saying the Anne Cools post has the same IP address as Warman as testified by Klatt making them one and the same.

Matching charaacteristics of two user profiles by Klatt
a) Anne Cools posting
b) Lucy

Warman was asked if he registered. Warman denied ever registereing on Freedomsite. Denies 3 times.

Reiterating that Warman said he stood corrected after Kaluszka confronted him. - 157 evasive answers

Showed him the user profile for Lucy - had a number of characteristics
giving the IP address of Lucy
saying same IP address
same browser IE
same windows version
same yahoo and hot mail
both set up accounts using anon emails
both loged on to message boards on twice for very short periodds
Lucy 120 minutes
Anne Cools poster 20 minutes
same fields filled in under user profiles

accounts created for single purposes

Warman to run off docs for evidence
Anne Cools - 14 minutes - one post, never to post again

talking about Warman’s response to application for Rogers freedominion

Looking bad for Lucy…where is the Lying Jackal when you need him??

Unfortunately for the Missing Sockpuppet, he does not actually understand the origin of his blog title. he states,

And finally, it is an example of a derogatory epithet created by neoconservative bloggers to ridicule the efforts of select minority communities in their quest for social justice. missing sockpuppet

In fact, and I may well have been the coiner or close to the coiner of the term as it applies to the 3 Islamic losers who are 0/2 before the HRC, “sockpuppet” in the blogging world, was most famously used to deride Glenn Greenwald’s habit of using fake names under which to post comments defending and praising Glen Greenwald.

I, and several other bloggers have also used it to attack the CHRC’s hate crimes investigators’ habit of using pseudonyms for their membership and participation in various hate sites.

Now, when the 3 Islamic losers (And what did they do with Denny?) claimed they were filing hate speech complaints against Mcleans and it turned out in fact that it was the CIC under the direction of Dr. Mohamed Elmasry - noted advocate of killing Jewish civilians in Israel - which was the complainant it was apparent that the 3 Islamic losers were, indeed, sockpuppets. That is, they were speaking lines dictated by someone else.

So, welcome to the blogosphere Missing. Have fun, try not to get sued and try not to sue anybody.

Now, contrary to Ezra’s account the used of a digital recording which is then transcribed was not a special, for this hearing only, matter. Rather it is supposed to become routine for CHRT hearings.

What is outrageous is that the CHRC apparently got the transcript and then did not tell anyone it was available.

This is simply corrupt. For the government to make a transcript and then use it for public relations purposes rather than making it available to the parties is utterly unfair. As Ezra points out, if a prosecutor in a real court tried a stunt like this the judge might well toss the case as the conduct is so patently unfair.

This is one more reason that the full circumstances, procedures and personnel surrounding s. 13 investigations must be investigated by a judge. It is not just the Lemire matter any longer: there is a culture of corruption and procedural perversion at the CHRC which has tainted every one of its s. 13 prosecutions. Each needs to be re-opened.

I suspect the prospect of another few months of public mockery followed by an unprecedented loss either before the Commissions or in the Courts was more than a little unappetizing. Plus, and I have no way of proving this, the steady erosion of support for the CHRC and the exposure of the CHRC’s wanton disregard for proper investigative methods and procedure, is taking its toll.

A couple of points - Toronto area bloggers, if possible - should try to cover the press conference. Macleans should be looking for an apology and costs from these sock puppets. Remember, the law students are not, in fact, the complainants here. The CIC is and it has the money to pay the significant expenses Macleans has incurred to date.

This is yet another piece of evidence we’re winning.

Update: Steyn “Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You”

Update 2: Deborah Gyapong comes up with a reasonable negotiating position: Unconditional surrender with reparations and an apology.

Update 3: Over in “>Lying Jackal land commentors are handing Warren his head on a platter. He’s banned me from his comments - the truth hurts - but the unbanned are going to town. Now, remember, use that link. Page after page of “Lying Jackal” referrals. Has to leave a mark.

