Charging that “an army of lawyers at Bennett Jones has been hired to defend the Government, I assume at great expense to the taxpayer,” former Alberta Health Services CEO Athana Mentzelopoulos said in a public statement yesterday she is “worried there’s a strategy to try to bring me to my knees financially.”
Accordingly, Ms. Mentzelopoulos said in the statement sent to media the same day as the government filed its statement of defence in her $1.7-million wrongful dismissal lawsuit, she hopes “we can skip oral questions and proceed directly to trial.”
Arguably, since the allegations Ms. Mentzelopoulos made in her Feb. 12 statement of claim have led to what the NDP Opposition has dubbed the “CorruptCare” scandal, it would be in the public interest to allow the trial to proceed speedily. So it will be interesting to see how the government responds.
Ms. Mentzelopoulos, handpicked in December 2023 to implement the United Conservative Party’s “refocusing” of public health care, was fired on Jan. 8 last year, shortly before she was scheduled to meet Alberta’s auditor-general to discuss what she has described as efforts by senior officials with ties to the UCP to pressure AHS to sign dodgy contracts.
The public first learned of her allegations in a Feb. 5 scoop published by The Globe and Mail, that included the claim “the Premier’s then-chief of staff interfered in AHS contract negotiations.” Marshall Smith, who is no relation to his former boss, had resigned in early October 2024. A glowing farewell piece published by The Calgary Herald at the time said Mr. Smith “was asked to stay.”
In yesterday’s statement, Ms. Mentzelopoulos said she learned of the contracts from “trustworthy individuals who were concerned about potential irregularities in matters that were overseen and directed by this government.
“They put their trust in me to help restore integrity in AHS procurement processes, and I in turn put my trust in government to support work that would help ensure best value for Alberta taxpayers,” she wrote.
Bennett Jones LLP is a prominent Calgary law firm. Former UCP Premier Jason Kenney, who is not a member of the legal profession, is a senior advisor to the firm.
Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s statement of claim in February contained many bombshell allegations, including overpriced contracts, pressure from the premier’s staff to sign them, high-level conflicts of interest, and that she was fired “capriciously, arbitrarily, and in bad faith because she was actually carrying out her duties for AHS.” None of them, it must be noted, have been proved in a court of law.
In yesterday’s media statement, the former CEO said she was urged to hurry up and sign some of the contracts she was concerned about by Health Minister Adriana LaGrange herself.
“When I briefed Health Minister Adriana LaGrange on this work on December 13, 2024, I laid out what I had learned so far,” the statement said. “An internal investigation was not yet complete, and an external forensic audit had been underway for about one month.
“Minister LaGrange complained that it was taking too long for me to sign contracts for chartered surgical facilities,” the statement continued. “She said some contracts may have been ‘shitty,’ but ‘there’s a lot of shitty contracts out there in AHS and in government … and we have to live with it.’”
“The problem was that contracts we were reviewing included ones undertaken by AHS at the direction of this government, some pursuant to Minister’s directives,” Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s statement went on. “Some staff who administered these contracts would have had no choice but to follow through on those orders. I have come to understand their quandary – do what this government says or be fired, and if there are problems later with having unquestioningly executed this government’s direction, you will be held entirely accountable.”
Indeed, according to the former CEO’s conclusion, this is what happened to her. “As CEO of AHS, I came to realize that my career would end either because I went along with this government, or because I did not.”
A copy of Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s full statement is found here.
Meanwhile, less than an hour after the former CEO sent her statement to media, Justice Minister Mickey Amery posted a link to the government’s statement of defence on Elon Musk’s social media site, formerly known as Twitter.
The statement of defence, filed in the Edmonton Court of King’s Bench, begins by suggesting Ms. Mentzelopoulos is trying “to leverage her position to extract a large pay day.”
Denying there was any government interference in any AHS contracts, the statement of defence says that in her statement of claim Ms. Mentzelopoulos “presented a dramatic tale and false narrative of political persecution presumably to try and pressure AHS to offer more than she is contractually entitled to and deflect attention away from her own inadequate performance.”
At one point it accuses the CEO of calling a senior assistant deputy minister “a ‘f**king twat’.”
