Yup Warman is a piece of Work
Connie just got the affidavit of one Richard Warman in the “John Does” matter which is now on appeal and which I wrote about here, here and here.
I have not seen the affidavit and, for reasons which will be obvious, would not post it. Here’s why:
I finally got a look at the most recent affidavit submitted about the John Doe defendants.It is full of all kinds of personal information, maps to their houses, and pictures of their children and spouses.
This information was in the hands of the Anti-racist thugs at the ARC site before all of us had even been served. This site, until recently, had a link to the notorious Toronto ARA on their front page, and they often admit to sharing common goals with the violent ARA, whose slogan is “through any means necessary”. Although they have taken to denying that they approve of violence themselves. free dominion
There are a couple of interesting elements here: first, there is no guarantee of privacy on the internet given what even limited digging will find. Second, Warman is perfectly willing to publish the names, addresses, and assorted photos of family of people who he believes have libeled him.
The material published is, in a slimy sort of a way, evidence and Warman is certainly entitled to bring it to the Court’s attention by way of affidavit. The critical thing to remember about Richard Warman is that he is unencumbered with any sense of proportion as he practices his tactic of “maximum disruption”. In many ways “maximum disruption” is designed to be entirely disproportionate.
But now Warman has been, in at least one Tribunal hearing, taken to task by a Member. And now he is playing against people who are represented. He has sued people who can and will fight back. And, despite the fact that he is trying to hide behind the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid oral discovery, he is being subjected to Document Discovery. His computer is subject to examination. His long history of membership in white supremacist sites and his pattern of posting under aliases is being probed.
With luck his activities substituting evidence before the Tribunal will come up in reference to his character. His endless inability to remember when giving evidence will be examined.
Warman has exposed some details about various individuals who, for whatever reason, preferred to keep those details to themselves; but Warman’s own date with cross examination in a real Court is looming. His details will be interesting – how did he leave the Commission for example? There are at least three versions of his departure available. And that, I suspect, is just the tip of the iceberg.
And also remember that the CHRC employed this creature for several years.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Well now he faces real lawyers.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Haven’t seen the affidavits either, but questions do pop up rather quickly. What legal complaint value does the inclusion of pictures of the children and spouses, maps to the homes etc., have? The law firm who produced this document should be answering some questions on ethics as well. Maps to their homes? Process servers do not need maps included within the affidavit(s). What about potential exposure of the children? Pictures of children with their family names and maps to where these children live? Anyone who has raised children is already cognizant of regular daily inherent threats, let alone the broadcast of personal information about children.
The information on children and spouses appears to be obtained in circumstances that would not support a finding of consent, implied or otherwise. Is this a tort of invasion of privacy? There would be different arguments on this, possibly regarding the John Does of the FD-8, but arguments that include spouses and children would seem to fall short of even the lowest level hurdle. The inclusion of photos and maps to their homes might be the nails in the coffin.
The allegations regarding the ARC site may be a big factor as well, if it can be demonstrated that the ARC site and/or associates/members etc are not a party to the legal proceedings in question.
see PIPEDA - http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html
yes – children and spouses – beyond the pale …..
June 10th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Ontario Superior Court said – Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects people from unreasonable search and seizure, but defines privacy as “a biographical core of personal information” that tends to reveal “intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.” Only then [biographical information] is the Charter protection engaged. At a certain point, the nature of the information becomes pivotal – biographic information or minimal information to identify the John Doe and process serving.
Unless there is an actual misuse of the information leading to a loss, the biggest impediment under traditional tort law is going to be proving an actual injury. The tort of negligence requires there to be
(i) a duty of care,
(ii) a breach of the standard of care and
(iii) an injury of some sort directly related to the breach.
Will this issue be one of unintentional misuse or does a different set of tort standards apply if it can be shown that the “biographical core of personal information” was maliciously misused?
This FD case may be poised to force the courts to consider a number of different issues.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:16 am
Heh. Putting info in a court affidavit is hardly the same as, say, putting such info all over the net.
Meanwhile, Minister Gary Goodyear is trying to shut down a conference on the Middle East. No word from the Speech Warriors as of this writing.
Oh, well. Maybe someday you’ll run out of Nazis.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:23 am
And at the same time “The Lying Jackel” is wimpering about being threatened (how many times is that?). He has even called in the forces of law enforcement :)
Seems to me “Lucy” went public and ballistic when some fool in the USA published his details. In this case, all the good stuff appears to have leaked to the ARA/ARC who via BCL have made it public. Wonder how that happened?
Interesting though as the hearing is in Ottawa June 16 and all the 4 live in the West. Wonder how they will manage to attend?
The Marxist Brothers just don’t get it.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Is cruising supremisist sites part of his job description now? I was reading an article about the mom who had her kids taken away because the daughter had a swastika drawn on her. Apparently information about the mothers racist postings on websites were brought forward to the authorities by an activist lawyer from Ottawa with a colourful history of anti racist activism. Don’t know if it’s the same guy, but somehow, the whole thing seems anti-Canadian. And stalkerish.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Dawg “ Heh. Putting info in a court affidavit is hardly the same as, say, putting such info all over the net.“.
