Recent Comments
RSS feed
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 13)
September 28, 2013 — xanthippaWeek 1
Day 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4′s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Week 2
Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.
Day 7′s events can be read here.
Day 8′s events can be read here. An alternate narrative from a different observer can be found here.
Week 3
Day 9 was a procedural day, without the jury present. It was to involve discussions between the judge and the counsel about procedural matters. As such, I chose to conserve my strength and skip day 9.
Day 10’s events (the closing arguments) can be read here.
Day 11 was used for the judge to give instruction to the jury – a factor almost as important for a jury to reach the ‘just’ verdict as the evidence presented. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but hope to report another’s observations of this soon. From what I heard, however, Mr. Warman had been alternating between chewing his fingernails and pen – perfectly understandable, under the circumstances. One can only admire the Fourniers for their grace under pressure!!!
Day 12, from the information I have gathered, the jury had spent in deliberations.
Day 13, on the other hand, had a little bit of action to offer… If you’d like, I’ll share my observations with you.
Due to other-life-obligations, I only arrived at the courthouse around lunchtime – and all was quiet. Courtroom # 35 at the Elgin St. Courthouse was abandoned and locked – though I did hear that Barbara Kulaszka, the defense counsel, had been seen in the vicinity recently.
The only thing I myself saw was a cart with take-out lunches being wheeled by the bailiff to the jury room…
Along with another observer, I went in search of the Fourniers – and found them in a nearby eatery, finishing their lunch. And, they had some amazing news: Connie’s daughter had just given birth to her first son!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
If you follow my blog regularly, you may have realized that I have an over-developed (to put it mildly) mothering instinct: just imagine ‘mothering’ and and industrial dose of OCD combined…(really – ask my past employees!). So, though I know it is no achievement of my own, I could not help but experience a reflected feeling of bliss, radiating from Connie and Mark!!!
Bringing a new life into this world – what could be more wonderful?
And then I considered just how much this ‘Maximum Disruption’ shtick was costing – not just the brave Connie and the stoic Mark: I understood why they are doing this! For the good of all of us, our children and our grandchildren!
But, the cost is also born by their families: Connie’s daughter was deprived of her mother, who was stuck awaiting the outcome of this trial, when she needed her mother to be with her, to share the moment her own son was born…
And, it is also born by the innocent baby boy – deprived of his protective family during this vulnerable moment.
This is not a trivial matter and something we must keep in mind when we consider the cost of our freedom!
And yet, I have no doubt that this young Canadian will understand that precisely because he, as a free human being and a Canadian, is precious and deserves to have his innate rights respected by everyone, especially by our government and those who are its agents, that his grandparents have sacrificed so much in protecting him and his future!!!
Would that all of our young Canadians knew that they were so cherished! Would that all Canadians understood they were worth nothing less than this!!!
I’m sorry – please, forgive me…I’m going off on a tangent here. Refocusing…
The afternoon brought some excitement to the courtroom: we had a question from the jury!
To recap: this is Friday, the 27th of September, 14:00 o’clock.
Jason Bertoucci and Roger Smith had to return to BC, so only Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel for the defense, and Mark and Connie Fournier were at the defense table.
Despite this being a Jewish holiday (as far as I understand), Mr. Katz breezed into the courtroom shortly after his law student had, and started putting his trim lawyer’s jacket and billowing lawyer’s robes over his crisp white shirt and black trousers.
Mr. Warman was absent – and it was his absence that made me wonder just how many holidays do employees of the Department of Defense get, that he can spend so many days in court…
Once Justice Smith came in and the court was reconvened, he opened the brown envelope and read the question from the jury: on the defense of ‘fair comment’ – must all points be met or just a few of them?
OK – it is clear that I would understand this question better had I seen the charge to the jury…please, do forgive me.
But, instead of being sequential now, I’ll try to explain what I understand (in my layman’s mind) is going on, so as to make some sense of this.
The jury was provided with many, many documents. One of these was a binder that contained (highlighted) each and every statement that Mr. Warman claimed was defamatory (taken out of context – the context itself would be in the other documents) as well as a multi-point question the jury has to answer regarding the statement. It was regarding these multiple points that the question asked by the jury was about.
Now, to the best of my legally-untrained-understanding, the ‘a’ part of the question was whether the statement had the potential to be defamatory – a legal bit to be determined by the judge, not the jury. I could, however, be very wrong in this – yet, that is what I think might have been the upshot of what was said. (Yes, severe qualification, because I was unaware of the original charge to the jury and because I have no legal training, so following the arguments in court on this is not as easy as one might imagine, because I am quite ignorant of the legal principles that are just hinted at, not overtly stated, and so on…)
My understanding of the outcome is that the judge said that he will have decided the ‘a’ part, but the jury must answer all the following parts. And, all but ‘malice’ must be satisfied for the defense of ‘fair comment’ to hold.