The government’s statement of defence also says, “The plaintiff was not fired by AHS because she commenced an investigation. She was not fired as part of a conspiracy to stop an investigation. She was fired because she failed to perform her role as president and CEO effectively and failed to carry out the mandate she was given to implement the transformation of AHS, which the premier of Alberta mandated the minister to implement.”
The statement of defence also makes the argument that since Alberta Health Services was run by an independent board and not the province, “there has been no breach of contract between the Plaintiff and the Province because no such contract existed.”
The province is seeking dismissal of Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s action with costs “on a solicitor and client basis in light of the incendiary allegations made.”
A copy of the government’s statement of defence is found here. As with Ms. Mentzelopoulos’s statement of claim, none of the allegations made in the statement of defence had been proved in a court of law.
If the provincial government does intend to drag this out because they have the financial resources to fund an army of lawyers, surely the political damage will continue too. So it may not be as good a strategy politically as legally.
For instance, no doubt the claim the Health Minister said that there are a lot of shitty contracts in AHS will now be widely quoted and commented on many times until the trial concludes.
So the UCP may use taxpayer money to try drag this out, to put financial pressure on the former AHS CEO, but that may hurt them more politically.
On that note, it seems it has already taken a while for the government to come up with their Statement of Defense. It seems to me if their case was as strong as they say, this would have been completed much sooner. Or perhaps, as is alleged, this is just another way of trying to drag things out.
If this comes down to who to believe, Marlaina and Lagrange are in trouble. Both have a history of lying repeatedly and in fact it seems to be standard operating procedure for them and the UCP government.
As for the claim that Ms. Mentzelopoulos is looking for a payday, this is obvious gaslighting. Stormy Danielle has no problem handing out millions of taxpayer dollars to cronies such as Manning, Harper and countless other insiders who are given cushy well-paid jobs with no responsibilities. Or hiring an army of lawyers whenever her misconduct has resulted in legal action. Or frequently traveling on the taxpayer’s dime for vacations to and escape questioning.
I hope this case goes to trial without the government trying to bankrupt Ms. Mentzelopoulos and that for once the RCMP actually do their job and investigate this corruption scandal properly and with the urgency it deserves.
PS: I was actually shocked the government’s lawyers took this approach, which strikes me as both unnecessary and vile. I cannot believe this was the lawyers’ advice to Ms. LaGrange et. al. Me, I would have written a “more in sadness than in anger” type of brief. But then, I was never trained as a lawyer. DJC
wrong link on Govt statement of defence.
Thank you, Anon. That’s been fixed. I have also provided a link to Mr. Amerey’s Xweet. DJC
This is a mess. However if it goes straight to trial how do you get tickets to the performance?
People who take on their former employers in court usually know the down side and the expenses they could incur. Some employers drag these cases on for years either hoping the former worker will run out of money or die. Employers might want to understand some workers don’t care what it cost them, they want to ensure justice is done and those people are “dangerous”.
Smith would be best to shut up and send an acceptable cheque.
e.a.f.: Courtrooms are public spaces and no tickets are required, as long as there’s an open seat on the public benches. They offer some of the best entertainment around, and it’s all free. In the days I covered courts for various newspapers, there were always a few savvy old gents – about the age I am now – who whiled away the hours each day enjoying the spectacle of the most dramatic trial on offer that day. I may take that up myself one of these days. DJC
You write, referring to the government: “At one point it accuses the CEO of calling a senior assistant deputy minister “a ‘f**king twat’.”
It should be fun if this issue arises in court, since she merely has to demonstrate that the disparagement was based on fact. (Truth is an “absolute defence” against libel and slander allegations.) It would be enlightening to learn how the ADM earned the appellation.
Robert: I have been told by lawyers specializing in defamation that simple abuse is not generally considered defamatory. Regardless, as noted above, I personally have met at least one deputy minister who could fairly be described as a fucking twat, and I don’t have any trouble believing there minight be anotjer one somewhere. Of course, this is not a defamation case, and moreover, even if it were, anything said under oath in a court of law is subject to an absolute privilege. DJC
What an absolute mess the UCP have made. Danielle Smith, Adriana LaGrange, and the UCP crew would love to have this all buried. It can’t be. There is just too much going on here.
Which begs the question, why is a “f**king twat” a senior assistant deputy minister?
Pat: See my response to Mike Danysh. DJC
Because they’re running out of people with integrity and competence who want to work for them. Or was your question rhetorical?
