Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Notes from the Lemire trial: Warman woes

Today sees closing arguments from Marc Lemire's defense. Free Dominion continues to live blog. Here are some excerpts from FD's blog that I found of interest (may update later). First, in respect to the "immigrant poem" which is apparently one of the key pieces of evidence that the CHRC has used to charge Lemire with hate speech, Lemire's lawyer Barbara Kulaszka is arguing, in respect to the CHRC's Hannya Rizk:
Rizk was asked by Richard Warman not to tell Lemire about JR Books Online because he was going to go to the police about JR Books Online. He did that, and Rizk testified that she regretted not telling Lemire. She testified that it was Warman that gave her the training in how to do those searches. Other commission employees were surprised to hear this, because that was not Warman's job to give her the training. This corrupted the whole investigation because this was Rizk's first Section 13 complaint and Warman seems to have had too much influence over Hannya Rizk.

Rizk should be in independent investigator. It is outrageous that the complainant was teaching her to do the investigation.

In response to Hadjis' question about why Lemire didn't complain to Federal Court about the Commission's conduct, Kulaszka said, "If Mr. Lemire was a multi-millionaire, I'd be very happy to go to Federal Court".

Lemire registers domain names for people.

In cases where whois data has been used in tribunals, there has always been corraborating evidence.

Just before the hearing, Lemire was served with two large CDs with material from JR Books Online.

Without corroborating evidence, you should not find that Mr. Lemire is liable under Section 13 for JR Books Online.

The submission is that no prima facie case has been made, and Lemire has no case to answer.

Hadjis indicates that he wants Barbara to address the abuse of process.

The immigrant poem is a posting on the Stormfront website. It was allegedly printed off by Warman on the same day it was allegedly posted. URL does not show Stormfront, it shows an anonymizer called the-cloak.com.

Hadjis asks if this was in the original complaint, and she says it was not.

Hannya Rizk testified that Warman told her about the Canadian Immigrant Poem June 21, 2004. He laid the complaint in November 2003, Lemire learns of it the end of March 2004. In the meantime, Lemire took down the messageboard (before he knew of the complaint). Rizk wrote a memo that she could not access the board and it was disclosed when she brought the file to the hearing.

Barb presumed there was a little bit of panic because the complaint was "slipping away on them". In June, 2004, he comes up with the Immigrant Poem. Rizk gets notice of the poem in June, but it was allegedly printed in February. It was not revealed to the respondent for nearly a year.

He was given no opportunity to give his side of the story. The report was simply made recommending that the matter go to tribunal.

Rizk went on the Stormfront website, but she was never able to find the poem. In her report, Rizk states that the investigator's search did not reveal the poem, however, the investigation showed that Lemire was a member. When asked why she included it in the report, then, she replied, "To show what Mr. Warman had given me!".

This shows the undue influence that Warman had over Rizk. Bernard Klatt also looked for the poem in 2006 and he couldn't find it. The archives were part of the searchable database.

Hadjis: Is there an inferrence to be drawn that the poem was never there?

Barb: Mr. Warman's credibility is sadly lacking. Her job was to find the poem and she went there and couldn't find it. He doesn't even allege that it falls within Section 13, but she still included it.

When asked why he used the-cloak, Warman said he didn't remember...sometimes he used it, sometimes he didn't.

Her submission is that it should not be found that the poem was posted on Stormfront by the respondent. Even the url was not on the poem, it was just the-cloak.com. There is no prima facie case.

If you find that the poem was posted, I would submit that there was nothing wrong with that poem. If this poem comes within Taylor, what else is going to be caught. It is a satire. A commentary on the state of immigration. No person is exposed to hatred or contempt with Taylor by this poem.

Mr. Warman ran off this poem (he says) on the very day it was posted. Who could be exposed to hatred when he ran it off and it was gone. Who was going to be exposed to hatred or contempt?

Barbara suggested that there is no evidence that the poem was there for more than one day.

Taylor ruled that there had to be a series of messages, not just one message where a 100 people phoned in. There had to be a series of messages to show that they were using this public utility to promote hate propoganda. That is the problem when you get a whole series of precedents set by cases where people are unrepresented, or they don't show up.

The immigrant poem was posted on lots of sites that were not "neo-Nazi" sites, and it criticizes Canadians for allowing unfettered immigration.

Marc Lemire has 409 posts on Stormfront, yet Warman only had one posting by Marc Lemire that he entered as evidence (the immigrant poem). Out of all of these postings on Stormfront, Warman could only find one that allegedly falls within Section 13, and it is a poem that you can find on Discover Vancouver.

Warman's posting on Stormfront have already been found by a CHRC investigator as violating Section 13. It was not just one message, it was many messages. The complaint was dismissed as being vexatious, but the investigator did find that Warman's posts on Stormfront and VNN fell under Section 13. Taylor sets a very high bar, and the immigrant poem does not meet this test. It as also not been proven under the balance of probabilities that it was posted by Lemire, and there is no proof that it was there for more than one day.
And later from the other Free Dominion blogger, fourhorses, we read:

showing that Warman was relying upon everything on Freedomsite

Lemire's application for Rogers opped to by Warman and the Commission

The Commission and Warman restricted what was going to be on the tribunal, which then dropped the Anne Cools posting.

