Was Harvey Goldberg of the CHRC under oath?
Harvey’s emails:
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted] HARVEY GOLDBERG [Redacted]
Date: Tue. Apr 18, 200611:19 am
Subject: Feedback Request – Working Group on Hate Messages EmailHello:
Please find enclosed the emaill am planning to send the RCMP to formally request the creation of a working group on hate messages. Let me know jf there is anything else you would like to see added before it is sent on through the appropriate channels.
[Redacted]
Hello: [Redacted]
As you are aware. an Action Plan has been negotiated by the CHRC’s Prevention Initiatives & Liaison Branch and the RCMP’s Labour Relations & Human Rights Branch to support the Memorandum of Understanding signed by our respective organizations. As part of this plan. we have expressed interest during working meetings in the possibility of creating a working group on hate messages. Such a group would focus on finding ways to improve the level of efficiency and collaboration between CHRC and
ReMP officers in the processing of hate-related cases.CHRC officers in charge of investigating hate messages complaints have outlined a few issues that might be the SUbject of potential working group’s activities and/or discussions:
– Establishing direct contacts between CHRC and RCMP officers – Improving the sharing of information between CHRC and RCMP officers – Improving access to the provincial- and municipal-level information – Obtaining a more direct access to CPIC anellor improving efficiency and speed in sharing information – Improving coordination of human rights-related cases processing with police efforts – Obtaining access to specialized training on investigating hate-related cases (Canadian Police College)We are very interested in getting an opportunity to further discuss the creation of a working group with CCAPs, who you will be contacting on our behalf. Please let me know how they wish to proceed, and I will be happy to schedule a meeting or a conversation with them.
cc: [Redacted] free dominion
Harvey’s testimony: (June 25, 2007 ‘cause Mordecai can’t follow links. edit)
MR. CHRISTIE: Have you advised as a matter of policy that the special mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission could be interpreted as assisting police in prosecutions under the Criminal Code?MR. GOLDBERG: No, I have not.
MR. CHRISTIE: Have you ever participated in any such cooperation?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, I have not.
MR. CHRISTIE: Are you aware of other Commission staff participating in such cooperation?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, I’m not. free dominion
If Harvey was under oath I suspect counsel would be well advised to read:
Criminal Code PART IV: OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE Misleading JusticePerjury
131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Video links, etc.
(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.
Idem
(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.
Application
(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 131; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17; 1999, c. 18, s. 92. http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec131.html
Fourhorses is doing the digging on this….I just thought people might want to see how far “Harvey Goldberg, Team Leader, Proactive Initiatives, Canadian Human Rights Commission” was prepared to go and what he was prepared to risk. Harvey was prepared to go this far:
Punishment132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17; 1998, c. 35, s. 119.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec132%2Ehtml
Update: Ah, here we are…
12 SWORN: HARVEY GOLDBERG (page 26, transcript Warmen v. Lemire, June 25, 2007)
Update #2: Welcome the Mounties! Nice to see speedy work on a perjury matter.
Referring Link No referring link
Host Name gate4hq.rcmp-grc.gc.ca
IP Address 199.212.150.16 RCMP [Edit Label]
Country Canada
Region Ontario
City Ottawa
ISP Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Returning Visits 10
Do your duty officers, Mr. Goldberg is usually found at the offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission during business hours.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:18 am
wow…i had no idea the rot was so pervasive and so deep….surely these revelations will spur our government to do somehting about the NKVD in our midst ….
May 16th, 2008 at 6:27 am
well, obviously anyone giving testimony at a CHRC hearing affecting the freedom of another fellow citoyen would be telling the truth the whole truth and etc..unless of course they were paranoiac unscrupulous left wing ideologues of course…
May 16th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Harvey, how you gonna pull a rabbit outta yer hat on this one…
I thought Section 13(1) proceedings were civil not criminal,if they are Civil how does the CHRC merit any access to CPIC? Is this not a gross violation of citizens privacy? According to the CPIC Policy Manual they are not listed as having either a Category l or ll authorization. Was this behind Goldberg’s desire for closer ties to Heritage?