Shades of the ‘BreakdownAB” and Nate Pike. A $6.1 Million SLAPP suit to shut him down. What appears to be a massive overreaction by LaGrange and Smith to economically destroy Ms. Mentzelopoulos leads a person, at least this one, to be convinced that they are guilty as hell.
Another example of the “Duo” being not that bright. If they had quietly cut her a cheque, mostly likely she would be long gone. With or without a gag clause. And, cummon.. what’s a measly 1.7 million when the UCP deals in losses in the hundreds of millions with CorrupCare! And hockey rinks for billionaires, etc, etc
Good question. Why pay out all the others who have been let go prematurely, but not this one? What is it about this one that had them digging in their heels?
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/cost-of-alberta-health-services-firing-of-six-executives-unknown-ahead-of-major-restructuring
The TBA government really likes to waste taxpayer money on debacles of their own making.
I wonder when Alberta voters will finally wake up?
Hmmm, perhaps a “Go Fund Me” appeal is necessary.
Tell me where to donate
Let’s see…. Ms. Mentzelopoulos (hereafter, meaning no disrespect, “Ms. M”) filed her statement of claim on 12 February. The government had 30 days to file a statement of defence. From 12 February to 13 March is (checks Excel spreadsheet)…29 days. Cutting it pretty fine, there, Miz LaGrange.
Ms. M briefed LaGrange on 13 December 2024, laying out what her internal investigation had found to that point. LaGrange fired her on 8 January 2025. Elapsed time: 26 days. Hmm…seems a long time for this government to eliminate a troublemaker. But then there’s the Christmas break. Assuming the government shuts down between Christmas and New Year’s(1) the gap is down to no more than 21 days. I guess that’s pretty fast, for a collection of incompetents who are slowly realizing how much trouble they’ve laid up for themselves.
Then there’s the government’s accusation that Ms. M “call[ed] a senior assistant deputy minister “a ‘f**king twat’.” They damn well better have a recording of that, and the confrontation that—allegedly!—led to it. This is blatant character assassination. Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a “senior assistant deputy minister” insulted Ms. M with those words—to her face. But heyyyy, wadda I know aboudit?
So it comes down to this: Ms. M filed her wrongful dismissal suit, asking for compensation equivalent to her contract’s face value. LaGrange fired her. Now we get to find out, some time between “now” and “then,” who said what when.
Would you think me cynical, dear reader, if I wondered whether some of those 29 days was spent shredding incriminating evidence? Naaah. That’d be illegal. Even in Oilberduh.
(1) Somebody made that decree as a cost-saving measure back when; 3 days without pay for all government employees. I don’t know if they still do that now.
Mike: I don’t know either. Worth checking. As to the “f**king twat” comment, I must tell you, although I’m not sure sure how to pronounce “f**king,” I worked with a few deputy ministers and assistant DMs during my civil service career, and I can assure that “fucking twat,” while undiplomatic, was an accurate description of one of them. Different province, different generation of senior civil servants, but still … DJC
I was surprised that the government lawyers bowdlerized the word that way. How delicate of them to protect our sensibilities. As a journalist, I covered many criminal trials in which witnesses described unpleasant and crude words that were spoken. Sometimes they would express reluctance to the court to say such things in public. I recall one judge telling a witness: “I assure you, His Lordship has heard all the words that you may have heard. Please tell the court exactly what was said.” While I am not a lawyer, this strikes me as a sound approach to a trial of any sort if the point, as we are told, is to get to the real truth. DJC
I’ve never been sued (yet), so my experience with courts, judges and lawyers is thankfully limited. Your comment makes me wonder if LaGrange’s statement of defence was specifically designed for publication.
And yeah, I’ve had a little experience with a midlevel corporate flunky who could be described the same way. Fortunately, the species, while widely distributed, isn’t all that common.
Oh ho! From:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-health-minister-denies-former-ahs-ceo-s-claims-in-statement-of-defence-1.7483461
“LaGrange rejects Mentzelopoulos’s claim that the date of her termination [8 January] was tied to her meeting with the auditor general the day after. The statement of defence says the decision to fire her came on Dec. 23, but was delayed due to the Christmas holidays.”