Application allowed by Hadjis
Warman brought application to quash the subpeona.

Affidavit obtained by Rogers - copy sjhown to Warman and Vigna in hearing room. Not seen by Hadjis.

Talking about Warman's excitement andd sspontaneous reading the paragraph about Rogers no longer having the data.

Asking why Warman would want that Rogers info which would exonerate him to be quashed and why he was so happy when Rogers no longer had the info.
And later:

On Freedomsite

Marc Lemire's name as owner/operator is posted
along with disclaaimer and method to contact the webmaster


Talking about how Warman didn't complain about Lemire's site for several years
until the day Paul Fromm files a complaint against Warman with the CHRC and posts some of this on Freedomsite.


wow !


going deeper into Maximum Disruption techniques and how Warman utilized the police to seize peeople's computers, shut them out from proper defenses

Warman can actively retaliate against any respondent with no recourse against him
Kulaszka gives multiple examples

Hadjis defending this process

Talking about actions against Fromm by antiracist activists because Fromm stood up.

Hadjis admits the legislation is one-sided across the board
Talking about Warman posting as Pogue Mahone in terms of trying to initiate a conversation with Lemire.

Dean Steacy, using Jadewarr on Stormfront initiating a conversation with Lemire about Lemire's complaint to the Commission about Warman. Had to go to federal court to find out who Jadewarr was. Lemire was a respondent under a complaint when this act by Steacy was done.

An abuse of process, she says.
Waarmaan denies knowing who Jadewarr was, yet Steacy contraadicted him later.

- back to the swapped documents and the Jadewarr log on.

wants her to move along

back at those doccuments
Warman was present at the Jadewarr sign on and download just prior to the Beaumont hearing

- her submission is what happened here?
Warman lied to you over a very important matter
Warman knew exactly who Jadewarr was.

What's worse, Vigna, counsel for the Commission was complicit with the deception, knew Warman was lying and went further on the basis that the d\ocument was unclear.

That Lemire would have asked very different questions if Vigna and Warman had not deceived.

Says no wonder why Fothergill doesn't want you to look further, why he doesn't want you to look at other documents.

That Vigna was taaken off the case once these things came out - he had to be taken off the case

Mrs Blight took the case over. Whaat happened is very very serios. What else has Mr Warman lied about ?
Free Dominion's Connie Fourier is also live blogging. Here is her summary of what FourHorses writes above:

Kulaszka continues:

When the complaint was laid the freedomsite messageboard was the foundation of the complaint. Hadjis ordered that they give particulars of the complaint, and they stated that every post on the messageboard was a part of the complaint. This stayed in effect right up until the start of the hearing. At which point, Barb brought a motion for the subpeona of Rogers Cable to determine the indentity of the Ann Cools posting. This posting goes to many issues in this case, including in the way that messageboards can be used to entrap an webmaster, entice others to make similar posting ie. testing the virtue of people. Let's throw it out and see if we can catch a few fish. Warman went to freedomsite to run off posts, research etc, and the freedomsite server was keeping log files. On each of the days that Warman accessed the site, he had the same IP address. When Klatt did a search, he found that the Ann Cools post had the same IP address as Mr. Warman. Klatt also provided testimony concerning the matching characteristics of two user profiles.

Warman denied every having registered a profile on the freedomsite. Hadjis asked him very specifically and he denied it. When Barb showed him the profile for Lucy, he "stood corrected". He was evasive, he couldn't remember anything. At the end of the submissions, there were 157 instances where he couldn't recall things. This was one of the things he couldn't recall, but he recalled immediately when he saw the profile for Lucy. Both profiles (Lucy and 90sAreOver) had same IP address, same browser, anonymous emails, provided same option information, etc.

Poster of the Ann Cools posting only came on the site once. It is the submission of the respondent that Mr. Warman made the Ann Cools posting. Based, not only on the technical evidence, but also on how he acted. Not only on what was submitted for the case, but also on his response to the Rogers subpeona. Hadjis ruled on Dec 6, 2006 - Warman intended to rely on the entirety of the freedomsite messageboard. The respondent made an application for a subpeona of Rogers. That application was opposed by Warman and the Commission. Then, the Commission and Warman restricted what was going to be a part of the case. This evidence did not include the Ann Cools posting. Hadjis allowed the subpeona, Warman tried to quash the subpeona. The information was provided by Rogers, the information was given to Warman and, without notice, without asking Hadjis, he was so excited, that he stood up and read the paragraph that said the information was no longer available. These were not the actions of someone who was innocent and wanted the information to exconerate him. He changed is case to not include this post. Why would the Commission go along with that when, when you read the post, it clearly falls under Section 13?

Anyone can post on a messageboard using any name. That is exactly what Warman did, and within a few months he laid his complaint. Barb is relying on that as evidence of abuse of process. It is not as if Mr. Warman would never do this. He was a regular poster on Stormfront and VNN and the messages have already been found by an investigator to violate Section 13. It is not as if this was beyond his ability or his inclination.