That is, the statement must:
- be a comment/opinion
- be understandable to be a comment/opinion (and not a statement of fact)
- must be an opinion a ‘reasonable person’ could possibly have arrived at given the factual evidence
At this point, the onus of ‘proof’ shifts from the defendant to the plaintiff: if the plaintiff can prove that the comment/opinion was stated with actual malice, then this would defeat the defense of ‘fair comment’.
There was a LOT of back and forth between the judge and both lawyers, both on the questions themselves as well as on the definitions of the words that went into the questions. Phrases like ‘honestly held opinion’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ floated about.
Yet, it began to seem to me that both the judge and the counsel (both Mr. Katz and Ms. Kulaszka) were beginning to have serious concerns about the original instructions to the jury! (If only I had been there to record them…)
Also, there now arose serious reservations about the difference between the questions posed to the jury regarding each statement that was claimed to have been defamatory and the questions asked of the jury in that ‘concise’ document that was meant to help them. Again, there was much back and forth (that went right over my head) between the judge and the two counsels, but, in the end, it was decided that the questions ought to be re-phrased to be more in line with the judge’s charge to the jury and that the new sheets with the statements under judgment and the questions to be answered shall be reprinted and provided to the jury.
The jury had let it be known that they do not plan to deliberate over the weekend.
Then, the jury had let it be known that they are tired and wish to go home now rather than wait for the revised questions. Upon reading this, the judge joked about the jury wishing to keep the ‘civil service’ hours….
The upshot of all this was that the revised questions were to be submitted to the judge via email later that day and that the jury would be provided the updated documents on Monday morning, at which point they shall resume their deliberations…
I guess we shall see what next week shall bring!
Courts Discreetly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism
September 27, 2013 — xanthippaWhen I was in high school, I idolized ‘immunology’, with its life-saving vaccines. As such, when it came time to pick a grade 13 biology project (yes, I am old enough to have gone to high school in Ontario when grade 13 was still mandatory for those of us who sought University education) was about immunology. I was lucky enough to live in Canada’s capital – the site of the Health Canada labs that developed vaccines.
I contacted them and was lucky enough to ‘get in’.
For my grade 13 ‘project’, I managed to get one of the Health Canada scientists to both read and review his PhD thesis and to come in to the labs to observe first hand how vaccines are developed and tested.
I was ecstatic!!!
This was a dream come true!
After I read through the PhD thesis (and, I had to educate myself quite a bit to understand all its nuances – and, again, I am in debt to the folks at Health Canada who gave me all the books I needed to read to understand what I was reading – and there were quite a few…), I got to come in, prepare slides for the electron microscope and study the images it captured. I was, indeed, very, very lucky!
After I had finished my science degree (in Physics), I was contacted by one of the former Health Canada scientists who was now the head of an immunology department at a major Canadian University. His biggest complaint was that medical students who register for his courses are so arrogant, so full of self-importance because they are studying medicine, that they fail to adhere to the most basic scientific principles in their lab routine. Since he had followed my progress through my University education, and since I specialized in data acquisition and analysis (i.e. telling other scientists if they are actually measuring what they think they are measuring – and if their measurements mean what they think they mean), he lobbied me rather aggressively to come to his University and whip their lab routines into shape…
I must admit that I was tempted – very, very tempted. Tempted enough to do some more, highly directed, study in the specialized routines for immunology labs. But, my life circumstances were such that, in the end, I chose against this course.
Sorry to bother you with my life story, my aim is only to explain that while I am not an immunologist, I am more educated on the topic than an average person and I have also studied some of the pitfalls specific to immunology research and vaccination development.
As such, I am highly skeptical of any vaccine that delivers more than one pathogen at a time.
This all goes back to first principles of how our immune systems react to pathogens, classify them, create antibodies and then store these antibodies in a ‘database’ for future reference.
At least, that is how healthy immune systems function. (This was, indeed, endorsed by the CDC, as seen on their website until the first Bush administration decided that in case of a biological attack, forced vaccination was the policy of the US government – at which point the information that people with deficient (asthma, strong allergies etc.) or diseased (lupus, cancer etc.) immune systems and their close relatives (siblings and offspring) ought to avoid vaccines like the plague was, quietly, removed from their site.)
When a healthy immune system encounters a pathogen that causes illness , and the immune system is sufficiently stimulated to be triggered by this pathogen (i.e. the person becomes ill), then and only then the body begins to produce antibodies tailored to that specific pathogen. Depending on the danger the pathogen poses (the strength of the body’s reaction to it), the immune system will classify the antibodies that proved successful in combating the pathogen for a certain period of time. The stronger the reaction, the longer the antibody will be stored for.
