On the Record
saying Warman had the same IP address for each time.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) LucyWarman 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 profilesaccounts created for single purposes
Warman to run off docs for evidence
Anne Cools – 14 minutes – one post, never to post againtalking about Warman’s response to application for Rogers freedominion
Looking bad for Lucy…where is the Lying Jackal when you need him??
September 18th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Very interesting;)
September 18th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“Warman was asked if he registered. Warman denied ever registereing on Freedomsite. Denies 3 times.”
Very interesting indeed;)
September 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Isn’t bernard Klatt associated with numerous neo=Nazi sites? Or is Bnai Brith wrong?
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit1998/audit1998-08.html
September 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
And one more site that explains much
http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/05/klatts-clunkers-why-bernard-klatt.html
September 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Sue930, Klatt’s odious associations are well known. However the Tribunal has accepted him as an expert with respect to the internet.
bouquets of grey has done an excellent job of giving plausible sounding reasons why it might not have been Warman who posted the Cools garbage. However, none of those reasons have been before the Tribunal in the Lemire matter. Largely because what is at issue in Lemire is the general pattern of Warman’s disgusting and, apparently, unauthorized conduct. (I note that at least one CHRC manager is on record as saying Warman broke no rules because there are no rules. Lovely.
I note that you don’t have to like Lemire’s politics (and I don’t) to want him succeed in attacking the constitutionality of s. 13 and the tactics of the CHRC.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
And I note that you don’t have to like Warman’s investigative techniques to defend the constitutionality of s. 13. The constitutionality of a law and the constitutionality of the methods used to enforce the law are separate questions
BTW, those chicken scratches and sentence fragments to which you attach such significance are some free dominion crank’s summary of Lemire’s lawyer’s closing arguments, aren’t they? It’s her job to make Warman look bad. She’d be a pretty poor lawyer if she couldn’t do it. But it ain’t evidence.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Isn’t bernard Klatt associated with numerous neo=Nazi sites? Or is Bnai Brith wrong?
And exactly how does that limit his right of free speech or freedom from entrapment? As Jay has pointed out, it is not necessary to like anything (and it is even possible to actively dislike everything) Klatt says and stands for while still believing that the CHRT/CHRC are vastly overstepping their proper bounds. On the other hand, arguing by ad hominem is much less of an intellectual challenge, and it appeals to some people.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
tw, I suspect most of the readers of this blog are aware of the distinction between argument and evidence. However, argument proceeds from evidence and it is in evidence that Warman first denied – three times – ever having registered at freedomsite and then, when confronted with direct evidence that he had registered, “stood corrected”.
Drawing the Members’ attention to this evidence is what a lawyer does in argument.
Evidence of Warman’s (and the CHRC’s) Cheka like “investigative” techniques has been entered. More would have been entered had the Tribunal allowed Lemire enough time to actually, and fairly, respond to the disclosure he had had to go to Federal Court to obtain from the CHRC. And the Member’s attention was, in argument, drawn to these abuses of process and power.
Now, tw, after argument comes a decision and in that decision the Member is going to find facts based on the evidence before him. No one rebutted the evidence led by Lemire as to Warman’s behaviour and posts. No one rebutted the allegations of misconduct on the part of the CHRC investigators. There is no evidence to the contrary. Which leaves the Member with two choices: he can make is ruling without considering that evidence (perhaps on the grounds of irrelevance) or he can accept that evidence and make his ruling based, in part, upon it. If the later then Warman’s conduct will be dealt with by the Tribunal and certain facts, based on the evidence, will be found.
Between Mair and the unrebutted evidence in Lemire I am not liking Warman’s chances in his libel action.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Warman first denied…when confronted with direct evidence that he had registered, “stood corrected”.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Jay,
The Mair case dealt with fair comment; that is, an expression of opinion. The allegation that Warman made the Cools post, which lies at the heart of Warman’s libel action, is pretty clearly a statement of fact. In other words, Mair is of little help to the Lying Five defendants.
And even if the Tribunal finds, as a fact, that Warman did make the Cools post, the court hearing the libel action is not bound by that finding, since the Cools post is, at best, a side issue in Lemire.
As, for that matter, are Warman’s investigative techniques. If Lemire broke the law – which is, whether we like the law or not, the issue here—it’s not because Warman coaxed him into doing so. Warman may have played along with the hatemongers, but the charge of entrapment is, from my review of the evidence, a red herring.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Spin it left, spin it right, try and spin it anyway you folks want.
Counsel for the CHRC gave up thir case on the third day and tried to have the documentation exonerating Lemire tossed on a very feeble technicality.
