Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 2)

September 11, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 1’s events can be read here

If you want to skip through my rant, please, do scroll down to the un-indented section!

Before I get into today’s events, there are several things I’d like to get ‘out there’.

First and foremost, I am quite sad and a little upset that I appear to be the only person who is coming to watch the trial and is daily reporting on it.  After all, I am an Aspie and, as such, have a non-typical way of perceiving the world around me.

People with Aspergers have, according to the latest research I am aware of, many more undifferentiated cells in our amygdalas (when compared with the neurotypical majority).  As such, we tend to both perceive and process what goes on around us a little differently than most people do.  At least two standard deviations from the mean differently….for most diagnostic norms.

So, I am fully aware that my perceptions and my parsing of what is happening in the courtroom is not how most people are likely to see it.  And, without another report from a more neurotypical person to which I could link for ‘control’, I am afraid that, despite my best abilities, I may not be painting as accurate picture as I wish I could!

So, I beg you to to bear with me as I briefly describe my ‘Aspie lens’ so that you can strip it off my account!

Most of us Aspies are rather blind to appeals to our emotions rather than our rational thought.  To the contrary, what other people perceive as display of emotion, we perceive as attempts at manipulation and are rather repelled by them.  Also, we usually have a very rigid sense of ‘fair play’ and given the choice between ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘helping our friend’ – should those two be in conflict – we will pretty unanimously pick the ‘doing the right thing’.

Of course,  what we consider ‘doing the right thing’ to be depends much on our upbringing and life experience.

I, myself, an am immigrant to Canada.  I escaped from a totalitarian dictatorship, where I was the daughter of a known political dissident and, because of this, I had experienced some rather unpleasant things from early on in my childhood.

Having lived under an oppressive, totalitarian regime, I have become fully aware that ‘a state’ cannot just oppress because that is a political construct.  Rather, it is always the ‘agents of the state’ – flesh and blood people – who carry out the actions of oppression against their fellow citizens on behalf of the state by enforcing the very laws  which restrict human freedoms.  And, these ‘agents of the state’ – more often than not – consider themselves to be upstanding citizens who are protecting society by upholding the laws of the land.  But, I digress…

Thus, I am an anti-slavery fundamentalist and a free-speech absolutist.  Yes, I truly think that even yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater ought to be permitted speech, because the damage done by people being afraid to call out when they see some smoke, which later turns out to be a fast-spreading-fire, is potentially much, much greater than if they spoke freely and warned their fellow citizens of a potential danger!!!

Also, English is neither my first, second or third language, so, at times, I may be quite deaf to some linguistic nuances.

These are my biases and limitations – I state them here clearly and honestly.  Please, when you read my report, keep them in mind and try to apply your own lens to neutralize them!!!

The next thing I’d like to raise is (sorry if I come across as whining – I don’t know how to state this without sounding so wussy) the state of my health.

I am not exactly well.  At this point, I have outlived the MD’s ‘best predictions’ by several years already, so I count myself incredibly lucky for every day I am still here.  But, I do have physical problems…and, being out of bed for this many hours, two days in a row, is a very, very serious strain on me.

As such, I have had to take my maximum prescribed pain meds.  There is a saying ‘out there’ – thou shall not drink and blog!  Well, I may not be ‘drinking’ my meds, but that is a bit of a technicality…

Yet, I do know that there are many of you who are eager to read what had gone on in the trial today!!!

And, regrettably, I am the only one who seems to be reporting on this…and thus I do feel a sense of obligation to report what I had observed in the trial…

Unfortunately, I was a little late in arriving at the court-house today:  the jury trial had already been underway for a little over half an hour .  Yet, from what I have understood later, from the comments of others, the very first thing the brilliant Mr. Katz did was to have Mr. Warman clarify the ‘potential misunderstanding’ that Mr. Warman’s testimony of the previous day may have created.

Good!

The jury ought to form their opinion on true facts, not accidental mistakes.

The whole day’s testimony before the jury was taken up by Mr. Warman being up on the stand.  I have to say, that would be a physically stressful day!  Yet, he bore it well and the only signs of fatigue I noticed was that, while he had been speaking so fast on day one that one of the jurors had to ask him so slow down, by the end of the day today, he spoke much slower than in the morning.

And, towards the day, as he spoke, he was making more grammatical errors in his sentences.  Minor ones, like who/whom, and so on, but I am a bit of a grammar-nazi (I plead Aspie!), so each one struck me.