That makes MUCH more sense. Only 10 days to decide to fire the troublemaker. Now it’s just 16 days (or 11, with the Christmas break) to tell Ms. M she was fired. At least she did that in person. MUCH better, Miz LaGrange!
Thanks for this summary DJC. Ironically the article in the Calgary Herald by Matthew Black covering this issue is surprisingly impartial, and contains many of the quotes you include (my favorite being “As CEO of AHS, I came to realize that my career would end either because I went along with this government, or because I did not.”). However, we’ll see the spin once the two B’s (Bell & Braid) get a hold of the province’s statement of defense. While the allegations ‘have not been proven in court’, it does make one wonder at what point the devotion of the true faithful will waver, if ever? Corrupt Care, Tylenot, hobnobbing with MAGAs in Florida, does an issue exist that would sway the UCP’s support?
As a side note, with your blog articles also being carried in The Tyee on occasion, I was scrolling through my Apple News feed, and saw your article about the Tylenot scandal. Congratulations on the exposure.
“Congratulations on the exposure.” Not a phrase one would want to hear in court. DJC
They decided they wanted to fire the CEO on December 23rd FOR CAUSE but left them in charge of the organization for another 16 Days. Right makes tons of sense.
I’m sure the government would like this scandal to distract us from the fact they’re taking bitumen instead of cash royalties, or maybe to distract from the April 1 decision to steal our health facilities out from under us and reassign them as they see fit. It’s working so far.
https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2025/03/14/alberta-to-begin-collecting-bitumen-royalties-in-kind/
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2025/03/09/alberta-transfer-ownership-health-properties-april-1/
Tylenot or childrens Killemol. Still can’t decide which sounds better and is most accurate.
The province’s Statement of Defence was meant for the UCP base – to reassure them that they’re still the Good Guys and the former CEO is still the Bad Guy. I’ve never seen a court document so lacking in actual legal arguments, but it’s playing well over on the Right Wingnut Facebook pages. They’re spending more time arguing over whether there should be a referendum or an immediate declaration of independence than on alleged government corruption. So, mission accomplished for the UCP lawyers and bots. They’re distracting the base’s attention away from CorruptCare.
And now for something completely different, if you’re in the market for a rail car restaurant the price has been reduced on one in High River. It was originally listed in the mid-300’s. Then the price dropped to $299,000. Now listed at $249,000. You’ll need to hire a new dishwasher.
It is a dirty game for a reason and “justice”, or seeking after the “truth” has very little to do with it. “ALWAYS deny, never settle, always countersue.”
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/always-deny-always-countersue-what-mob-lawyer-taught-trump/news-story/9b4d2da89280bf4f37c627e97f8d09e6
The business that is the legal profession knows this all too well, as they also know that everything revolves around billable hours, as well as a “scorched earth” policy to the extent that after enough examples have been set, the avenue of “legal recourse” will simply be avoided by anyone of modest means (It is time consuming and costly, monetarily, as well as those human costs that are physically, spiritually, and mentally exhausting.). And that is how the powerful and the privileged in this society wish things to be, apparently. Little people are meant to be seen (not too often of course and some are meant to be just hidden away and avoided altogether) and not heard. The aristocracy and its principles never went away, it and they still flourish.
Yet the often stated ideal is one where:
“It’s in everyone’s best interest that if there are problems with our health care system, that they be addressed and rectified. That’s the quintessential reason we have tort law — so that we make the system better for those that come next.”
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/medical-malpractice/cmpa-advances-scorched-earth-approach-with-threat-to-seek-costs-in-unsuccessful-claims/335975
Perhaps that ideal is merely one part of a cleverly constructed mirage.
Finally, for those individuals that are still not fully aware of how things function in this Province, see the following (Again, the relevance to the current controversy should be readily apparent.):
“That’s the amazing thing,” said Smith. “This is why I always prefer a free enterprise, market-based entrepreneurial solution, to a central-planning, regulatory-driven, rules-based, government-bureaucrat-led solution, because we just don’t know what we don’t know about what this might unlock if the program gets implemented.”
https://albertaviews.ca/our-lobbyist-premier/
I think everything starts with paragraph of the defence:
“58 The Plaintiff was not employed by the Province and there has been no breach of any contract between the Plaintiff and the Province as no such contract existed. A contract that does not exist cannot be breached. The Plaintiff was employed by AHS who provided the Plaintiff with adequate notice, or pay in lieu of notice, of the termination of her employment, all in accordance with the agreement she negotiated with the advice of counsel. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any further compensation, benefits, or other payments arising from the conclusion of her employment. Filling her Statement of Claim with allegations of political intrigue and half-truths does not change that. As there has been no breach of the Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement there cannot be any cause of action to induce a breach of that contract.”
