Jay Currie

The liar Kinsella posts a letter purportedly from the Canadian Jewish Congress re Warman:

We have done our own investigation into this matter. Considering the sources of the allegations and taken into account that Mr. Warman has specifically, under oath, denied that he authored the posting, we deem the allegation to be without basis. It is the targeted vilification of an honourable man that should be drawing your concern. the liar kinsella

First a smear then a little dance. The CJC does not note that Warman, under oath, admitted to posting from the same IP under a different handle. Not an entirely honourable sort of thing to do. Nor do they discuss the fact that when his ISP’s records were about to be obtained, apparently the CHRC spontanously dropped the section of a complaint in which the sock puppet of interest was mentioned. (Perhaps protecting an honourable man and their main source of s. 13 business.) And, of course, there are no details of the CJC’s “investigation” or quotation from the record to contextualize Warman’s alleged denial. (The CHRC has, in fact, unsuccessfully, invoked s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, the public interest privilege rule, to try and stymie examination of its investigation tactics.)

Kathy puts it well here:

AFTERNOON UPDATE: I have to admit, this sounds pretty strange (from the comments):

“This line keeps being quoted: ‘IP Addresses can be spoofed. They can change frequently. 66.185.84.204 could be assigned to one computer today and another computer tomorrow.’

“Ok. Let’s assume there is a chance that this happened.

“Two different computers got the same IP addy on different days.

“And, somehow, Both posters chose to go to the same site to make racist remarks.

“They just happened, completely by coincidence, to make racist remarks on the same site, months apart, on the day when that wandering IP addy happened to be set to their computer.” five feet of fury

Now, it is not impossible that some racist git just got lucky and was randomly assigned Warman’s admitted IP just in time to post his screed against Sen. Ann Cools. The improbable is not impossible.

Assuming that the liar Kinsella’s happy little taunt about picking up Kate’s effects at a sheriff’s auction is more than bluster, Warman is going to drop a writ. Which will mean that he will be inviting the delights of Discovery. And that will mean that we may no longer will have to wonder as to the possibility of the improbable.

IP’s are “leased” to particular machines. At one point the IP in question was leased to a machine from which Warman has admitted he posted dreck as “Lucy”. Assuming that Warman sues somebody, that somebody will be able to use the Rules of Procedure in whatever Court Warman chooses, to obtain the day to day ISP records which will show to whom the IP was leased on the day in question.

(My lefty friends have been having great fun googling the IP in question and coming up with all manner of innocuous things. Here is a hint: the date of the Cools post is known. The date of the lease of the IP is knowable. And that is pretty much all that matters. (Though it is possible, given how long ago the post was made, that the ISP may have purged the information as a matter of routine.))

And, just as interestingly, a defendant in such an action might well have the pleasure of delving into why the CHRC decided to drop the portions of a complaint which went to the actions of a sock puppet which just happened to share the same IP address as the Lucy sock-puppet.

I’ve bet Scott Tribe a paypal buck Warman does not sue. But, hey, I’ve been wrong before. After all, if Warman does not sue, he, like the liar Kinsella, is tacitly admitting the truth of the allegations against him. Of course, when I say sue I actually mean sue – not just dropping the writ – after all, as the late and great BC libel and media lawyer, Peter Butler, once observed “There is nothing cheaper than a writ.”