Otherwise, he appeared as fresh at 4 o’clock as he had when I walked into the room.

Again, just like yesterday, Mr. Katz talked Mr. Warman through the various threads on the Free Dominion website where Mr Warman explained the context, timing – in relation with communicating with the defendants, too – what he found defamatory and why.  This had the jury flipping from tab to tab in these huge, thicks binders of evidence.

Alas, without one, I could not follow it as closely as the jury, so I’ll not even attempt to go into the details.  Instead, I’ll report on the few instances where this ‘normal’ state of things was interrupted.

For example, when the court convened after lunch, before the jury had been brought in, with an indulgent smile on his face, Justice Robert Smith announced that he had a question from the jury!

He tore open the brown envelope in which it had been delivered and read it out.   At the beginning of the trial, the jury had been instructed not to do independent research on any of the subjects of this trial because it must be judged on what is presented in the courtroom and not elsewhere.  But, this question was not about Mr. Warman or Free Dominion or any of the John Does themselves…

Rather, the juror wanted to know if they could do independent research to learn what the libel laws in Canada actually are.

The judge said it seems like the jurors might seek to know the law in order to have context for the testimony before them. But, it would be difficult to do quickly – the full instruction to the jury is usually at the conclusion of the testimony and is long and complex, and could not really be done at this point.  Perhaps he could give a general idea…

Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel for some of the defendants, thought it would be better for the jurors to listen to all the evidence without this framework, so they don’t accidentally shut information they mistakenly thought was irrelevant.

There was some back and forth between the Judge and the lawyers on this.  Justice Smith ensured that he also asked Mr. Smith’s opinion (as Mr. Smith is representing himself), but Mr. Smith deferred to the judge’s opinion.

In the end, the judge did indeed give the jury a very general framework for what these laws are, but he was cautious to point out that, like in every profession, these terms are all technical terms that have very specific meanings in the legal context, meanings which may differ from the general usage of those terms.

So, he briefly outlined the law and the defenses, but told the jurors that he will not only explain it better later, he’ll give them all the definitions in writing so they will be able to refer to them in their deliberating.

But, I am out of temporal sequence here…

First the question came, the judge and counsel discussed it, and the jury was sent for.  But, instead of the jury, another question came:  now, one (or, perhaps more) juror wanted to know if they may visit the Free Dominion site itself.  This, of course, was a simple ‘no’.

Thus, when the jury did come in and the judge was giving them answers, he answered question 2 first, then the more complex question 1.

One thing that struck me about Mr. Warman’s testimony was that, over and over, he insisted that any claims that he was damaging people’s lives with his actions, were false.  To him (or, so I perceived), this was about personal accountability:  these people were saying things that it was illegal to say and he was a fine and upstanding citizen who simply made sure the laws of the land were applied to them.  It was the duty of righteous citizens, like himself, to protect the society at large from those citizens who speak things that are illegal to say.

I am, of course, describing here how I perceived Mr. Warman’s testimony – these are not his direct words, just my understanding of them.

Yet, this was a recurring reference that he kept making – he was just enforcing the laws!

Therefore, any reference associating him with an agent of a totalitarian state enforcing unjust laws on the citizens, like the Stasi, SS or Stalin’s goons, is completely unfounded.

At one point, he did mention that Section 13 (often referred to in the media as ‘the censorship provision’) of the Human Rights code may have been ‘gotten rid of’ (here, I did not perfectly follow the details, just the bigger meaning, but I think it was gotten rid of because so many people thought it to be unconstitutional), that it is still the law of our land until next summer.  So, it was perfectly proper for him to lay ‘Section 13’ complaints against people who said illegal things and it is not he, but the people who said the illegal things that is the cause of their suffering.

There was one point in particular that stands out in my mind.

He was speaking about some woman (I did not catch the name – my apologies) who said illegal things and whom he had brought a ‘Section 13’ complaint against, but who later claimed that Mr. Warman had ruined her life.  I don’t even know whom he had been referring to, much less what it was she had said that brought this upon her, but it was clearly illegal and Mr. Warman testified that she was no misguided young girl but a full-out baddie who claimed that these illegal-to-say things (I don’t want to repeat the things and accidentally re-publish them, because, from what was said in the trial, this, too, might land me in trouble…thus the self-censorship)….lost my thread, sorry.