May 16th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Holey rusted metal, Batman! The ground. It’s all metal. It’s full of holes. You know, holey.
PS - In my haste (or, simply stupidity), I have confused EMG and EBD. My apologies, but I do wish the one of you well in your pursuit of a liaison with Neve Campbell. I’m sure, if successful, it’ll get you an oped, somewhere.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:55 am
ah the 4 Horsies answered my query in another Blug:
Cat asks: “I thought the CHRC was involved with civil as opposed to criminal investigations.”
Taylor Decision, at p. 917:
” It is essential … to recognize that, as an instrument especially designed to prevent the spread of prejudice and to foster tolerance and equality in the community, the Canadian Human Rights Act is very different from the Criminal Code. The aim of human rights legislation, and of s.13(1) is not to bring the full force of the state’s power against a blameworthy individual for the purpose of imposing punishment. Instead, provisions found in human rights statutes generally operate in a less confrontational manner, allowing for a conciliatory settlement if possible and, where discrimination exists, gearing remedial responses more towards compensation of the victim. ”
So if they are Civil that should mean no access to CPIC, a fair assumption? Nay? Yay?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Maybe its me but what is the issue here? That a CHRC officer might cooperate with the RCMP? Ya so? Shouldnt we all cooperate with police especially those working on legal and quasi-legal matters? And when was this email written? Clearly after the Goldberg testimony. You guys are wierd…any needle in any haystack? Now that the Conservative government has taken a contrary position to yours it seems anything goes huh?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Gee Mordechai, you might want to check on that reading thing.
Initial email date – which is in the post – Tue. Apr 18, 2006.
Examination date, June 25, 2007.
And, Mort, man up and start posting under your real name.
Goldberg is screwed.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Kitten, while the CHRC’s actions are, more or less, civil, lying under oath brings the Criminal Code to bear.
If Harvey swore, or more hipply, affirmed that he was going to tell the truth and then lied he is in breach of s.131 of the Criminal Code.
Now, was he sworn? All the other witnesses seem to have been. But I have not actually checked the transcript.
But I will.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Shouldnt we all cooperate with police especially those working on legal and quasi-legal matters?
Maybe – on the other hand, I am not sure that the CHRC is entitled to Obtain[ing] a more direct access to CPIC and/or improving efficiency and speed in sharing information or that any police force should be willing to share such information with them. In any event, even if that is acceptable, the subsequent denial of those activities is problematic. No doubt, this was just a mistaken recollection, not an attempt to mislead the Tribunal.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
dcardno, you are a very trusting man, sir.
Had Goldberg followed the tried and true Richard Warman formula of simply not remembering what he has done for the last decade the “mistaken recollection” gaff might well have worked. But Harvey rather expressly remembered not “participating in such co-operation”. That is positive testimony to a statement which is not true.
I fear Harvey is basically screwed.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Page 119
5021
1 MR. GOLDBERG: I’m under oath. Yes,
2 I’m sure of it.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Had this wiggler been testifying in a real court you could tack on 1 or 2 obstructing justice charges as well.
So far the CHRC have racked up perjury, entrapment, sending hate messages, tampering with evidence, refusing due process, fraud, theft of service, impersonation,...charter breaches, jurisdictional breaches and criminal code breaches. Where do CHRC recruit from, Kingston Pen?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Jay perhaps I wasn’t clear in my statement. If the CHRC is only allowed to launch civil actions then I assume they should not have any right to violate a citizens privacy via access to CPIC.
So why is Harvey even mentioning better access? He also pushes for closer ties to Heritage to achieve this access in the e-mails.
The CPIC policy manual does not list the CHRC as having any of Category l, ll, or lll level access – the CHRC are not specifically authorized is what I take from this.
Now under the auspices of the Justices Dept. they may have an “in” even a legal one but I do not know.