Thus, if you (or your children) do not become ill at all in the aftermath of a vaccine, it means that you have acquired 0 protection against it!!!
It also means that the people with strong allergies, asthma, other immune system disorders and, especially, with immune system diseases can not, absolutely, acquire immunity to pathogens due to vaccination: to the contrary! They are at a high risk of adverse reactions to vaccination (including comma and death) without being able to derive any possible benefits from having received the vaccine: their immune systems are not functioning properly and are confusing healthy tissues with pathogens, so c as extra set of antibodies can only be used against the healthy body itself, not invaders from the outside!!!
Sadly, despite the scientific evidence, most MD’s in Canada routinely recommend immunization ESPECIALLY to people with compromised immune systems – because they are not educated in the specifics of immunology and can’t seem to walk through the logical steps until one takes them through them….at which point they hit their forehead and regret the huge damage they have done…a pretty universal reaction in the health providers I walked through the process.
Still, none of this applies to healthy people – including healthy babies!
Now, please, do indulge me in the next little bit…
What happens when a person is ill with an infection, their immune system kicks in and creates antibodies to it – but, then, a secondary infection sets in?
Dollars to doughnuts, even if the secondary infection is ‘mild’ – something that would not cause a problem if it were a primary infection because the body’s immune system could do away with it in a matter of days – when it is a secondary infection to something else, it can – and often does – become life-threatening!
Please, do think about it.
And, do think about the way the healthy immune system functions: it encounters something that makes the body ill, analyzes the ‘surface proteins’ of the pathogen and then creates antibodies which recognize these ‘surface proteins’, attaches itself to any cell that displays them and destroys it.
So, what happens when there are several different pathogens – like when there is a secondary infection?
The human body prioritizes.
It picks the most potent pathogen and makes antibodies against it.
Then, it attempts to apply these antibodies against ALL the pathogens invading the body at that time!!!
Which is why a different, secondary pathogen, can grow out of control and kill the body, even if – should it have been the only infection – the body would have beaten it in a jiffy.
And, this is why I have always been highly skeptical of vaccines that introduce a multitude of very different pathogens…
As in the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine.
OK – I have a strong reservation about the wisdom of vaccinating children against ‘childhood diseases’. Not because I don’t recognize that the childhood diseases are deadly in and of themselves. They are. But…
Their mortality rate (as well as other side effects, such as infertility) are much, much lower if a person contracts them in their childhood rather than as an adult. And, the weakened pathogens that are in the vaccines will necessarily induce a much shorter-term immunity than a full-blown illness would be. This is why we are currently seeing so many adults who have been vaccinated against childhood illnesses develop them in their 20’s and 30’s….and, do brace yourself for when they reach their 50’s+!
But, back to multiple pathogen vaccines…
I have a child that, following the MMR vaccine, stopped having motor control over one eye. It was perfectly fine before the vaccine, and his reaction to the MMR vaccine itself was just a minor fever for 2-3 days, nothing out of the ordinary…
Yet, I do have photographic evidence that before the MMR vaccine, his motor control of both eyes was perfect – but, after it, only one eye had motor control.
Of course, I sought answers!
And, I did not fear using all my contacts in the immunology community to do so.
The reaction I got was pretty uniform: nobody I contacted in the Health Canada immunology research department or in the Universities’ immunology departments would ever have subjected their children to a multiple pathogen vaccine – not that they would admit to it ‘on the record’!
The ‘unofficial’ explanation I was given was that the body will form antibodies to the strongest perceived pathogen – and any additional one presented at the same time will drive the immune system into ‘overdrive’. Many people can take this, others will develop allergies and asthma and reactions to ‘things’ – from mild ones to life threatening ones.
Now, on a completely different note…
When I was in University (in the late 1990’s), I used to enjoy reading ‘Psychology Today’ and, while reading an article on anorexia, I learned there was such a thing as ‘alpha antibodies’….which are created as a reaction to a vaccine (nothing to do with what is in the vaccine itself, but rather that some people, while exposed to some pathogens – like the ones found in childhood vaccinations – develop it as a result of exposure to those bugs). In other words, if they suffered the specific childhood illness, they might (or might not) develop alpha antibodies – but, if they are exposed to the vaccine, they 100% will.
These alpha antibodies attack certain neural pathways, causing OCD and other ‘stuff’.
Yes, it was decades ago and I read it in a hard-copy magazine, so I don’t have a link to support this. If you happen to be aware of one, please, do comment and I’ll update the post to reflect it.