So, Mr. Warman testified that this woman said these ‘illegal-to-say-things’ were her deeply held beliefs and formed the core of her self-identity.  So, the Tribunal did what it always does (I do believe the term ‘boilerplate’ was used) and issued a ‘cease and desist’ against her (sorry, lack of legal term understanding here, but I understand it to mean a lifetime gag order).  So, if in the future, this bad woman were ever to say aloud or write the things she believes and which form the core of her identity, she would indeed be jailed.

What struck me was how cold and clinical he was as he said this, as if he did not realize the implications of what he was saying.  He made it seem ‘matter-of-fact’ and ‘normal’.

At this point, my stomach clenched, my head began to spin…

There is more, but I am too upset to type now….perhaps I’ll update more when my hands stop shaking…

Posted in Aspergers, corruption, freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 1)

September 9, 2013 — xanthippa

Yet another installment in the Warman vs Free Dominion saga began today (9th of September, 2013) – and I was lucky to be there to witness it.  While I am no legal expert so I could only follow what was happening through my layman’s eyes, I am happy to share my personal observations with you.

As this was a jury trial, the first thing that had to be done was the selection of the jury.  One thing I learned was that while there are 12 jurors in a criminal case, there are only 6 in a civil case.  The process itself is interesting, if lengthy and, for the prospective jurors, I imagine it would be quite tedious and more than a little stressful.

The jury selection room at the Elgin St. Courthouse in Ottawa, where this trial is taking place, is located on the 3rd floor.  As soon as I came off the elevator, I spotted Connie Fournier from Free Dominion  with her lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka and a group of supporters standing in front of Courtroom #37.  Roger Smith, one of the John Does (who is representing himself) was seated nearby, and the highly charismatic Mark Fournier soon also joined the group.  All were either smiling hopefully or looking thoughtful.

Connie Fournier looked elegant in a pretty brown blouse with a simple silver necklace, charcoal slacks and black cardigan and understated black shoes.  Mark wore a simple dark green shirt, sporty black pants and his usual aura of immense energy, coiled  just beneath the surface!  The distinguished-looking Roger Smith wore a tan shirt, darker tan pants (brown shoes, of course),  blue blazer with a blue tie with a subtle tan stripe.  Barbara Kulaszka wore her lawyer’s robes, which drape pleasingly about her slender frame, flattering her tall figure.

Richard Warman breezed in just at the time appointed for the action to start, in his regulation crisp, flawless business suit (dark) with a light shirt and a tan-ish patterned tie.  He was accompanied by his handsome and extremely capable lawyer, James Katz (who appears to have moved from Brazeau Seller LLP to Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP) and his assistant (grey suit) whom Mr. Katz later identified as a law student.

In the meantime, all the prospective jurors (there were to be several juries, for both criminal and civil suits, to be selected today) had gathered in a crowded room just off the Court Room #37.  When the first judge (not for our case) was ready to start selecting the jury for the criminal case he was to preside over, they (the prospective jurors) were all led in (by the bailiff) and seated in the large and comparatively plush courtroom – however, as this did not concern us and the room was quite full, we left.

We moved to Court Room #35, a much smaller one, where the presiding justice, Judge Robert Smith, wanted to go over some points of procedure with the lawyers and Mr. Smith prior to selecting the jury.

Justice Robert Smith seems very kind and good natured, explaining to the self-represented Mr. Smith that, as he (Mr. Smith) is not a lawyer himself, he (Justice Smith) will explain all the procedures to him and his rights in how to represent himself and he (Justice Smith) urged him (Mr Smith) to ask questions if he has any and he (Justice Smith) will be happy to answer them.

Then there was some amicable procedural back and forth between the judge and the two lawyers and things seemed to be going quite well.  For example, Mr. Katz explained that the 10 days set aside for the trial was spread over 3, rather than 2, weeks due to his obligation to observe some religious holidays, and so on.

Procedural stuff!

The judge asked the counsel to prepare a brief 1 to max 2 page summary not of the facts of the case, but of the positions they’ll be arguing them from, for tomorrow morning.

In addition to the Fourniers, Barbara Kulaszka is also representing one of the John Does, (Jason Bertucci, from BC, aka ‘Faramir’ – who will attend the trial next week).  Several of the John Does Mr. Warman was suing had settled out of court and he had not discovered the identity of a few more, so, as per an earlier court order, the proceedings against the  unidentified John Does was vacated.  In case Mr. Warman was to win and damages were to be awarded to him, the terms of the settlements with the John Does would be revealed so as to prevent ‘double dipping’ (my term, not the legal one) of having overlapping (again, my imperfect understanding, not the legal words) damages awarded in both the settlement and the court case.