Still my question is does the CHRC have the legal right to access CPIC under any circumstances? Something tells me no.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
dcardno, you are a very trusting man, sir.
No, I just forgtot to insert the tag. I was actually going to continue with an offer to sell Mordechai a bridge.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:57 am
So why is Harvey even mentioning better access?
bcf, I read that differently (unless there are other e-mails that I have not seen: I’m just a beer-and-popcorn oberserver, not an in the trenches grappler like some of you). It seems to me that the quoted e-mail was not from Harvey, but from [redacted] to a group of [redacted] people that included Harvey – he was not pushing for better access to CPIC (etc), but he damned well knew that someone else was. If the initiative never went anywhere it is possible (but in my mind, unlikely) that he had an honest error in recalling the proposal. If there were any kind of further discussions with external agencies (even if fruitless), or if he participated in the internal discussions, then that is a very thin reed. This sort of thing is both politically sensitive and legally questionable (and access to CPIC would give an CHRC staffer a massive woody) – there is no way any ploicy-maker would forget it.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Proposed new idiom to be used at every possible juncture:
“As Canadian as corruption…”
and the alternative…
“As Canadian as repression…”
Anyone care to finesse a few more “typically Canadian” idioms for the 21st Century?
Sad, isn’t it?
May 17th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Cheezus I even found Dawg unequivocably stating in the comments at Damian Penny’s that the CHRC is NOT granted access to CPIC.
If this is indeed true then a complaint must be filed with the Privacy Commission.
Jay in your capacity as Internet Scold it is incumbent upon you to act on the behalf of all freedom loving CHRC haters.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Under Canada’s Privacy Laws are the various police agencies allowed to legally hand evidence they’ve collected investigating a “Criminal Complaint” to the HRC?
I do not believe that legally they are, if no criminal prosecution takes place why are various Police Agencies handing over evidence to the HRCs to persecute individuals under Section 13? I know this has happened in the past, but will it continue in the future? If I’ve committed no crime why are various police agencies allowed to give the HRCs access to my personal PROPERTY and evidence they’ve collect based on a complaint filed by the nations most “Offended Complainant” who files a criminal complaint and then the police issue a warrent to gather evidence of “Hate Crimes” only to have the police not pursue the complaint yet they hand over evidence to the HRC. How is this legal? The police don’t file a criminal charge against me yet the evidence they collect appears as evidence at the HRC? It’s time for an inguiry against Harvey WallBanger, or what ever his name is. I refuse to learn how to spell his name it would give him legitimacy that I’m not willing to give this two bit piece of @###$$.
Okay I actually typed SHIT.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Was Harvey (another recipient of a CJC award)under “Oath” or was he under “the influence”?
May 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Good job of uncovering how much deeper this swamp of corruption is. To have the police involved just upped the ante to a darker dimension. To lie about it right up front , maybe under oath. Terrifying! Do we now have a Gestapo in this Nation?
Frankly it doesn’t surprise me in any way, the desecration of this Dominion is quite plain even to idiots. The neo-totalitarians or Trudopians have had 40 years of boring into our institutions like termites. Eating away at our liberties while we slept.
This creature has to sink faster than a dino in a tar pit, or where in for a new level of hell for this Country as this inquisition fuses with the police, with the power of the State.
No one will be safe from the meddlers or con artists.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
i do love that ‘CHRC’s Prevention Initiatives and Liaison Branch” phrase….whatever can THAT be…?
and i do believe they think(as soldiers in the superduper-K man Panzergrenadiers) that their psyops was on the up and up….whomever gave them the thumbs up on that mistaken notion ?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:17 am
and anyway…taking one’s oath is a mere formality….or should be for righteous people.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
if the mounties are visiting the site it’s probably in aid of seeing how badly they themselves have been compromised(as witting or unwitting co-conspirators?) in this matter….’who will guard the guardians’ indeed.
mind you i’ve had a very jaundiced view of the horsemen for a very very long time….i’ve always felt the upper echelon were on the pad.