When I took my MMR vaccine-damaged child to our family doctor, he told me, very frankly, that this is ‘typical’ of an MMR vaccine damage – but that I will never find a Canadian doctor (including himself) to testify to this in court. He further informed me that he had been warned that if he were to report more than 3 adverse vaccine reactions in a year (again), he would be stripped of his license to practice medicine in Ontario. This was just a few months before he quit his thriving practice for good and enrolled himself in dental school…he just could not bring himself to practice medicine under such restrictions, restrictions which would force him to lie and falsify records…
It is in this spirit that I offer you the link to the following article, which claims that the previously discredited claims that the MMR vaccine caused autism have now been vindicated by having been proven true in the court of law.
I do not know how credible this source is – but, please, do follow their sources and judge for yourself!
A Message From OpenMedia.ca:
September 26, 2013 — xanthippaThis could be it.
For the first time, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of 12 powerful countries — including Canada’s Stephen Harper — will meet behind closed doors to seal an extreme Internet censorship plan called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)1
We know from leaked drafts2 that the TPP will make the Internet more expensive, censored, and policed. Experts say “kids could be sent to jail for downloading” and whole families could be kicked off the Internet.3
World leaders plan to “conclude the TPP discussions” in just a few days.4 Will Stephen Harper feel the pressure from industry lobbyists – or will he feel the pressure from you? Send decision-makers a powerful message before it’s too late.
Canadian MPs, citizens, and public interest groups are locked out of the negotiations entirely. Despite blocking Canadian parliamentarians from seeing the agreement, U.S. Congressmen are allowed to see exactly what’s on the table.5
We’re asking Canada’s officials to please:
Say no to Internet censorship.
- Protect the right of everyone to access the Internet in their daily lives.
- Do not force ISPs to act as “Internet Police” monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites.6
- Preserve the democratic rights of sovereign countries to draft their own copyright laws.
Our public outcry has stopped TPP officials from finalizing the agreement but now powerful interests are pressuring political leaders to ram through their Internet censorship plan.
Thousands of people and over 30 major organizations from across the Trans-Pacific region are working together to keep the Internet open. High ranking politicians from several countries are beginning to ask questions7.
We know that when citizens speak out, decision-makers take notice. We cannot allow U.S. lobbyists to define Canada’s digital future. Click here to send a simple message to Canada’s negotiators: Please say no to Internet Censorship.
Together, we won’t let them take away our digital rights.
For our future,
Steve and Jason on behalf of your vigilant OpenMedia team
PS: The Internet won’t stay open on its own; speak out now to call on TPP negotiators to preserve our digital future. Your support is critical in the fight to defend the possibilities of the open Internet.
Footnotes
[1] “Obama to Attend APEC, ASEAN Summits on October Asia Trip”. Source: Bloomberg.com
[2] Leaked draft of TPP Intellectual Property Chapter. Source: Knowledge Ecology International
[3] What’s actually in the TPP? Source: Public Knowledge
[4] US Envoy: TPPA talks to conclude next month. Source: FMT Malaysia
[5] “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Canadian MP’s Have No Access To Drafts US Pols Can See, NDP Says” Source: The Huffington Post
[6] “TPP Creates Legal Incentives for ISPs to Police the Internet. What is at risk? Your rights.” Electronic Frontier Foundation
[7] “International Criticism Escalates Against TPP as Negotiations Go Further Underground” Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 10)
September 25, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4′s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.
Day 7′s events can be read here.
Day 8’s events can be read here.
Day 9 was a procedural day, without the jury present. It was to involve discussions between the judge and the counsel about procedural matters. As such, I chose to conserve my strength and skip day 9.
Which brings us to day 10 – the closing arguments.
The jury filed in at about 10:25, each one of them encumbered with an arm’s length of documents: the exhibits submitted during the trial. It sure is a LOT of material to go through and keep in mind!!!
For some reason which escapes me, the defense was to go first with the plaintiff having the last word. I don’t understand why this was so, but it was.
As such, Ms. Kulaszka was up first. At the judge’s suggestion, she moved over to the lectern (which was rotated to more closely face the jury (though, the room was too crowded for much movement) and Connie Fournier (wearing the white blouse with black embroidery detail, red cardigan and gray/tan slacks) moved a box of documents to her side at the lectern and then returned to sit not at the defense table, but in the spectator seats.
As a matter of fact, today, the courtroom was packed!
The whole ‘plaintiff’ side was taken up with legal students who were on a field trip to the courthouse today…so, even ‘Dr. Dawg’ (who is also suing the Fourniers in a separate suit, in a vain effort to emulate Mr. Warman) and his young, bald companion had to sit in the ‘defense’ side. And, yes, for all of you who’ve asked: Dr. Dawg was wearing those cute riding boots with the most adorable silver embellishments on them! (Yes – the same ones he posted a picture of himself wearing while riding a horse or a mule or something…as if the courthouse were equivalent to a barnyard.)