…haggling over some late-submitted evidence, the essence of which was quite lost on me…relevance – rulings, binding so stuff can be removed from evidence books if deemed irrelevant….procedural stuff!

Once Justice Robert Smith was happy, we went back to Court Room #37 where the criminal case jury selection was just finishing up (under the watchful eye of Justice Patrick Smith).  (It seemed like metal-workers were everywhere today!!!)

As it concluded, we were told that there was to be a brief break – and all the prospective jurors had to file out of the room, back into the cramped holding room off Court Room #37.

Ten or so minutes later, we went back in to do our jury selection – and all the prospective jurors had to file back in.  It was at this time that I observed something peculiar, but very, very human!

Being in a stressful situation, as being in a jury pool, with its inherent loss of control over one’s ‘destiny’ – at least, circumstances in the short term – is much more stressful that one might imagine and which was accentuated by all this ‘group herding’ from one room to the other over and over… but this bonds people together!

And, as the prospective jurors filed in this time around, from the guy carrying his bicycle helmet to the young woman in those ridiculously high heels, these people began to form ‘familiar stranger’ social bonds.  Some sought to sit near the same people as earlier.  Others exchanged smiles and acknowledging nods.  Many began to engage in ‘familiar stranger’ social chatter…

It is exactly this ability of humans to bond under stressful situations, regardless of race or creed, that makes humanity so awesome!

But, I am rambling.  My apologies – I’ll re-focus.

Justice Robert Smith spoke of the supreme importance of jury duty to our system of governance  and I fully approved of all the wonderful, important things he said.

So, the process of jury selection, patiently explained by Justice Robert Smith, was to select 20 potential jurors by drawing their pre-assigned number from a box, which looked a lot like a Bingo drum.  They will come up if their number is called. Then, if any of them had undue hardships, they could tell the judge and he’d excuse them from jury duty.  A gray-haired woman came forward and explained her English was not good enough for her to follow the testimony properly, a young man had been booked to travel on business during trial dates, and so on.  The judge excused them, if their ‘hardship’ were genuine.

The rest of the 20 who were up then stood facing the lawyers  and the self-representing Mr. Smith, one by one, and they (the lawyers and Mr. smith) could either accept them as jury members or reject them.  Each side could reject up to 4 potential jurors, this number being split equally between Ms. Kulaszka and Mr. Smith on the defense side, giving each of them 2 rejections.  Mr. Katz rejected a computer-savvy looking man.  Ms. Kulaszka rejected a nuveau-hippie looking young woman.  That was it.  The next 6 people were sworn (on either the Bible or the Koran) or affirmed in as jurors, the next two as alternates (these were dismissed at the beginning of the trial, when it was apparent that the 6 jurors would indeed be able to serve).

Thus, the jury of 4 men and 2 women was selected!

It was not even noon, and we were free till the body of the trial would start at 2 pm, in Court Room #35.

Perhaps not as exciting a process as the trial itself, but, as I had never seen anything like jury selection before, I found it fascinating.  Hence the recounting thereof…

Promptly, at 2 pm, the Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does jury trial began.

Once the jury was brought in, Justice Smith again spoke to the importance of their role to our society and went on to explain their prospective roles:  his job was to instruct them on what the law is and their job was to listen to the evidence, all of the presented evidence (and no more or less), for themselves, and then draw conclusion on what the facts were and apply the laws, as they are and not necessarily as they think they should be, to these facts and render a decision.  They could take notes, but not take them away with them – and taking notes should not interfere with their paying attention to the testimony.

Justice Smith further instructed the jury as to how things will proceed, how the testimony and cross examination will work, and all that procedural sort of stuff.  He was very good at covering the important points and, if the jurors looked puzzled, he explained closer. Very well done.

Aside:  at some point in the proceedings, the exact moment of which I cannot right now find in my horribly scrawled notes (as I am hurrying to write this all up), Justice Smith announced that any witnesses who are to testify in the case (none for Mr. Warman, though he himself would testify, but as a plaintiff and not a witness and for the Fourniers [who would each also testify, as defendants – not witnesses], there will be four witnesses called:  Tom Kennedy, Paul Fromm, Jerry Neumann and David Icke) are to leave the courtroom and isolate themselves from any testimony before they themselves are called.  (Sorry for the convoluted sentence – it’s a lot of information condensed together, but it is important ‘stuff’.)

