feature

Wesley Township – Former Highway Commissioner John Norton’s Answer to complaint conflicts with own testimony

Will Co. (ECWd) –

During a recent court hearing, former Wesley Township Road District Highway Commissioner John Norton testified he was not an administrator of a particular Facebook page.  We covered the details of that lie in this article.

Looking at recently filed court documents we find serious conflicts with his recent testimony as well as past testimony.   In an amended complaint, the following statements were included regarding the Administration status of John Norton.

  • 13. JOHN is one of the administrators of the “Guardians of Wesley Township” Facebook page that has published numerous statements imputing BRZANA as being a pedophile.
  • 14. JOHN acknowledged being one of the administrators of the “Guardians of Wesley Township” Facebook page in the hearing of Norton v Brzana on November 16, 2018, before the Honorable Frederick v. Harvey.

In November of last year, Norton testified that he was the Administrator of the Facebook page in question. (Transcript from that hearing)

Q. Are you an administrator under Guardians of Wesley Township Facebook page?
A. One of many.

So he clearly has confirmed he is an administrator of the web page in question during his first sworn testimony, just as pointed out in the amended complaint.

So what were the answers filed by Norton in his Verified answer to the amended complaint?

  • 13) Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13.
  • 14) Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14.

So the very court case where he first testified that he was the Administrator of the Facebook page in question, he has denied that very fact in his answer to the amended complaint.

A verified answer, signed by Norton points to Civil Rules of Procedure 1-109. What should be a point of concern, assuming there is any actual enforcement of our perjury laws by the court, is the last paragraph in that rule.

Any person who makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true, in any pleading, affidavit, or other document certified by such person in accordance with this Section shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Norton’s written denial of being an Administrator of the Facebook page in question is in direct conflict with his own oral testimony which he admitted he was an Administrator.  Clearly he has put himself in a box.

Was he lying to the court in November or lying to the court in his answer?

We will update this article as this case moves through the courts.

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.

1 reply »

  1. Norton’s pictures speaks volumes; from the looks of them; it appears as though a new sub-species of public servant has been discovered. A sub-species that can’t remember which stories they’ve told to whom. Well, maybe not, lying’s been tried before and it usually doesn’t end well.

Leave a witty comment