At this point, Ms. Kulaszka introduced yet another binder – a compillation of some of the other exhibits. Mr. Katz objected to not having had a chance to verify that all the documents therein were indeed the previously submitted exhibits, but the judge ruled that he ought to trust the opposing counsel, until proven otherwise. Thus, everyone in the jury (and the judge, clerk and Mr. Katz) got yet another binder with the same evidence herein, just organized slightly differently. I don’t claim to understand the process, but, my highly imperfect understanding was that this ‘exhibit’ had things in the proper context, as far as the defense was concerned – and, in this case, context is everything!
Ms. Kulaszka then delved into the ‘meat’ of the matter: political forum, context is important, current political issues from a conservative point of view, comments not censored, fair comment, not defamatory, true statement, David Icke…’Maximum Disruption’…ARA…Jessica Beaumont (Connie has daughters)…Paul Fromm’s testimony…public figure…
She had proceeded to go through each and every posting, explaining the defense, stressing one point or another. I must admit that as a ‘free speecher’, I found this very exciting and was at the edge of my seat – but, I don’t think the jury was like-minded. I saw a few suppressed yawns and a few not so suppressed ones…even when she (Ms. Kulaszka) had pointed out that one of the people from Free Dominion that Mr. Warman had accused of anti-Semitism was actually Jewish…at least, that is what I understood from what had been said, in my highly imperfect comprehension.
This took us to a bit past the lunch break. I think she had done a good job explaining why each and every single posting was not defamatory, but it was a long and necessarily tedious process. Ms. Kulaszka did not address the greater picture of freedom of speech or what impact on the current internet practices in general as well as chilling free political speech in particular a guilty verdict would make.
Before she thanked the jury and the judge and rested her case, Ms. Kulaszka pointed out that Mr. Warman had sued 69 people – including her clients, in part for what Mr. Ed Kennedy had posted and for not ‘banning him from Free Dominion’, but, despite the fact that Mr. Ed Kennedy did not hide his identity, Mr. Warman had never sued Mr. Ed Kennedy himself… a fact which resonated very deeply with me.
Next up was Mr. Roger Smith, who was representing himself in this matter.
He had made a passionate speech, painting the big picture as far as freedom of speech in general is concerned.
Actually, he was really awesome!
Understated as he is in his mannerisms, the distinguished and highly credible-looking Mr. Smith addressed the jury and the judge.
He explained how, following Mark Steyn’s persecution (my word, not his) by the BC HRC (which he had attended as a spectator) had affected him and motivated him to protect freedom of speech in Canada. We had won the greater ‘Section 13’ battle – and this case was necessarily embedded in this context…
He explained how this lawsuit was a leftist’s attempt to abuse the courts to censor a right-wing political discussion he did not like. Mr. Smith explained lawfare and SLAPP suits…and how they attempt to use courts to regulate public opinion – an abuse if there ever was one!
Should we have 1/2 of the country suing the other 1/2, just to have their political views suppressed by the courts?!?!?
He had explained the motivations (and results) of all his actions, though he did stop short of comparing them to and contrasting against the plaintiff’s own actions (letter to employers, etc.) – something I thought ought to have been highlighted.
Mr. Smith passionately explained his unease with a civil servant using the organs/powers of the government to go after his political opponents…as a daughter of a political dissident under a totalitarian regime, I found his arguments most compelling. Yet, I am not sure to which degree the jury members had undergone Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism indoctrination, so it is hard to tell if they will have comprehended his meaning.
At 14:45, the most eloquent Mr. Katz took the podium to deliver the plaintiff’s closing remarks. And, while all his points were predictable and, to my way of thinking, irrelevant, he made them in an animated and highly persuasive manner of speech.
Tomorrow, will be the 11th day of the hearings – the court will reconvene at 9 am to discuss the charge to the jury, which the judge expects to deliver at 11 am…and, then, it will be up to the 4 men and 2 women of the jury to decide!!!
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 8)
September 23, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4′s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.
Day 7’s events can be read here.
It is getting harder and harder to juggle ‘things’ so that I can make it to the courthouse to observe. Day 8 of the proceedings was no different: could not make it in until the afternoon session. Before I describe what I saw, I think it will not hurt if I re-state my biases, as I necessarily have them and the readers should be aware of them.
I am a free speech absolutist and an anti-slavery fundamentalist – which necessarily makes me a voluntaryist to a great degree (though I do stop short of anarcho-capitalism). Prior to covering the Warman vs Free Dominion legal saga, I did not know either party, have never been a member of Free Dominion or even went to their site. Over these past 3+ years, I have developed a genuine affection for and admiration of the Fourniers. I have exchanged a polite ‘Thank you’ with Mr. Warman every now and then when we held the courtroom doors for each other.