All right – if I go into all the details, I will not get this typed up before having to head in again tomorrow morning (I am a slow thinker and an even slower writer).  So, I’ll simply hit the headlines and explain my perceptions of what took place.

Mr. Katz, a most competent lawyer (without whose brilliant work I suspect Mr. Warman’s lawsuit record would be quite dismal – and who is, unfortunately, not sporting that sexy beard of his right now) made his rather brief opening statement.  Quite well, but not as well as I would have expected from his past performances.  (Sad … I love to see a brilliant mind at his best!)

Then, he called Mr. Warman to the stand.

Exciting!!!

But again, the testimony itself was so much lower quality than what I had expected to see that it left me faintly sad…

Mr. Warman, aided adroitly by Mr. Katz, attempted to paint himself as ‘the victim’.  The courageous human rights activist who saw wrongs being done and took up the challenge to try to make the world a better place…and got nothing but grief and abuse as a reward!

At least, that is what, to my eye and ear, he attempted to sound like.  Just a little too hard…

I don’t know if the jury bought it, but, it did not ring true to my proverbial ear.

Why?

Because even when he attempted to cloak it is ‘oh, poor me, I’m doing good and the world is picking on me’ whines, he did make some rather stark factual admissions.

For example, Mr. Warman testified that there was a detestable man in the United States of America by the name of Bill White (if I am not mistaken) who got charged by the FBI for uttering death threats against a whole slew of people – and Richard Warman got himself added to that list, somehow.  It went to trial and, that detestable, horrible person was indeed found guilty of uttering death threats against every single person on that list – EXCEPT against Mr. Warman…

Aside:  if I am not mistaken (and I might be), Mr. Warman appealed this and lost – so not one, but at least two courts found his allegations of ‘death threats’ to be less than ‘provable’.  If any of my readers have more info on this, I would appreciate your ‘hard evidence’ because I am very sketchy on this and would like the legal record to be as correct as possible!  The corollary is: this is my highly imperfect understanding of the testimony Mr. Warman gave, not a statement of fact, and it should not ever be mistaken for one!

This bit is important because one of the defamatory comments Mr. Warman is suing about, from what I understand, is that someone claimed that he (Mr, Warman) had, in the past, made false claims that he got death threats…though, the bulk of his (Mr. Warman’s) testimony today was about ‘all the death threats’ from evil and detestable ‘neo-nazis’ (not even remotely connected to any of the people he is suing here – so I can only guess he’s laying groundwork against the claim of ‘his false claim of death-threats’) that he had, over the years, received…

Ah, what a web we weave…

Another ‘fact’ that Mr. Warman had testified to today was that, while employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he was also a complainant who brought cases before the Canadian Human Rights Commission…

Actually, to my untrained mind, Mr. Warman had made himself sound much worse than I suspect the facts of the matter are.  From previous information (which, I suspect, is not available to the jurors), I don’t think there is any evidence that Mr. Warman had himself investigated ‘Section 13’ (the ‘hate-speech’ section) of the Human Rights Code complaints.  Yet, the way he had phrased it on the stand, it would be easy for the jurors to misunderstand his statement to imply that he both brought the complaint to the Human Rights Commission and then investigated it himself….a clear conflict of interest, in my eyes.  A conflict of interest I do not think he is guilty of, but which the jury might misunderstand his words to suggest…

Don’t get me wrong – I am no fan of the past totalitarian actions of Mr. Warman.  But, being an Aspie, I cannot stand it if ‘the rules’ are broken and if ‘the truth’ is not clearly visible – whether that ‘advantage’ is in favour of the team I am ‘cheering for’, or against!!!  Which is why this bothers me so…

I want freedom of speech and freedom of the internet to win – but on the true facts and their merits, not on poorly given testimony which is then misunderstood!!!  That would be a hollow victory!

