Lucy rides again
Blazing Catfur points to a strange new marsupial appearing at a CHRT hearing in Hamilton. It’s none other than our old pal Richard Warman.
Weirdly, the CHRC, having pushed the matter to a hearing decided at the last minute to pull out of the proceedings. Normally that would be the end of the proceedings. But when Richard Warman is involved “normally” is inoperative. Warman is the complainant in the Hamilton matter and, for reasons which are at present obscure, the hearing chair Edward Peter Lustig has allowed Warman to conduct the hearing apparently in place of the Commission.
Whether this is, well, legal, is an interesting question. Even more interesting, early reports have it that Warman first denied having signed up for the forum at the center of the complaint but, when confronted with the fact that many of the screen shots entered as evidence of the alleged hate had been made by someone logged in as “Saxon”, Warman apparently fessed up and admitted that he had indeed signed up for the forum. We need to wait for official transcripts to confirm all this but it sure looks like Warman, once again, has been just the tiniest bit economical with the truth. Under oath. There is a legal term for that….
August 21st, 2008 at 11:01 am
This is very strange. Is it an act of hubris on the part of Warman & the CHRT?
August 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Assuming the allegations contained in early reports are accurate, Warman attempted to introduce new evidence at the last minute, evidence the defence would not have seen. This was a favourite Old-School Ambush Tactic of the CHRC. W got shot down by the Tribunal this time however. We will however have to wait for the transcripts to confirm these astounding allegations.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
You know what is strange? That you folks, having obsessed about the human rights process like a bunch of 9/11 truthers, still don’t understand the first damn thing about HRT procedure. In particular, you seem to think of the Commission as some branch of the Public Prosecution Service; that is, a prosecutorial body that takes carriage of complaints and reduces the complainant to a mere witnesses in the prosecution (yeah, I know, you say “persecution”) undertaken in the name of the Crown.
In fact, once the complaint clears the commission, the complainant has carriage of the complaint, has the right to be represented by counsel (or appear on his own behalf, as Warman has chosen to do) calls his own witnesses and makes his own arguments. The commission can take a position on a particular case— if it believes to do but is not required to take part in the proceedings.
So it’’s not really an interesting question whether this is legal. It is.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Cool…So when the CHRC decides to drop the matter noble Lucy can continue the good fight. Thanks tw, it was not obvious from the earlier cases where Warman did not even bother to show up.
Of course, I suspect you will admit that being a bit economical with the truth under oath does indeed have a legal name.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Warman’s the complainant. His name appears in the style of cause. Why would you think that his participation is contingent on the ongoing involvement of the Commission?
August 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Beacause, to date, the Commission has had carriage of all s.13 complaints. But, hey, if Lucy wants to run his own complaint who am I to complain. Of course there is the little matter of the CHRC effectively having the sole capacity to bring on a complaint; but, again, there does not seem to be any rule stating that in the event the CHRC drops a complaint the notional complainant does not have the right to carry on.
I suspect Lucy is going down on this one but perhaps not. After all, he has “stood corrected” before the Tribunal before.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 am
We need to wait for official transcripts to confirm all this but it sure looks like Warman, once again, has been just the tiniest bit economical with the truth. Under oath. There is a legal term for that….
Yeah Jay, one might call it perjury.
When the complainant continues relentlessly to bilk and badger other Canadian citizens with an opposing point of view that is aided and abetted by these agenda-driven, “constitutionally challenged chumps”, I gather there may be a legal term for that too – extortion..
Fire.Them.All.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 am
Jay,
Carriage? The Commission may appeared and taken a position on all s. 13 complaints, but in most of those I reviewed, Warman has also appeared on his own behalf. When he hasn’t appeared, it’s typically because someone like Paul Fromm (who is appearing as an intervenor and not as counsel) has raised allegations about the commissions conduct. In other words, it’s hardly accurate to speak of conducts.
My suggestion – rather than parrot Levant, whose misrepresentations of the human rights process are driven by his political and personal agendas, try reading the act.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
tw, yes the Act does allow a named party to appear and, apparently, conduct, a matter before the Tribunal. However, looking at the Tribunal’s actual operation it looks to me as if this is the first time this has actually happened.
This bit of procedural innovation is, of course, a distraction from the evidence Warman is giving about his ongoing use of aliases on the net and the fact that until confronted with direct evidence of his use of such alias he seems to have attempted to deny this. I say seems because, at this point, there is no transcript to check this against.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Jay,
It’s hardly the first time it’s happened. Warman has appeared on his own behalf at most s.13 hearings and, I presume, has examined witness, made submissions, etc.