From the tidbits of information I have managed to scrape together about the morning’s events, I did indeed miss much that was important. Jason Bertucci, aka Faramir and one of the defenders represented by Ms. Kulaszka gave his testimony, as did another person (I did not write down the name, so I’ll have to confirm who…). Apparently, Mr. Katz had softened from his previous adversarial style of questioning (imagine a US TV show).
Still, the defense was optimistically hopeful of the morning’s events.
The court re-convened at 14:04 and the judge asked Ms. Kulaszka what was her next step. She replied that her witness, Mr. Paul Fromm, was waiting outside.
Thus, the jury was brought in and at 14:07, the bailiff went and fetched the witness.
The witness was sworn in on the Bible and stated his full name to be Frederick Paul Fromm. He wore a dark suit with a dark red kerchief in the pocket, white shirt and a dark tie with a gold coat-of-arms type repeated motifs separated by a thin gold stripe. With his graying hair and understated glasses, he looked very distinguished.
Considering that the plaintiff tried to cast Mr. Fromm (rightly or wrongly) as a neo-Nazi, I think his testimony (and cross-examination) were much more favourable for the defense than the prosecution.
I’ll jump around – in time, that is – to make it a narrative which is easier to follow…
Mr. Fromm started off testifying that he was with an organization called ‘Canadian Association for Free Expression’. As such, he is committed to freedom of expression, even if the speech itself is politically unpopular. (I am paraphrasing here.)
Then, he delved into ‘the Zundel saga’. Mr. Fromm explained that whether he agreed with Ernst Zundel’s views or not, he found the process the government had subjected him to to be unconstitutional and had organized public protests in order to say so. (He was, of course, later vindicated as the process itself was, indeed, found unconstitutional by the courts.) As a result of these protests, he became the target of the Anti-Racism Association, the ARA, which had played such a significant part in the trial earlier.
If you don’t remembe the ARA, Mr. Warman had given a speech at one of their events during which he joked that the ARA members would be just as surprised that he has police officers as friends as his police officer friends would find it surprising to find Warman had friends among the ARA, Mr. Warman had identified himself as having belonged to the ARA while he had lived in Toronto and outlined his ‘Maximum Disruption’ doctrine to be used against either neo-Nazi groups or just for fun, against people who annoyed him…Connie Fournier had testified that this very speech had greatly informed her opinion of Mr. Warman.
One of the statement which Mr. Warman is seeking compensation for defamation is the claim that he had paid for a bus that brought the ARA to a rather ‘vigorous’ demonstration at Mr. Fromm’s house because, as he had testified earlier, Mr. Warman had stated that being accused of financing an urban terrorist organization would be damaging to the reputation of a practicing member of the bar…from which I can only conclude that Mr. Warman himself considers the ARA to indeed be a terrorist organization…
Mr. Fromm had testified that many of the people against whom Mr. Warman had laid complaints against under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) were very poor and could not afford legal representation in front of the Tribunal. Unlike in a real court, where one has to be either self-represented or represented by an actual lawyer, the pseudo-courts that are the HR Tribunals are not so strict about any of the legal procedures and anyone can be represented by a citizen who acts as their agent. In this capacity, Mr. Fromm had represented Jessica Beaumont, Terry Tremaine, and a number of others.
He had done his best to help these poor, unsophisticated people defend themselves against the ‘Maximum Disruption’ assault launched by Mr. Warman. But, back to the ‘Zundel’ bit: and, again, I am jumping back and forth in time (testimony-wise, cross-examination and re-direct…) in order to have continuity in narrative.
It was established that Mr. Zundel had been the subject of protests (and/or threats by the ARA).
It was testified to (by Mr. Fromm) that the arsonists who had set fire to Mr. Zundel’s house were never criminally charged.
When the ARA protested in front of Mr. Fromm’s house (and trespassed on condominium property and greatly terrorized his neighbours), they chanted “Nazi scum, out out out!” – but, later, he testified that the ARA members threatened to ‘burn him out just like Zundel’… the implication of terrorist threat being rather obvious and not in the least conrtrovened by anything Mr. Warman’s side had to offer.
On cross examination, Mr. Katz brought out that Mr. Fromm had been a teacher, who had been fired from his job…but, his students from various cultural and racial backgrounds had protested his firing and even made a video in his support, testifying how he had not only taught them to achieve but also to have raised their self esteem and their self-confidence.
In the end, Mr. Katz introduced the letter of dismissal from when Mr. Fromm had been fired from his teaching job and had questioned Mr. Fromm on it. I could not get the exact wording written down during testimony, so I asked him to repeat the exact wording to me after the court session was over.
Mr. Fromm said the letter said he had been fired because of his ‘persistent disregard of and contempt for multicultural and ethno-centric cultural equity, which are core values of the education system’… He explained that he thought the core values of the education system were ‘reading, writing, mathematics, computer literacy, self discipline, co-operation with others’ and so on…
At this, both sides rested.