OK, that is my OCD speaking… sorry, I’ll move on…

Another fact Mr. Warman had testified to was that, while an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he had brought complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which were investigated by it,then referred to its ‘Tribunall’  – which then awarded him tens of thousands of dollars in ‘damages’…while he was also drawing a salary from the CHRC.  Again, I can not read the minds of the inscrutable jury, but, my to mind (rightly or wrongly) this screamed ‘double dipping’ and ‘corruption’!  Yet, when Mr. Warman testified to it, he tried to make it seem like a good thing.  And, again, I cannot but suspect the appearance Mr. Warman’s testimony created was much worse than the truth of the matter…

Indeed – everything Mr. Warman testified to was couched in the ‘I am a victim – neo-Nazi’s are trying to kill me’ language.  But, the facts he himself put into evidence…to my layman’s mind, they were seriously damaging to his cause, his credibility – and in my highly imperfect comprehension, the way he had painted himself – his very own words on the stand today – were way more damaging to his reputation that anything I have, over the years, read on the internet.  Much worse than what I suspect is the actual truth of the things he had so clumsily testified to today…

It remains to be seen if the jury parsed his testimony the same way I did – most unlikely, as I am much more familiar with the background material so some things that were casually ‘slipped in’ practically ‘screamed’ at me…plus I have a very Aspie mind, and thus are much more sensitive to perceiving even camouflaged injustices/misrepresentations than the average person might be.

One final point:  during some bit where Mr. Warman was explaining just how damaging to his reputation, both as a lawyer and as a person, the posts at Free Dominion were, he flatly said (and I may be paraphrasing slightly, as I am working from notes, but not in the substance of the statement):  they might as well have said I cut heads off of babies!!!

Several jury members visibly cringed at this simile.

I have no idea if this means they had empathy with him for such damaging statements on ‘that accursed website’ or if they thought he was over-exaggerating and thus losing credibility with them…

Only time will tell!

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . 8 Comments »

Free Dominion goes to court Monday, September 9th, 2013

September 5, 2013 — xanthippa

From Connie Fournier:

Richard Warman vs Free Dominion starts MONDAY!
Hi, FD Friends!

Once again I’m emailing you with a Free Dominion legal update because you have helped us in the past, and/or you are on our list of friends who are interested in keeping up with our cases. (Please let me know if you no longer want to get these status reports.)
Starting Monday September 9th – Fourniers and Warman meet in court!

 

Lately we’ve been buried in mounds of paperwork!  But, it has all been worthwhile because the Warman vs FD hearing starts on Monday and we are READY!! 

We have four volumes of evidence, four witnesses, and a jury will be sitting there waiting to hear it all!  Never before has Richard Warman had to seriously address every aspect of his own record for a court.  But, he will this time!

We are going to start a thread on Free Dominion on the weekend that will be dedicated to what is happening in court.  We hope to be able to post and tweet as the trial is on, but, at worst, we will make sure that you are updated a few times a day.  We may also send another email like this if there is something significant to tell you.

This has cost us thousands of dollars for printing, flights, accomodations for witnesses and John Does, and other expenses, but we still have our heads above the water!  That is thanks to friends like you!

However, since we will have expenses during the hearing and all of us have had to take time off work, too, we would really appreciate it if anyone feels inclined to send a last-minute donation to help defray our immediate travel expenses and to keep food and coffee in the FD kitchen for the Does and our witnesses!  (We also appreciate prayers and good wishes from those of you who have already donated, or who would simply prefer to support us in that way instead!)

We think we need about another $1500 to do this comfortably.  If you feel so inclined, the fastest and cheapest way to help out would be with an Interac Email Money Transfer to connie@freedominion.ca.

We also have PayPal if you prefer.

And our mailing address is:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd
Elginburg, ON  K0H 1M0

Since we will be out of town, it would be most convenient if cheques were made out to Connie Fournier so we can have someone at home drop them in the bank.

We are SO grateful to our many friends who have helped us get this far.  Now, finally, after six long years, the finish line is in sight!

We promise to go in there and put up a fight that is worthy of the faith you have shown in us!  Stay tuned!

PS If you can make it to the court to see any of the hearing, we’d love to see you!  We even have some extra Warman vs John Doe t-shirts if you ask us for one!   🙂

Hearing days are September 9-13th, September 16-18th, and September 23-25th at the Elgin St. Court in Ottawa!
Fondest Regards,
Connie Fournier
Free Dominion
Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Connie Fournier on the fall of ‘Section 13’

June 28, 2013 — xanthippa

Connie and Mark Fournier are the founders and operators of Free Dominion, Canada’s first and best known ‘little c’ conservative discussion forum.  As such, they have been in the forefront of the battles for freedom of speech and against ‘Section 13’ of the Human Rights Code, which criminilizes any speech which might, potentially, hurt someone’s feelings.