As for your accusation that Warman has perjured himself, I would suggest that you look more closely at the elements of perjury. Given the multiplicity of handles he employs (or, in the ridiculous coinage of Levant and his lawyer “false personas”) it strikes me that it would be very difficult to make out a key element of that offence—intent to mislead, since mistake is a more likely.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
tw, I suggest you read my post again…
I have noted that Warman has been economical with the truth, I have said nothing as to what legal conclusion might be taken from that economy while under oath.
Meanwhile, pop over to the link in today’s post on Warman and do give us the benefit of your opinion as to Warman’s conduct in the matter of the creditor’s proposal.
I suspect there is a legal term for that conduct as well.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Jay,
There is no legal term for being “economical with the truth”, particularly when one is being cross-examined. The witness box is not a confessional and every lawyer will instruct his client to answer only the question asked, to tell only what he knows and not to guess or explain. If you’re trying to avoid a defamation suit by being coy, do note that a libel claim can be based on innuendo.
As for Warman’s conduct in the matter of the creditor’s proposal, I fail to see what you’re all worked up about. Nazi-boy bobbed and weaved and tried to strike the claim and when that failed he filed his proposal, quite possibly to avoid paying Warman anything and to get from under his other debts as well. If you’re expecting me to shed tears for Mastercard and Canadian Tire because they have to share Nazi-boy’s meagre assets with Warman, you’ll have to come up with something better than the nudge-nudge wink wink argument you and BCF have mounted so far.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:41 am
tw, if you concede that Warman never obtained a Judgment for $12,000 against Mr. O, and if you concede that he put in a claim as creditor for that amount with the Trustee, and if you concede he is lawyer, I am stunned you would slough off that conduct. Mark my words, the Law Society of Ontario is going to catch up with him on this one. And rightfully so.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
kgg,
Warman’s proof of claim and accompanying submission, some of whcih can be found in the link Jay has provided in another post,made clear that this claim wasn’t based on a judgment. There was no attempt to mislead and while I’m not expert in bankruptcy law, it appears that Warman is entitled to file the claim that he did. Certainly, the trustee accepted the claim and none of the other creditors appears to objected.
Speaking of expertise, are you a lawyer? Do you have experience in bankruptcy or professional discipline? Or are you one of those people who says, “I’m not a lawyer, but…” and then proceeds to offer a legal opinion on a complext area of law?
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
tw, I am a lawyer. I have almost no experience in bankruptcy law. I do have experience in professional discipline having acted for lawyers at disciplinary hearings before the Law Society (of BC). Creditors are entitled to make claims against a trustee in Bankruptcy. You can be secured or unsecured but you have to be a creditor. All Warman had was an unliquidated claim for damages and I don’t think you need to be a lawyer to know that does not make you a creditor. Just because the Trustee accepted the claim and none of the creditors (I won’t say OTHER creditors because Warman isn’t one)objected doesn’t make it right, especially if it is a lawyer doing it. And this particular point (having to have actually obtained a judgment to become a creditor) is not complex. It’s pretty basic.
August 24th, 2008 at 12:20 am
kgg,
Bankruptcy law has its quirks, many of which revolve around the issue of what is (and what is not) a “provable claim”.
In this case, you have admitted you have no experience in bankruptcy law, and yet nonetheless go on to offer an opinion as to who has the right to file a proof of claim, and under what circumstances they may do so.
As someone who has experience in professional discipline, let me ask you this: how would you defend a lawyer who has offered an opinion on an area of law in which he has little or no experience and in which he has done absolutely no research?
August 24th, 2008 at 1:14 am
truewest:
Regarding this: Speaking of expertise, are you a lawyer? Do you have experience in bankruptcy or professional discipline? Or are you one of those people who says, “I’m not a lawyer, but…” and then proceeds to offer a legal opinion on a complext area of law?
Civil debate means one contests what is said, not who is saying it. Besides being perilously close to a (presumptuous?) argument from, or appeal to, authority (a logical fallacy), your questions fail to take into consideration that:
1) pretty much all the case law, and certainly a huge number of learned texts on the practice, philosophy and history of law are available in libraries, on the Internet and in private book collections. There are, as well, any number of people who do not have academic or professional qualifications who have, nonetheless, significant reading and knowledge in a wide range of academic disciplines—including law.
2) even with or without that knowledge, because lay people with or without great technical expertise are actually subject to—and the main subject of—The Law, they may be properly excused for having opinions and questions on it. It’s their business, and they may also just have a good idea about the right and wrong of things.