Monday, day 9 of the court proceedings, would be about the lawyers and the judge haggling out the questions for the jury – the jury itself would be excused.
An alternate view of the events can be read here.
FIRE: Modesto Junior College Censorship
September 19, 2013 — xanthippaApparently, some apartchicks still don’t understand that ‘regulated speech’ is NOT ‘free speech’!!!
It is precisely due to self-appointed censors whose bureaucratic nature does not permit them to consider the nature of the rules they are enforcing (and whether or not they infringe upon human rights, free speech being first among them), but just enforce them because they are there to be enforced!
These are the modern-day brownshirts of our times – even if they style themselves as righteous enforcers of the rules!
These censors would oppress us, regulate our speech into complete silence, lest an idea that offends them – or, worse, informs others that they don’t have to give up their inalienable rights to these apartchicks – slips past our lips!
Give them some arbitrary rules and a little bit of power and they will use it to silence people and, if the people will not be silenced, to wreck their lives, like human wrecking balls!
We have to stand up to them.
For our sake – and for the sake of our children!
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 7)
September 18, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4’s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. However, I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6’s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness. Following Mr. Icke’s testimony, Connie Fournier took the stand and began her testimony. From the Ottawa Citizen:
‘Icke testified Warman’s efforts led to the cancellation of speaking events on the 2000 tour and hassles at the hands of Canada immigration officials, including when he arrived in Ottawa on Saturday.
“I started to realize there was a campaign to stop me and I was being painted as some kind of racist who was going to be engaged in hate speech, when I talk in my books about the need to love each other,” he told the court.
“That was shocking and the name Richard Warman started to appear as one of the ringleaders of this extraordinarily unfair character assassination.”’
…
‘”In her opening statement before presenting a defence of the libel claims, Kulaszka said the website posts Warman complained of show “how utterly trivial this lawsuit is. Some don’t even mention Richard Warman,” she said. “Some are obvious jokes.”
“The paltry few lines he is suing for could not damage his reputation,” she told the court. She said Warman had made himself into a public figure through repeated use of Canada’s hate-speech laws.’
Today is day 7 of the trial and as it opened, Connie Fournier was testifying.
In a pretty white blouse with black buttons and black embroidery detail topped by a red cardigan and simple pearls, she appeared competent and likable. Most of all, she appeared well grounded and very much in touch with technology and the latest trends on the internet.
Her easy smile was endearing.
Her testimony was deeply thought provoking.
She explained, among many other things, just how clear it was that some of the statements that Mr. Warman alleges are defamatory, just how very crystal clear it was that they were parody.
For example, there had been a thread from several years ago regarding an essay contest for the Western Standard, a magazine that used to be published by Ezra Levant. In this particular thread, Peter O’Donnel had posted a list of the most ridiculous titles for an essay one might write and submit to this contest. The thread had already been several years old at this point, but someone else had added another title, regarding Mr. Warman, and then added an emoticon after it of a face with the tongue sticking out, clearly indicating this is parody.
Yet, Connie Fournier explained, Mr. Warman was claiming it was defamatory – as if it had been a statement of fact!
Another instance which, Ms. Fournier testified, where Mr. Warman claimed they had defamed him by was when they had posted his libel notice. Earlier, while he was testifying, Mr. Warman had indeed lamented at great length that when Free Dominion had posted his libel notice, they had re-packaged all of the defamatory material into one convenient package and then re-published it: not only did this hurt him all over again, it made it easier for his haters to use…
Connie Fournier explained that some of the material Mr. Warman claims is defamatory had been excerpts from an Ottawa Citizen article which was overall very favourable to Mr. Warman, but which listed some descriptions of what his critics were calling him… She was surprised he’d find this defamatory and one of the reasons she had posted it was precisely to show others what Mr. Warman thought constituted defamation.
Ms. Fournier testified that on the Free Dominion site, it was clearly marked that these were items Mr. Warman said were defamatory and in no way were they claimed to be statements of truth. It was there as a public service, to let others know where Mr Warman thinks the ‘red line’ lies.
I, myself, remember that, a few years ago, when Mr. Ezra Levant was being sued for defamation by Mr. Warman’s friend and former co-worker from the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Vigna, he had also posted all the legal documents on his website: both the notice of libel and his statement of defense. As did a number of other people sued by Mr. Warman and/or his friends/minions. From what I, the non-expert, had seen of the internet, this seems to be a pretty standard, non-controversial practice…these are, after all, public documents and as such, publishing them is newsworthy and good for society!
The other reason she had posted the notice of libel on Free Dominion, Ms. Fournier asserted, was to inform the John Does (who had not been identified so far) that they had become the subjects of a lawsuit.
