Lucy under investigation
Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
Defence.I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for
conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and
the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is
forthcoming. free dominion
Personally I rather doubt that Lucy will be found to be in conflict of interest. But the report will be interesting and the push back is important.
Far more interesting would be to know which – if any – of the three stories in the press of Lucy’s departure from the CHRC are true. I suspect it will all come out in the cross examination in the Canada Five trial which seems to be hung up at the moment. Could it be that Lucy’s lawyer has not met the disclosure requirements which exist under even the Simplified Procedure of the Ontario Courts? Or that the CHRC is stonewalling document requests from the defence? Difficult to say but the Lucy litigation seems to have ground to a halt.
And, while we’re looking at press release by writ, I wonder how the Jackal’s gajillion dollar suit against Ezra is coming along? Or how “Serenity Now” Vigna’s suit against Ez is doing? And what about all those Alberta Law Society complaints? Could they have been dismissed? ‘Cause knowing the Jackal, if he won even a booby prize it would be front page news.
And, hey, when is the coward Lynch going to sue someone for pointing out she is either a liar or an incompetent? Because that would be the motherlode of discovery and we already know how hopeless she is as an advocate for the CHRC’s position.
Update: If you are arriving here via Mark Steyn (and blessings for the link Mark) you will notice the link to Free Dominion above does not work. To read the correspondence click here.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:54 am
You’re one step away from peeking through people’s windows to see if they have granite countertops, aren’t you, Jay.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:30 am
Interesting as in the earlier post from Harry I had no idea what he was referring to. Now I do.
I am not at all surprised at the “push back” and would not be surprised to see this as one of many. The Lustig case Ezra referred to in “Denormalization” goes well beyond “Conflict of Interest” as do the various libel suits as they reflect back on DND and on it’s ability to hire people from all walks of life. Their stance must be totally neutral and as in other parts of the public service – behavior even after hours is considered relevant to departmental performance.
Lynch is another matter as she heads a totally dysfunctional agency that even by her own admission is a Deer frozen in the headlights of public and MSM criticism.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:29 am
Some of you really have this kinky fetish thing going on about Ms. Lynch.
There’s even a T-shirt beating up on her.
Canada has HRC’s. get over it.
So does every other democratic country.
OK they need fixing. But tying tin cans around cats’ tails doesn’t help a thing. (I meant that figuratively)
August 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Harry, you may want to catch up a bit. Lynch and her cronies at the CHRC have been on a publicity campaign ever since the Moon Report suggested that they get out of the censorship racket. First off, it is not her place to be conducting a political campaign. Second, if she is conducting such a campaign she should at least get her facts straight. Three, if she wants to “have a debate” she really should actually have one with the people who have been leading the charge to have s. 13 repealed – that would be Ezra and Mark. Four, she should stop referring to the people criticizing s. 13 as being from the far right – I mean, seriously, PEN is a far right organization? Five, she should drop the McCarthyite “I have a list” claim altogether – that is called a healthy debate. Six, she should drop the “poor, poor, pitiful me” routine on the “death threat front”. For all we know the “death threat”, like so many of the postings on various sites, could have been written by one of her staffers.
She is a silly woman, a coward and a liar and, quite frankly, it makes good sense to attack her relentlessly so as to keep the spotlight on the CHRC. Happily, the silly woman cannot open her mouth without making a whacky accusation or telling an obvious lie so that is a bonus. (And it is working. The CHRC is so petrified of how easy it is to rip Lynch’s remarks that it has not even posted her CBA speech to its website – they know a walking PR disaster when they see one.)
August 21st, 2009 at 10:25 am
Calling Jennifer Lynch a “coward and a liar” is typical childlike bullying that, as I have said on countless occasions, TURNS OFF most middle-of-the-road Canadians. It helps separate the cranky right-wing extreme ideologues from most rational Conservatives and Liberals. The more you sound immature the more people turn away. That your ideological buddies sing in harmony is to be expected.
Secondly, do you have any idea how long it takes before a libel action gets into a court of law? As for the law society complaints I would also have expected, knowing your friend Ezra that he too if he had heard anything suggesting “he won even a booby prize it would be front page news.”
August 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Leftards like that are always in a conflict of interest—they’re always at loggerheads with common sense, by definition!
August 21st, 2009 at 10:35 am
Mord, nice of you to drop by. We will have to agree to differ on the relative effectiveness of calling a spade a spade. Frankly, our tactics to date have driven the CHRC to the point that ““For the moment the obligation to defend our existence monopolizes our energy.” Frankly, that tells me we are doing something right. Well, that and the fact that other than Topham the CHRC has not initiated a s. 13 in at least six months. Probably because it has realized, after Ouwendyk that its chief complainant, Lucy, is toxic before the Tribunal.
As to how long it takes for a libel action to come to trial that tends to depend upon the level of pre-trial discovery and the co-operation of the parties in that discovery. Given that under the Simplified Procedure Lucy is (in my view, improperly) using there is no oral discovery, a year would seem a reasonable period.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Mord, you might note this rather useful concept:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.” Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 am
Sorry Harry – your statement: “Some of you really have this kinky fetish thing going on about Ms. Lynch.There’s even a T-shirt beating up on her.