August 24th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Since making my last comment, I did look at Warman’s proof of claim and accompanying documentation and agree he didn’t attempt to mislead and I apologize for that but I remain of the view that he is not a creditor just because he commenced an action.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Ron,
No offence, but the question of whether or not Warman is entitled to file a proof of claim based on his claim as it stood at the time of the proposal is a very specific question in a fairly technical area of law. And while I’m sure that many people, including lawyers without experience in bankruptcy law, might have an opinion on that question, the fact remains that what is required here is an informed opinion.
If Warman was well within in his rights to file the claim, then the suggestion that he is or should be in the Law Society’s cross-hairs is just so much hot air. If he actually did something wrong, he may have some explaining to do.
I haven’t the time or energy to flip through Houlden and Morawetz’s , Annotated Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act to find the answer to that question, but based on my limited knowledge I suspect that Warman’s in the clear. But if you’d like to prove me wrong, fill your boots.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Actually tw, based on the limited research I did, so long as the trustee has accepted the claim – which apparently he has – then at law Warman is entitled to be paid out. It is not a terrifically difficult area at a technical level.
Now, whether or not making the claim in the first place – given that the Court had in no way ruled on the merits of the claim – is proper or within the best traditions of the law is another matter altogether. A matter, frankly, of pure opinion. My opinion is that, absent a judgment, Warman was properly entitled to the $100.00 in costs he was awarded.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
tw: Firstly, I said I have next to no experience in bankruptcy, not no experience. In any event, are you suggesting one can not offer an opinion on a subject unless they are an expert on that subject? You yourself state that you are not an expert on bankruptcy law but then proceed to offer an opinion on the subject. Are you an expert on perjury? Because you offer an opinion on the key elements of perjury as well. I’ve never managed a hockey team but am happy to offer an opinion on what the Canucks need to do to improve (It’s clear the Canucks in fact share the same view as I do because they didn’t even make an offer to Naslund). It’s a question of how much weight (if any) you may wish to give the opinion. And remember, it is just an opinion. In almost every trial, the two sides have received differing legal opinions from their respective lawyers. One of them is almost always wrong. I never said I was an expert on the subject. I never even said I was a lawyer. You asked me and I gave you a straight forward answer. While Jay’s blog isn’t a forum per se, it effectively becomes one when he invites comments which you, and others, have taken him up on. But you seem to be saying, in effect, “you don’t know what you are talking about so shut up”. Which makes sense since you are clearly not on the “free speech” side. As for your last point, I don’t see how that has any bearing on this. I’m unaware I have any clients reading this that are relying on my opinion. As I said, no one would even know I was a lawyer if you hadn’t asked. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know what is wrong and what is right. I do note that, as before, you don’t really address the substantive part of my comment other than to make the very general comment that bankruptcy law has its’ quirks.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
kgg,
Sorry for ribbing you like that. For my real point, see my reply to Ron.
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion. As am I. As is Ron and Jay and the dog on the corner. Hower, while all of us, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, sit around flapping our jaws about whether or not we think Warman was entitled to file a claim, the correct answer to the question is likely lurking out there somewhere. In the meantime, the real issue—whether or not Warman has done something that requires professional discipline—hangs in the air like a bad smell, its outcome entirely contigent on whether or not he was acting within his rights when he filed a proof of claim.
Seems to me those who stated Warman’s done something wrong and should be disciplined should bear the burden of answering the first question: was Warman allowed at law to file a proof of claim or was that a bit of sharp practice that merits further investigation?
BTW, I’m very much on the free speech side. However, I’m also aware that defamation law, when abused by folks like Conrad Black and Ezra Levant, is a far greater threat to freedom of speech than human rights codes that provide remedies in extreme cases of hate speech.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
truewest: re the fact remains that what is required here is an informed opinion.
You have my total agreement on that, and I very much appreciate your civil tone. One would hope that a good answer would come from a lawyer—especially if they’re all you seem to feel they’re cracked up to be. But lawyers don’t have a stranglehold on depth or insight.
“However, I’m also aware that defamation law, when abused by folks like Conrad Black and Ezra Levant, is a far greater threat to freedom of speech than human rights codes that provide remedies in extreme cases of hate speech.”
We aren’t discussing defamation law but I’ll accept that it might be horrible, too. I’m the anarchist here so I’m open to those arguments ;-)
re: If Warman was well within in his rights to file the claim, then the suggestion that he is or should be in the Law Society’s cross-hairs is just so much hot air.
Well, he may be within his permissions. but rights are more than mere permissions.