Seems there was an employment contract and if employment was at the will (or pleasure) of the employer and there was provision for compensation for early termination: ie. weeks or months of pay to be paid shortly after termination – I’m not sure what recourse she has.
In the mid-1990s when Chretien and Martin downsized and restructured the federal public service there were many rebellions at a number boards, tribunals, etc. These were caused mainly because many of the statutes dating to the 1930s straight through to 1993 empowered Boards made up of the members of the said Boards to make substantial organizational decisions. The Chairs were only one voice. Whose ox got gored in the restructuring was fought out publicly in Ottawa Citizen. Weatherill at CLRB was the first victim of the infighting. Abruptly terminated he lost receiving any compensation before FCA for the remaining 2 years of his 10 year appointment. Terminated because of misuse of his personal expenses claimed on legitimate business outside Ottawa, and all documented to the penny. Rumor had it that high flyers hired for the public service usually took a cut in compensation going from private to public employment. Weatherill had been hired by Mulroney and wink, wink like all other hundreds if not thousands of appointees the position had a “liberal interpretation” as to claiming expenses. As well Weatherill had wined and dined big time in Europe to persuade an international labour organisation to hold its first ever on Canadian soil meeting. When the infighting went public over cutting Boards members expenses, again rumour had it, that the riot act was read by representatives directly from Chretien at late meetings where Board members and Chairs were told that failing to make peace and bury hatchets, the government of the day was prepared to raze all to the ground and appoint new members in short order for any and all federal institutions. Shortly thereafter legislation changed the governance of all the institutions for strong Chairs singularly responsible for managing the bureaucracy. Peace thereafter.
Is “the agreement she negotiated with the advice of counsel” equal to “contract”? I’m confused. It’d be really embarrassing for the lawyer who wrote that paragraph if Ms M produced a signed and dated document which gives details of her employment duties and renumeration–in short, a “contract.”
Bennett Jones will run up $1.7M in fees on this case by the end of summer (the amount Athana Mentzelopoulos is seeking in damages). My old cubicle-mate David Climenhaga will remember that former Alberta Treasurer & Legendary Dipshit™ Stockwell Day rang up $800,000+ in Bennett Jones fees paid for by the taxpayer in defending himself against a defamation suit after he called a constituent a pedophile in a Red Deer newspaper. Day’s strategy was similar to LaGrange’s: As an entitled f**kwit, use infinite taxpayer resources to bleed the plaintiff into bankruptcy or surrender with the biggest, baddest, most expensive lawyers money can buy. LaGrange’s BJ adventure will fail for the same reason as Day’s: Albertans will put up with a lot from their govt., but not paying lawyers massive amounts of their money on personal vendettas.
Google Stockwell Day + Lorne Goddard
Regardless of what has been said, before the case gets to court, the court appoints a mediator, like an old labour negotiator, and who will meet the parties separately in order to roughly communicate (in heavily profane language) that if they don’t settle this, then the court will make a decision that neither would welcome. So there will a NDA, 2 years salary (plus compensation for lost pension, etc) and a nice letter of reference. Those interested in hiring her will wait about a year and at that level of society they will understand that this was dispute that got out of hand over a difference of opinion over who going to was hold the bag for the cover up. Smith got bad employment advice – in these cases it is best to terminate like I predict they will, the employee stands no better in Court and in fact, legally, not morally if this is the outcome she will have been treated than the court will. Provincial and federal bureaucracies have deep pockets and many times decisions of various kinds are made with total disregard for the issue at hand, except for a will to crush the employee/appointee. All though with the best of intentions the severely aggrieved party may think that they will prevail and they might but the win is a chimera. One cannot forget that this dispute is among the privileged and the court as part of this group may decide to give a formal win without a substantial win. As in the token $1. Or to put it more bluntly: the surgical operation was successful, but the patient died.
These details provide the basis for the response to questions from the Premier in the recent past.