Yeah, Right, Dawg !- Putting in photos of children and spouses and maps to their homes? What evidential value is that Dawg? Then the affidavit ends up at ARA/ARC and made public by BCL. As Leanne notes – stalkerish.————————————————-
Supreme Court of Canada said: “Personal information, including personal data identifiers, shall not be included in a court record unless it is required for the disposition of the case.”—————————————-
– the children, spouses and maps can hardly be considered required for disposition, moreover, even if they add an extra bit of certainty to the identities of the John Does, the overwhelming issues of privacy protection, especially children, is paramount and of public interest. Not me saying so, but Superior Court of Ontario below:
——————————-
Ont Superior Court said: “There is some debate as to whether there now exists a tort of invasion of privacy. I am of the view recognition of such a tort in law is the logical result of the acknowledgment of privacy rights. There must be a remedy available for the breach of any right. In this regard, I am in agreement with the comment by Stinson J. in Somwar v. McDonald’s Restaurant of Canada Ltd., [2006] O.J. No. 64 (Ont. S.C.J.) where, at para. 29, he said:
With advancements in technology, personal data of an individual can now be collected, accessed (properly and improperly), and disseminated more easily than ever before. There is a resulting increased concern in our society about the risk of unauthorized access to an individual’s personal information. The traditional torts such as nuisance, trespass, and harassment may not provide adequate protection against infringement of an individual’s privacy interests. Protection of those privacy interests by providing a common law remedy for their violation would be consistent with the Charter values and an ‘incremental revision’ and logical extension of the existing jurisprudence.
” I am also of the view there is a public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed against the investigators. A potential breach of a privacy right is an important matter for the complainant and for the public. If the complaint is found to be legitimate, prevention of future abuse of the rights of others is an important consideration. ”
———————————
– sucks to be anyone who may have colluded on this ….
June 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Yes Four Horses et al., – and this from a DND employee? The Outrage from “Lying Jackel” is where?
BUT, One would think their Intelligence branch (Oxymoron?) and CSIS would be on the case.Or at least the CHRC “Flying Squad” I am sure that one of their employees is reading the websites as we write and has a duty to report such abuse and threat to the state?
June 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Umm – thanks Four Horses for the link…perhaps next time you could indicate the number of pages?
I am now off to get Embassy assistance in paying for my printing bill. Expensive for HP/Lexmark cartridges even at the PX. :)
But, it only gets better from here on in.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
A position has been postulated that since the information, photos and mapquesting is all available on-line, then it was a matter of just connecting the dots, therfore it is all public information.
Not quite so. It was substantial investigative work and data mining/compilation of information from various sources that was not easily found. The addition of mapquesting to the homes is beyond, even though mapquesting software is on the net. The threshold exists as what information was necessary to identify the John Does for service. The threshold is well exceeded when non-parte spouses and children are included and their “biographical core” is disseminated across the net. Further, the question or threshold of “Personal Use” of that information becomes paramount.
The governing principle under PIPEDA would seem to be the Reasonableness Clause”, which forwards the following questions:
a) would a Reasonable Person collect, compile and and print information on the spouses and children ?
b) would a Reasonable Person not edit out that information that is non-relevant to identifying the John Does to protect the privacy of spouses and children?
c) would a Reasonable Person go to the extent of utilizing mapquest software and printing out directions to the homes of the John Does?
d) would a Reasonable Person include mapquest directions in an affidavit ?
e) would a Reasonable Person circulate privacy information on non-parte family members to other third parties?
f) would a Reasonable Person circulate privacy information on non-parte family members to other third parties who are specifically known to or have been alleged to partake in violent activities against their political opponents?
g) would a Reasonable Person have reasonable grounds for believing there was a Personal Use issue in play in these events?
.... bubble, bubble, toil and trouble …..
June 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
With luck his activities substituting evidence before the Tribunal will come up in reference to his character. His endless inability to remember when giving evidence will be examined.
Warman has exposed some details about various individuals who, for whatever reason, preferred to keep those details to themselves; but Warman’s own date with cross examination in a real Court is looming.
All of this will come to pass, Jay. Richard Warman’s reputation will be firmly established as these cases unfold.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Funny how everything just comes together in the imploding cyber-universe. Fournier’s writings appear in Arthur Topham’s Radical Press,, cheek-by-jowl with those of someone named Jim von Brunn-88.
It’s like fricken Old Home Week.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Let me see if I understand this….
Warman isn’t entitled to demand that the Fourniers, defendants in a defamation action, provide information relevant to the identity of their co-defendants, the Does, because their privacy interest trumps his right to discovery. And Warman isn’t allowed to conduct an investigation to determine the identity of the Does using public sources and then include that information in an affidavit that establishes the identities fo the Does because, um, well, um, omigod, think of the women and children.