Most of the posts in the complaint were posted by Craig Harrison. We know that because Warman found out that they were posted by him. On the board, itself, there was no indication who he was. He used anonymous names. That goes for every posting (except for Mr. Lemire's posts) that the commission wants to hold Lemire liable for. There were only two posts by Mr. Lemire.

What this case is about it, essentially, that they wish to hold the webmaster of a small messageboard liable for the anonymous postings posted thereon. There was a way to complain, by emailing Mr. Lemire. Nevertheless, Warman never filed a complaint with Lemire, never notified him. Even though he was watching the board trying to find out who Craig Harrison was. Eventually it was Matt Lauder, Warman's friend, who found out who Craig Harrison was in December 2002. A year went by, no complaint, then he laid a complaint on the day that Paul Fromm sent a letter to the Chief Commissioner complaining about Warman's actions. Paul Fromm was using the freedomsite email to send out his letter. That night, Mr. Warman went home and started printing off the documents he was going to use in his complaint.

Warman didn't include articles on freedomsite that were posted by Matt Lauder, because Lauder is Warman's friend.
He made a speech about Maximum Disruption to the ARA. Section 13 is made for someone who wants to disrupt someone's life. ARA - anti-Racist Action is a violent bunch of street thugs.

Barb reading from the Maximum Disruption speech.

Section 13 is only one part of Maximum Disruption. After he lays a complaint, he sends it to the police. The police can then raid the place, and you can have an order against you that you can't go on the internet. He did this with both freedomsite and JR Books Online, but it didn't work in this case.

He also went to the police about Harrison.

Section 13 is such an abuse for a respondent when it is not tied to real harm. Everything else in this Act is tied to real harm. Someone has been denied a service, or harmed in their employment. In Section 13, there is no real harm, anyone can bring a complaint.

Hadjis: In other parts of the Act, anyone can bring a complaint, but it is the victim that gets the remedy.

Barb: It has to be acknowledged that there has to be real harm under the other sections of the Act. It is not like Section 13, you have a situation in the federal government or Air Canada etc, there is a situation that needs a remedy. In that case, the Act does work. They go to mediation etc. The exact opposite is true under Section 13. Warman has been able to be a serial complainant and he has filed, so far, about 26 complaints.

There is no cost to a complainant to lay a complaint or to carry it out to a hearing. Warman is consistently called by the commission as a witness. He gives his testimony and he leaves the CHRC to prosecute the case. The respondent cannot leave. If the matter goes to the tribunal, a large financial penalty can be imposed, as well as a cease and desist order. The tribunals have made it clear that the penalty is being used as a symbol, basically, to show society's approprium for the respondent's conduct.

Very large fines have been imposed on people who don't have much money. Remorse is taken into account. There are no defenses of truth, fair comment or intent. The respondent prepares his own defence, and the commission carries on even if the respondent does not attend. After the complaint, if the respondent makes any comments or retaliates in any way, they are given large financial penalties. In the Kybur decision, Warman was awarded $30,000 for retaliation because he went after his job. If Warman goes after a respondent's job, there are no consequences.

The complainant and his witnesses are protected, but the respondent and his witnesses are not protected. Paul Fromm has been harassed and intimidated by anti-Racists. They demonstrated outside his house, threatened to burn him out, and broke up a fundraising meeting for Marc Lemire.

Hadjis: It is one-sided legislation. Why should the victim of a false harassment claim be any different than the victim of a false hate speech claim?

Barb: It is a process that is so punitive that people aren't going to say anything that, by even a slight chance, might fall under Section 13, they aren't going to say them. If they run a messageboard and they are being held liable for the comments of others -- there is no free pass -- they are not going to run a messageboard, they would be crazy to.

The issue here is freedom of speech. It is a fundamental value.
Dean Steacy, using the name jadewarr, also contacted Lemire on Stormfront. He tried to initiate a conversation with Lemire. When told that he could have used a reply to dismiss Lemire's complaint against Warman as vexatious, and Steacy admitted that he could have. This was an abuse of the system, he was testing the virtue of Mr. Lemire. Mr. Lemire was a respondent when the conversation by Mr. Steacy was initiated. Steacy testified that he signed up on freedomsite, but we did not learn of that until his testimony. It was never revealed to Mr. Lemire in any kind of disclosure.
Barb's submission is that Warman lied to Hadjis over a very important matter. He knew exactly who jadewarr was. Harvey Goldberg didn't even know who jadewarr was, but Warman did. Vigna, council for the commission, was complicit in this deception. He said they needed to get a clear copy. If they had been honest, this hearing would have been very different because we would have asked very different questions of Mr. Warman. What went on is unbelievable, actually.

When it became clear that jadewarr was going to be an issue in Federal Court, Mr. Vigna lost his serenity and he was taken off this case because he had to be taken off this case. Ms Blight took over.

What else has Mr. Warman lied about?
Good work Free Dominion!
View topic - Lemire Final Argument - LIVE BLOGGING - Day Two :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics - Canada Blogs

1 comment:

Wally Keeler said...

Well, Poetry is Poetency, as the saying goes.