Counsel for AG changed sails and tried a different tack, admitting there was a real abuse of process but wanted the case tossed on administrative law rather than on constitutional law.
The truth was self evident.
I was there !
Everyone in the courtroom could see it – clear as daylight.
Canada railroaded an innocent man for political expediency.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I have always found this post by Mike Brock to be interesting. It shows documents printed by Warman, at around the same time as the Cools post, & submitted by Warman as evidence to the CHRT, and interestingly they bear the same IP address. How odd is that?
http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2008/02/for-the-less-technical.html
September 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Very interesting. Lemire broke what law? Warman by posting as a neo-nazi (is he or isn’t he one) therefore broke the same law. All efforts to charge him under Section 13.1 have fallen on deaf ears.
Of disgust is that his conduct in the testimony/trial indicates total contempt of the process and all the denials, evasive answers and so on would never be accepted in a real court.
As a non-lawyer, perjury, obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, tampering with evidence and denial of Lemire’s rights spring to mind.
He is after all a (perhaps) DND employee and when has DND ever allowed it’s employees to spy on Canadians inside the country???
Canada’s Scopes/Kangeroo trial at it’s best.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:25 am
LS,
“Lemire broke what law? Warman by posting as a neo-nazi (is he or isn’t he one) therefore broke the same law.”
S. 13 doesn’t govern the identity of the poster, but the content of the post. Specifically, the section has been interpreted by courts as a governing an extreme form of speech. As far as I can tell, nothing Warman has admitted posting has come even close to the extremes defined by the SCC.
As for this, “He is after all a (perhaps) DND employee and when has DND ever allowed it’s employees to spy on Canadians inside the country???”
Warman may currently be employed by DND, but he’s pursuing this as a private citizen. And I don’t know where you get the idea that visiting websites that are available to the public and taking note of what’s posted there is “spying”.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Warman’s libel case against Levant I believe has legs, You simply cannot call people names, impugn their character, and continue to do so time and again. None of the allegations against Warman have ever been proven and at no time has he ever been charged with any crime. Levant better have some pretty deep pockets.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:43 am
tw,”And I don’t know where you get the idea that visiting websites that are available to the public and taking note of what’s posted there is “spying”.”
Possibly it was the Commission’s claim of public interest immunity under the Evidence Act which fooled us.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
> “Klatt’s odious associations are well known. However the Tribunal has accepted him as an expert with respect to the internet.”
BZZZZTTTT wrong answer. I won’t use Agfa film today, or anything made by IG Farben, because they had Nazi links. Nor will I ride in rocketships, because of Werner von Braun.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 am
Truewest (to answer your question)...if you read the transcript and the testimony from the Warman vs. Lemire persecution and others…it is pretty obvious that various CHRC employees, agents such as “Estate” and Mark lV, plus of course Lucy under a variety of IDs – posted some pretty odious and hateful stuff on Lemire’s site. Enough to have them charged under 13.1 = YES but the cHRC is NOT entertaining such motions.
I find the Lucy transition from the Ottawa Citizen 07 article, to the MacLean’s (08) article and now the G&M (09) one interesting as there is a movement from crusader, to victim and now to victim martyr. Now really does anyone care enough about this non-entity with a zealotry complex to care enough to keep posting/writing articles???
Strange as so many of the same issues, alledged versions and phrases show up, I wonder whether Lucy is all of even any of the above noted. His parents fighting the Nazis was a hoot..Now it was something in 1991 – just about the time the ARA/CSIS and the CJC got together to create Grant Bristow and the Heritage Front. His Bio reads like a comic book. A degree in Drama seems appropriate.
But Eddy Taylor – a lawyer at the CHRC during Warman’s tenure at the CHRC was definitely pushed and that was quite public. Lucy in the 2007 article praises Taylor btw. If Lucy was pushed – I am surprised there was no outcry.
All Government of Canada departments have “Codes of Conduct” and it is a disciplinary offence even if their private conduct and actions brings the department into disrepute. This certainly is true for DND.
See what I am saying? Your defence is suspicious to say the least!
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 am
But truwest…not to go on and on and on…here is the timeline from another blog as to the infameous Heritage Front Affair CSIS would probably not like retold over and over and over again.
http://kevinsteel.org/docs/timeline1.html
As I recall, our friend “Lucy” was working in/at a “Food Bank” in To – in and around that time.
And when it all collapsed because of media exposure…off he went to work for the Green Party in the UK where ….Space Lizards? Bit odd coincidences don’t you think but I am sure Makin looked at and in each and every dark and deep corner.