“I know nothing, if these events are as you describe them…”
This appears to be the recommended strategy. Would also explain why “The Jason” has emerged from hiding.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
Perhaps, this column is now, literally, yesterday’s news since you have a new column out to-day. Just my thought that the Statement of Defence is interesting in several ways. First, it repeats the UCP government’s rubbish that private for-profit surgery businesses reduce wait times and are cheaper than government surgeries. Both those ideas likely are inaccurate. Will these claims be litigated in this case or are they comments intended to cast doubt on the plaintiff?
Second, many details of the government’s plans for health care in Alberta are described in one place.
Third, it is stated that Alberta Health Care hospitals are to be competitive. This is a disaster because competitive usually means cheaper. Of course, the private for-profit surgery businesses will restrict their operations to the easier and, therefore, cheaper types of surgeries. Because the government will have to take on all kinds of surgeries, particularly complex ones because no on else will do them, it will be accused of being inefficient because its more complex surgeries will be more expensive to perform and expensive recovery time in hospital will be required. This will, almost certainly, lead to more outsourcing and more cuts to funds provided for publicly funded health care in facilities built and operated by government agencies. The result will be that almost no complex surgeries will be preformed which will reduce the health of the community overall.
The idea of making hospitals compete with each other will cause the same kinds of problems that I have described above. Money will be scarce and the non-government hospitals will do the procedures and provide the kinds of care that are most lucrative. And funds to government/AHS hospitals will be cut again.
This will, ultimately, pretty well destroy health care unless you pay for it, and most people cannot afford to pay for it. We are much, much better off with health care provided by the government and available to everyone. The money and resources are pooled and those who need health care receive when they need it. Everyone will be better off.
How is the following statement consistent the facts 1) the minister and the chair of AHS discussed about the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract, and 2) the minister fired all the board members of AHS?
58 The Plaintiff was not employed by the Province and there has been no breach of any contract between the Plaintiff and the Province as no such contract existed. A contract that does not exist cannot be breached. The Plaintiff was employed by AHS who provided the Plaintiff with adequate notice, or pay in lieu of notice, of the termination of her employment, all in accordance with the agreement she negotiated with the advice of counsel. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any further compensation, benefits, or other payments arising from the conclusion of her employment. Filling her Statement of Claim with allegations of political intrigue and half-truths does not change that. As there has been no breach of the Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement there cannot be any cause of action to induce a breach of that contract.
1) Editorial correction: acknowledging that, in today’s political climate, January 2025 can seem like a very long time ago, Ms Mentzelopoulos was fired in January of this year (2025, for the archives), not of last year as is stated above.
2) I looked at the “our people” list on Bennett Jones’ website, and along with Jason Kenney’s, found a few other well-known names sprinkled in amongst their bevy of unknown lawyers:
– John Baird, former Harper-era Conservative federal Cabinet Minister
– Christy Clark, former BC Premier
– John Manley, former Chrétien-era federal Liberal Cabinet Minister, well known in the commentariat as a “blue Liberal”
Just before the Sponsorship Scandal of the Chrétien reign became public I had a conversation a neighbour who was within 3 levels (hierarchy) at the Dept of Finance (Martin) Minister. Guité was legendary, He told me that the Guité was a “god” because he was able to get advertising deals not necessarily attributed to him but he had “facilitated”. For example, the following was but one example and seen as an unbelievable “catch”: watching a baseball game on TV at the time he told me that for a person looking at the screen the batter, catcher and home plate umpire would see that these individual were framed by a Canadian flag on both sides. I cannot vouch for the truth but this is what he said.
Guité was found to have committed fraud, etc. and sentenced to jail, and at Guité c. R., 2008 QCCA 1430 (CanLII) Court of Appeal of Quebec — Quebec
“22] Perhaps, the most disappointing aspect of this case is Mr Guité’s studied and persistent lack of remorse. Worse still, is his perception he has done nothing wrong. Indeed, he concluded his address to the jury by underlining that he has nothing for which to reproach himself in relation to his activities between 1995 and 1999. While lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor it does nothing to mitigate sentence.”
Does the last line sound familiar with regard to Smith et al. ? If this issue of termination revolves around relatively easily found evidence of wrongdoing then what has unfolded is crystal clear. Somebody had to fall on their sword. Failing that — smearing. If the above is true, then this does not bode well for Smith, et al.