Canada has HRC’s. get over it. So does every other democratic country”.
Burny wore a nice T-Dhirt though didn’t he.
Other countries do not have corporate malfeasance and mismanagement in the structure for long. There are public inquiries even when the RCMP make a small mistake.
Your strong defence of your HRCs remains me of a take on Charlston Heston’s fameous ARA (real ARA - not the 1 man dog and pony show) “You shall take the Smoking Gun out of our CHRC over our cold, wet and lifeless hands” :)
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
Mordechai:
Funny you say that. Pulled right from the DNC playbook. Sorry. Wrong country.
BTW, the vigorous and rowdy debate in that country isn’t alienating the middle of the road Americans either.
The only reaction people have to Ezra is that it couldn’t be true since it is incredible. When they find that it is, they get mad.
Derek
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
Once again, Mord demonstrates how out of the loop he is. If only I were at liberty to speak.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
It would be interesting to see the notice of competition and its follow on procedure that the gentleman would likely have had to enter and win in attaining his present position at DND, if there were appeals by unsuccessful fellow applicants, what clearances were involved, the special investigation powers, if any, conferred, and whether initial probation was waived, has expired on time, or lengthened.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Jay, your post to “Harry” at 9:43 is the bee’s knees, man. Kudos.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Jay:
“..she really should actually have one with the people who have been leading the charge to have s. 13 repealed – that would be Ezra and Mark…”
That’s funny, because neither Ezra nor Steyn faced Federal section 13 charges.
Don’t disappoint Jeff. Get your facts right first time.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Jay:
Any reason you can think of that Free-D pulled the “next bus stop Lucyville” thread? Curious.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Lawfare takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. I guess we are all interested in where the time is spent, and whose money is involved.
When you’re on the way to the gulag, it’s always nice to know who bought the train ticket. Then when you get back ten or twenty years later, you can thank them personally for such a wonderful trip.
If Cabinet ministers are actually going to get into oversight now, may I also recommend some investigation into the reported Lynch “enemies list” and perhaps some poking around the back rooms of Env Canada to see who stands to profit the most from climate change hysteria.
I know, it all sounds hopelessly democratic, but I am such a gullible voter, I actually believed PMSH when he talked about accountability.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Yes Dawg…it does appear to have gone into cyberspace.
One can only guess that they were advised that it was not the best thing to do.
One has every right to complain about the actions of a Public servant (actions on or off the job) but until the determination is made – the matter should remain private. I think, in fact, that correspondance between an individual and a Minister is Protected and Confidential until it is made public somehow. The Public Service “brown-envelope” strategy is a favorite tool of geetting around it save for a usele$$ Freedom of Information request.
But as I look at your site, the attacks against the police and individual police officers, is also playing with fire. The facts speak for themselves but Libel suits do not have to restrict themselves to truth but also damage to an individuals reputation.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
The morning wisdom:
“Personal responsiblity has never been popular, and it’s even less so today. After all, if it’s your fault, there’s no one to sue.” Chuck Colson.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 am
Dawg, apparently on advice of counsel FD made the decision to take the material I linked to down. If I can get it I will post it here. No one is suing me…yet.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
But as I look at your site, the attacks against the police and individual police officers, is also playing with fire. The facts speak for themselves but Libel suits do not have to restrict themselves to truth but also damage to an individuals reputation.
Truth is a defence, and I have said nothing in this area that cannot be backed up.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 am
Jay Currie channeling Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky, will wonders ever cease? Welcome to the left Jay. Does Sid Ryan know you are here?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Hi Jay,
What exactly is the complaint that necessitated an investigation? Why is Richard Warman in a possible conflict of interest? I couldn’t find anything on Free Dominion.
Thanks.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Going after a person at his place of work. Nice.
McCarthy could have learned lessons from you lot.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:34 am
The calls for “quiet and intellectual” debate first came from those mega hypocrites within the Obama campaign who theorized that it could work as a wedge issue between the rich, refined, moneybags Republicans of the northeast and the uncouth, knuckle dragging Palin followers to minimize her chances of future success. The fact that their Canadian leftist farm team is trying to make it work here for any remotely similar scenario is reassuring in its vacuity.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Dawg, and how many complaints have Lucy and the Jackal lodged against Ezra at the Law Society of Alberta?
Pot meet kettle.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Pot meet kettle? Nope.
Apples meet oranges.
August 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
As for the comments by those who are defending Ms. Lynch; grow up. The truth hurts your pride. Due to your lack of understanding of the issues at hand, you want bad Ezra & Mark to leave the poor little girl alone and stop picking on her. Well I also agree with Ezra and Mark; call a ‘spade a spade’. As someone who is supposed to be honest, open and responsible, Ms. Lynch (and her hired help) has shown herself to be a liar and self-centered. These useless HRC’s couldn’t have picked better opponents for their ‘so-called’ fight than Ezra & Mark. For those supporting the HRC’s, are you so gullible that you have not taken the time to research current Canadian law that already prohibits hatred, thus the courts, run by actual trained judges, should be handling all human rights complaints. This would ensure that those being accused ALSO have rights; right to an attorney, right to due process and so on. There is an old saying that is still true today, “Better to be thought of as a fool, than to open your mouth and take away all doubt.”