Aside:
One little interesting thing happened at about the time Connie was testifying about this: just 5 minutes short of noon, the Court Clerk we had had until now was replaced. It appeared to me to be not due to any fault but because she just had to be elsewhere. So, the Court Clerk with the most amazing strappy shoes left and we got one with great dangly earrings. I only mention this because in my limited experience, I’ve never seen it before…
Later, during cross examination, Mr. Katz had returned to this. Sorry to be jumping around, but it seems logical to me to finish the subject, even if the events were separated in time.
The questions Mr. Katz kept asking – at least, that is what my legally untrained mind made of it – he seemed to try to get Ms. Fournier to admit that she could have used non-public means to communicate the information about the lawsuit to both the John Does and the other members of Free Dominion, whom she was asking for help in this matter. For example, she could have sent them private messages or even emailed them….
Ms. Fournier pointed out the practical limitation of trying to send 8 or 10 thousand private messages…and if my very imperfect Aspie observations of the jury were correct, I don’t think Mr. Katz advanced his clients position through this line of questioning. Rather, it seemed to underline just how disconnected from reality Mr. Warman’s demands were…
The next bit of Connie’s testimony concerned (yes, we are back from the cross examination by Mr. Katz and back to questioning by Ms. Kulaszka) something called ‘Maximum Disruption Doctrine’ and Mr Warman’s speech to the Orwelian-ly named ‘Anti-Racist Action’ (ARA – sounds a lot like ‘NRA’, does it not?).
If you are not familiar with them, ARA use nasty techniques to target people who say things they don’t like – and they are not above not just doc dropping someone (and their family), but showing up by the bus-load at their homes or kids schools and protesting in less than pleasant manner. Think ‘union thugs in training’…
Mr. Warman had testified earlier that he had given the ARA one of his ‘standard presentation’ speeches, with a preface and a few jokes tailored for this group, to make it more particular to them. So far, so good.
In the opening remarks of this speech (and, I am trying to write as fast as I can at court, but I am a scientist, not a stenographer, so, if any readers out there have the exact wording, please post it in the comments for accuracy), Mr. Warman had made a joke about ARA members finding it surprising to know that he, Mr. Warman, had friends who were policemen – just as his police friends would find it surprising that he was friends with ARA people.
Ms. Fournier testified that this information had greatly informed her opinion regarding Mr. Warman: the joke would not have made sense if ARA members were peaceful, law abiding citizens on good terms with the police…
Later in this speech, Connie explained, Mr. Warman had said that while he had lived in Toronto, he had been an old school ARA member, or words to that effect (again, please, help me out in the comments, if you can).
And, Mr. Warman had, in that speech, defined his ‘Maximum Disruption’ method of harassing Neo-Nazis and people who annoy him – for fun. It was this bit that convinced Ms. Fournier that Mr. Warman’s goal was not conflict resolution but rather that he enjoyed the conflict itself and that later, when he made demands on the Fourniers under threat of legal action, he was not dealing with them in good faith and it would not have been possible for the Fourniers to satisfy his ever increasing demands.
Connie also testified that she had formed her opinion of Mr. Warman from his postings on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront, to which she had been directed through having read about them when she read the transcripts and ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal. That was when she formed the opinion that he was ruining individual people’s lives as well as harming our society by giving support and encouragement to people who wanted to build Nazi organizations in Canada. She gave quotes of where he had done that, but I am not skilled enough to reproduce them accurately, so perhaps, later, when I can catch my breath and/or get access to the source material, I may re-visit this.
One very, very essential point that Ms. Fournier had made on the stand was that, while reading the Tribunal transcripts, she had realized that some of the speech Mr. Warman based this particular Section 13 complaint were actually verses from the Bible.
If verses from scriptures, the Christian’s Bible or any other religion’s holy books, were to be suppressed as ‘hate speech’, then freedom of religion would be seriously threatened!!!
It went on in much that flavour, until I had to leave during the afternoon break (previous obligation). I was fortunate enough to get this report about the last leg of the afternoon’s proceedings from another spectator (there were so many of us there today that we spilled over from the Fournier’s side of the courtroom benches to the middle, and Mr. Ike and a few others had to even sit on the prosecution side of the room!):
‘Too bad you couldn’t stick around for this afternoon’s proceedings in Court as Connie and Mark did very well in the hot seat up there.
David Icke even came up to Mark and later Connie and congratulated them on their testimony.Mark gave a moving account of what it was like to have been hounded by Warman all these years. He said with the exception of just one week, all of their marriage has been involved in fighting off the assaults that Warman has hit them with. He talked about working 70 hours a week driving for a living as a long haul truck driver, keep driving an old car, and Connie having to quit her job to devote herself to fighting Warman, and working the website. Mr Icke told Mark that his honest speech was sure to have hit the jury more forcefully than all of the legal banter of Mr Katz.’
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 