The Fournier’s lawyer may know a little more about the law than the very amusing Four Horses, who seems to think PIPEDA, a law that governs commercial entities who collect information, applies to a party to litigation seeking to identify a defendant. But she’s still going to lose the appeal.
The cases she relies on all involve obtaining information from third parties, strangers to the litigation, who have collected the information in the course of business. That may create a tension between a litigant’s right to information and the third party’s obligations under statutes such as PIPEDA. The Fourniers, on the other, have obligations as defendants to produce ALL relevant information. Relevance is broadly defined and certainly includes information relevant to the identity of the Does.
In any event, the Fourner’s lawyer’s argument that Warman must show a prima facie case in order to obtain disclosure is entirely academic, at least in a defamation action. Since falseness and malice are presumed in Canadian libel law, Warman would need only establish that the Does’ posts were published, were about him and were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The first two elements are not the subject of controversy between the parties. The last is a question of law, and is determined on the pleadings.
Here’s a simple solution. If the Does think that Warman’s case is pile of nonsense, let them bring a motion, anonymously, to strike the claims against them as being incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning. If it succeeds, they get to remain anonymous and are out of the litigation. If not, they have to step out of the shadows, thus sparing the women and children the pain of having to appear in an affidavit.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Truewest, the question I have, is how did the identity of the does come about? Wouldn’t their identities have to be known in order to collect information about them and their families? If so, would the way their identities were found impact the law suit? As far as I know, Free Dominion didn’t give up the ip addresses. Would there have been another, legal way to to obtain this information, especially if it was a third party collecting it? (Assuming that it was obtained by a third party, and not the plaintiff.) Sorry, I’m neither a techno geek or a law geek, so I hope my questions aren’t too simplistic or stupid.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Hey, Dawg! Funny that you would try to smear me by association with Topham when everyone knows that I disagree with him.
It is especially hypocritical of you to imply that I am anti-Semitic when it was YOU who wrote the whiny posts about Carleton banning an anti-Israel poster during “Israeli Apartheid Week”, and about the famous anti-Semite, George Galloway being banned from Canada.
If you want to defend Warman and the CHRC, fine. But you are making yourself look like an inconsistent fool when you try to pull the anti-Israel smear on me while you are lining up behind people who really DO hate Israel.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Ah Truwest – the Motion to dismiss has been mentioned elsewhere but still requires a Lawyer.
In looking at some of the comments and at least one of the John/Jane Does – money is not in abundance.
So for me, it raises the question as to what is the real point in this. Some of the comments are so lame, even my Wife calls me far worse. Dawg called Coren and “Arse”. Has Coren lauched a Libel suit? Has Levant? Of course not.
Some time ago, Jay called for a Peace among Men – I recall refering to Kinsella but the same applies to Warman.
At a time like this, does society, DND and Richard himself really benefit from carrying through a Libel suit against people who have really done little more than occurs in normal conversation? As Ezra pointed out, the Lustig comments pretty much put a screw in the lid and even today in the Ottawa Citizen, Don Butler – a noted cheerleader has remained relatively silent/neutral except to state “The human rights tribunal hears very few Section 13 cases either, Moon pointed out. “In the absence of Richard Warman, there is really little happening under Section 13. You take him away, you’ve got nothing”.
No ill intent implied other than to suggest that maybe it is time to get back to real work.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Leanne
You might ask Ms. Fournier that question, since she’s seen the affidavit in full and I haven’t. As I understand it, Warman did a little elementary detective work and found places on the internet where the Does had left clues as to their actual identity and then followed the trail. And no, it won’t have any impact on the merits of the lawsuit. The Does may choose to be anonymous, but they don’t have an inherent right to be anonymous.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Here is how I see the program shaping up so far.
The Fourniers are not antisemitic. And they support Israel and Ezra all the way. But…Connie’s proud to shake the hand of Doug Christie and befriend Paul Fromm and maybe Marc Lemire too.
Dr. Dawg is a proponent of the CRA’s Section 13, is defiantly anti-racist, rankles at being called antisemitic, but sides with the (pro-terror) Apartheid Israel bunch.
Four Horses is a megaphone for Arthur Topham, who is trying to cleverly overturn the proceedings against himself by demanding that the complainants in his CHRC Section 13 case reveal to him evidence of the Protocols of Zion that he has archived on his own website.
We could sell this to the comedy channel.
BTW I agree with Truewest
September 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Warman’s attempts to goad freedominion posters to make derogatory comments about himself for the purpose of a lawsuit failed. Time for plan B. Then he perused the web looking for identifying information on Canadians. Once he had the info he signed up on Freedominion being sure to leave a trail from his new personas to those people he could identify. The next step was to post under those personas defamatory comments about himself. Then it was a simple matter to file lawsuits against those people claiming he identified them through the trail he had previously established.
Then he sent out spam emails all over the world saying “I made thousands of dollars posting on the internet and you can too”
September 13th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Dawg called Coren and [sic] “Arse”
I did?