Comments on: Lucy slapps my pals

By: Rod Blaine

Rod Blaine — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:05:22 +0000

Tell me, folks, does Canadian jurisprudence still retain any semblance of the common-law doctrine of apprehended bias - the principle that a decision-maker is disqualified from handling a particular matter if the ordinary man [sic] on the Charlottetown bar stool might reasonably assume that person is not impartial? - that even though the “great and the good” know that of course their friend is to be trusted, the great unwashed may not have the same sophisticated grasp of nuance?

If so, I submit that the known actions of HRC gumshoes in using aliases may well make all future HRC hate-crimes inquests vulnerable to invalidation for apprehended bias. Even if the “Getting Warmen-er, Getting Cools-er” link is, as the Scots say, Not Proven. Accurate or not, it’s plausible. The standard for apprehended bias is not criminal proof b~ r~ doubt, it’s simply balance of probs.

I regard it as grimly amusing that some of those now cautioning “Don’t be too quick to assume that a known left-wing sock-puppet-master would have used a sock-puppet to vilify a Visible Minority official immediately after the latter publicly opposes a left-wing cause…” were somewhat less, ah, delicate about preserving the presumption of innocence vs. guilt by association when the jackboot was on the other foot (“Steyn’s using Lemire’s lawyer! Here’s someone who looks like Lemire standing next to Zundel! Ergo Steyn’s a Nazi!”).

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:12:53 +0000

Jay,

Will you just go and read this:

http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-there-is-room-for-doubt-about.html

and

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/misc/meaculpa.html

I support reforming our libel laws, and have no problem scrutinizing the methods and reach of the HRCs, but falsely blaming a person for the content of a racist, misogynist public post is not a use of free speech I can support.

Want to see some libel cases worth fighting? Go to

http://crookeslawsuits.pbwiki.com/

By: Skip

Skip — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:25:27 +0000

IP, the total claim is $50,000. He is holding all defendants “jointly and severally”, meaning he gets $50,000, from any or all, to a total of 50K. More importantly, he is also asking for punitive damages. Structuring the suit to avoid discovery in order to avoid having any possible connection he might have had with the postings (even if he did not make them, as he claims) at issue brought to light is an abuse of legal process, in my view, and may well deny the defendants an equitable hearing. It is much easier for counsel to challenge the introduction of collateral info at trial then might be the case in the relative informality of discovery.

By: James Goneaux

James Goneaux — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:39:20 +0000

I wonder if, as Ezra has put in another case, the discovery process will be, in fact, “proctological”….

First step: subpeona all HRC computers…I see an expensive process indeed.

By: Intellectual Pariah

Intellectual Pariah — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:51:18 +0000

Is Warman going for $50,000 per defendant or $50,000 altogether?

By: Vinny Vidivici

Vinny Vidivici — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:05:20 +0000

Not sure what discovery rules are like in Canada, but when I heard about this I was reminded of the movie character (not sure which movie) who said a subpoena is a beautiful thing.

By: Mordechai

Mordechai — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:31:28 +0000

For those suggesting this is a “free speech” issue think again. This is a matter of libel. One in which Ezra is all too familiar both as a plaintiff and a defendant.

Mr. Warman it seems has secured one of canada’s top libel lawyers. So this is pretty serious. Dr. Dawg has got it right as well, the allegations against Warman re the CHRC business is just that allegations. None of which can be used unless fully proved. The accusations of criminal activity lodged by some in the right wing blogosphere against Warman and the CHRC are in my view actionable. They certainly will have absolutely no bearing on the libel proceedings except in Warman’s favour where he will use them to prove ongoing libel.

Sit back relax, this is a slow process but in the end those who libel have much to be wary of.

By: Rose

Rose — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:53:58 +0000

I’ve been reading transcripts at Free Dominion and the question I pose is: Will Warman show up for his civil cases or will he blackberry his testimony to the Judge?

LOL talk about arrogance.

By: Jim Whyte

Jim Whyte — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:39:49 +0000

It doesn’t come to discovery. See Newman’s post about 2/3 of the way down:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/04/richard-warman-has-sued-me-and.html

Warman does not want to sit through a cross.

By: Sholto Douglas

Sholto Douglas — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:46:46 +0000

One wonders why Lucy hasn’t gone after Steyn, who must be the juiciest trophy, both financially and ideologically. After all, Steyn made one of the most unequivocal linkages between Lucy and l’affaire Cools.
As Ezra suggested, he is going for several smaller bites ($50k each), each small enough to keep unwelcome scrutiny and discovery to a minimum. To go after Steyn and Macleans of course would bring in Rogers, who might just make that extra effort to find those logs.