So sue me. It’s too damned funny to miss.

Canada’s greenhouse-gas emissions rose 25 per cent between 1990 and 2005, the biggest percentage increase among G8 countries over the same time period, according to new Statistics Canada figures released Tuesday. cbc

Hmmm…the Conservatives were wiped out in 1988 1993 and did not get back into power until 2006…The Liberals signed Kyoto and hired Rick Mercer as a substitute for an actual program to comply with the terms of the treaty they signed.

I know, let’s blame the CPC.

(Not that there is any reason to actually worry about greenhouse gases in the first place as the science and models are either wrong or unproven; but one might remember that M. Dion was Minister for the environment from 2004-2006 and in Cabinet from 1996 onward. Not terrifically effective was he.)

Gillis quotes the testimony of Dean Stacey in the Lemire matter:

Then there’s the matter of best practices, which at the commission appear pretty far from best. In testimony at the Lemire hearing, Steacy admitted there were no guidelines telling what he could and couldn’t do while surfing, no rules governing how he identified himself, no boss putting his covert musings on hate sites to any sort of ethical smell test. When asked about adopting online pseudonyms, his response could have been mistaken for a mantra for the whole investigative operation: “No one told me I couldn’t do it.” macleans

In a sense this idea that if no one told the CHRC investigators they couldn’t do something they were free to do whatever they wanted frames the entire CHRC/Warman matter. It is the Cheka Charter especially when coupled with an “informal” proceedure and an in house complainant.

Bouquets of Gray puts up a rather interesting dissection of the claim that Warman was the only possible author of the “Anne Cools” message. His conclusion is that literally any Rogers’ subscriber is just as likely - on the tech - to have been the poster. It is something to be considered in the framing of the the responses to the Warman libel actions.

However, as the Gillis piece makes clear, in the overall context of the unsupervised, investigative excesses of the CHRC, this sort of “bait post” makes a certain perverse sense. The objective was to entrap the “haters” by whatever means possible so long as no one had been told expressly not to do something. Warman’s Statement of Claim has been framed very narrowly, he seeks limited damages in the hope of using an expedited procedure to avoid Discovery.

The challenge for the defendants is to expand the scope of the issues before the Court. Critically, the practices and proceedures (such as they were) of the CHRC need to be exposed to scruitiny.

And, once again, in all of this we have to ask - where is the CPC, where’s Harper? I don’t contribute to the CPC but, if I did, I would switch my contributions to the PayPal accounts of Kathy, Kate, Ezra and Free Dominion.

Update: Buckets of Gray is being cited as having put paid to the tech side of the anti-Warman case. Has he? Here is what I posted on his blog as a complete non-tech guy. perhaps my tech friends can set me straight here.

You raise good point Buckets. As I pointed out in my post linking you the Statement(s) of Defense are going to have to come to grips with what you are saying.

However, I am a bit confused about one matter: cache servers, as I understand it, store the pages users access “locally” so that the lag time can be reduced.

Thus, if I commonly go to SDA or the Lying Jackal Kinsella’s pages a copy of those pages will be stored on the cache server.

What I don’t quite get is how, if my understanding is correct, the cache status of the server matters one way or another in terms of Warman’s alleged activities.

Assume for the moment that Warman had (as we know he had) accessed Stormfront before. The cache server saved the page. The alleged Warman computer was hot to post a little screed on Senator Cools and called the page. It got the page from the cache server and then posted the filth. Which was passed on from the cache server.

Nothing abnormal about the tech. And nothing in the least bit exculpatory as to the post.

But, as I say, I am not that tech savvy or network knowledgeable.” comment, bouquets of gray

The thing about shining a light in dark corners is that the cockroachs don’t like it.

On the second day, the evidence is changed. A new document is inserted in place of an existing one. Tab 17. You have no knowledge that a document was produced just a couple days prior, at the Commission’s office, nor that it was produced by the complainant himself, with full cooperation from the Commission. blazing catfur

Well just imagine….