ager for a top-rated Harley-Davidson garage. (I don’t think I need to point out that mo­tor­cy­cle gang mem­bers of­ten drive Harleys, but I will any­way.) He and Britz ex­plained ev­ery con­tact with the Hells An­gels out­lined by se­cu­rity of­fi­cials, say­ing that at­tend­ing the fu­ner­als of long­time cus­tomers is some­thing that he would be ex­pected to do, and did.

MacMullin also added ref­er­ence let­ters from — wait for it — the RCMP. “The first ref­er­ence let­ter was from an RCMP sergeant who wrote in re­gards to the hus­band’s pro­fes­sion­al­ism and gen­eral char­ac­ter. The RCMP sergeant con­firmed the ap­pli­cant’s hus­band had over­seen the ser­vic­ing of most of the Harley David­sons used by the RCMP in the K Di­vi­sion In­te­grated Traf­fic Ser­vices since 2008,” the judge wrote.

And like with Meyler, Britz was asked to ex­plain why her hus­band had got­ten into a car with a cus­tomer who was also a known drug dealer. That’s hard to ex­plain, since se­cu­rity of­fi­cials didn’t tell her where, when or with whom her hus­band was sup­posed to have met.

Once again, the se­cu­rity clear­ance was re­voked by the fed­eral Trans­porta­tion min­is­ter, over what Britz might do in the fu­ture: “A re­view of the in­for­ma­tion on file led me to be­lieve, on a bal­ance of prob­a­bil­i­ties, that you may be prone or in­duced to com­mit an act or as­sist or abet any per­son to com­mit an act that may un­law­fully in­ter­fere with civil avi­a­tion.”

The ex­act same lan­guage as the Meyler case.

The Fed­eral Court judge sided with Britz.

“Con­trary to the find­ing of the min­is­ter, not only is there no ev­i­dence to sup­port a find­ing that the ap­pli­cant is prone to such il­le­gal acts, the ev­i­dence is to the con­trary: the ap­pli­cant has no such in­cli­na­tion.”

But it’s taken over a year for Britz to get this far, and the de­ci­sion may yet be ap­pealed. Even if it isn’t it, just goes back to the min­is­ter again.

So, how would you an­swer the ques­tion, “Why did you meet with ‘Sub­ject A?’” Rus­sell Wanger­sky is TC Me­dia’s At­lantic re­gional colum­nist. He can be reached at Rus­sell.wanger­ — Twit­ter: @ Wanger­sky.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.