Warman “misled” the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Mislead….it is such a wonderfully ambiguous word.
John Pasheco at Socon or Bust has been digging through transcripts and matching up statements from various Warman actions. Ezra Levant summarizes the often hard to follow twists and turns of Jadewarr and Richard Warman’s use of that account.
At a minimum Warman was economical with the truth when he testified in the Lemire matter. And, as Ezra points out, he does not seem to be the only Commission employee, counsel or serial complainant with guilty knowledge of Jadewarr who was less than frank with th Tribunal.
Yet more evidence that the investigation unit on s. 13 was operating without proper management or, for that matter, any ethical bearings whatsoever.
The entire shop needs to be investigated. And, if it turns out that Warman did indeed “mislead” the Tribunal while under Oath those investigations might involve a question of perjury. A question going to intent.
Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine how Athanasios Hadjis, the Tribunal Member hearing the Lemire matter can continue to limit the cross examination of the Commissions’ staffers and Warman himself given what appears to be fresh evidence. (And imagine just how annoyed Hadjis must be at these schoolboy shenaigans.)
- So that BCL does not sound any more crazy than usual…I had misspelled “misled” “mislead”.
How do we contact Mr. Hadjis?
Yeah but your title should read “misled”, pea brain.
I am delighted to finally see this part being highlighted. This was the testimony I mentioned at SDA, but without an official transcript it was difficult to describe the implications without getting sued. Now the audio of the March 25th hearing combined with the transcript of the Beaumont hearing speaks for itself.
Kudos to John for continuing to bring those audio recordings to light.
I’m glad you got right to the heart of that one, bcl. Keep up the good work!
So the only itsy-bitsy issue BCL can find here is the spelling error…I guess that’s all that can be said; after all, how can a sane person support the lies of Lucy the Pieman (or perhaps I should say Piewoman).
BCL, a spelling meme is the 1st and last refuge of scoundrels and Section 13(1) supporters.
Other than that, what do you think of the actual revelations, itty bitty lib?
You guys sure get hostile easily, esp. given how much booze you consume.
Jay, it seems to me that what Warman knew was that Jadewarr was a persona used by CHRC staff, but did NOT know who among them was using it at the time in question. Which is what Ezra seemed to think about a week ago.
Oh yea that’ll work BCL.
BCL, at a stretch you might be able to make your argument. More plausibily, given that in the course of a hearing the Commission – apparently at Lucy’s direction – swapped one piece of evidence for another, Warman knew exactly who was using the Jadewarr account and likely had used it himself.
However, we need not guess on the matter; a full scale judicial review of the conduct of the “hate crimes” unit of the CHRC is required and damned quick.
Jay: EXACTLY! Corruption by one or, more likely more, of the CHRC is enough in a real court, to be a feeding frenzy of appeals on every single previous conviction past and present.
When the Judge and Jury at the HRC’s are found to be dirty, even in a small matter, then the entire Commission must be brought into the light of day with a criminal investigation. If found to be innocent, then no harm done, but there must be an investigation of all allegations….. you know, .. just like the Liberals are insisting regarding the In-out election financing fuss. It works both ways after-all….. Doesn’t it? Well, Doesn’t it???
Oh, I forgot to add that BCL is still chasing parked cars.