Of course, as per ‘Xanthippa’s first law of human dynamics’ (any rule and/or law will, eventually, be pushed to its extreme and abused/applied in ways the drafters never imagined), ‘Section 13’ became abused, had 100% conviction rate, and ‘truth’ was no defense….

Alas, passing laws is much easier than repealing them, which is why it took so long, and was such a difficult battle.

And the Fourniers were in the thick of it:  Dr. Michael Geist, in his ‘Milestones in 2012 from A to Z‘, even named ‘F’ is for ‘Free Dominion’!

It is natural, therefore, that I sought an interview with Connie Fournier on the occasion of the fall of ‘Section 13’.  Connie graciously agreed.  Here is the interview:

Q: How did you feel when you heard that Bill C-304, which strikes down the infamous ‘Section 13’, had passed the final reading in the Senate and received Royal Assent, making it a law?
A:  We are just talking about how both of us are having a hard time believing it is real.  We have fought against Section 13 so hard for so long that it is hard to believe that we actually won!  Obviously, though, we are ecstatic.

Q: What impact do you think this will make on the political discussion in Canada?
A:  We are hoping that it will make people less afraid to discuss controversial issues.  We have always believed that the best way for Canadians to deal with their differences is for them to be able to discuss them openly.  When you have a potential legal threat hanging over your head if someone decides your words are capable of making someone uncomfortable, it has a major chilling effect on discussion…especially political discussion, which is heated at the best of times.  When you add to that the effect of having a third party starting these actions as his own personal crusade, you have real problems.
Q: Do you think that your legal situation will be impacted by this and if so, how?
A:  When it comes to the defamation suits that Richard Warman has filed against us, this is very important.  When someone claims damages for defamation, they have to demonstrate that they had a good reputation that was unfairly damaged as a result of the words of the defendents.  In this case, the plaintiff’s actions have now directly resulted in two governments (the Federal government and the BC government) having to enact legislation to protect the public from him. (BC Libraries and Bill C-304…I can provide more info if you need it)  This is a direct reflection on his reputation.

Q: Do you think this will lead to eventual de-funding and/or dismantling of the quasi-judicial Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals in favour of trials in real courts with proper legal procedures?
A:  I wouldn’t be surprised if this resulted in such a move.  Hopefully the first thing that will happen, though, is for provincial HRCs to follow suit and repeal their own versions of Section 13.

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on the topic?
A:  The defenders of censorship are wailing that the repeal of Section 13 will result in an explosion of hatred around the country.  I think it is good to note that Section 13 cases have been stayed since the Hadjis decision, and this threat has not materialized.  Canadians are polite and decent people and we are quite capable of dealing with the handful of internet racists among us by out-arguing them.  We do not need CHRC employees to snoop around our sites or, worse, post hateful messages as “bait”.  We are very thankful to Brian Storseth for putting forward a private member’s bill that acknowledges that Canadians are reasonable and intelligent adults.
Thanks to Connie for her words and just a reminder that this battle that Mark and Connie Fournier are fighting is on the behalf of all of us – and that legal fees are costly.  There will be a fund-raising BBQ for the Fournier’s legal expenses on July 21st, 2013.  Come out and show your support for freedom of speech!

 

Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

An interview with Connie and Mark Fournier

March 4, 2013 — xanthippa

The couple who is leading the legal fight for the freedom of the internet in Canadian courts was recently interviewed on the ‘Just Right’ radio program.

Do give it a listen!

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Free Dominion is under attack and needs our help!

February 17, 2013 — xanthippa

Free Dominion is in the forefront of the battles for the freedom of speech and for the freedom on the internet,  Their path has not been easy, but they are determined and brave and understand just how important freedom is.  They have already won some important rulings in court regarding privacy on the internet, which is why they made it to Michael Geist’s list of internet achievements of 2012!

However, legal battles are expensive.

Very expensive.

If Mark and Connie, the people behind Free Dominion, run out of funds, no amount of determination will help.  The wanna-be-oppressors know this.  That is why, just as Mark and Connie announced their new fund-raising campaign, they have tried to keep the word from getting out by hitting their site with a DDoS SYN attack…

Please, help spread the word!

And, if you can, chip in a bit…

 

From Connie Fournier:

‘As many of you know, Mark and I are fighting three trials this year related to issues of online freedom of speech.  We just started our largest fundraiser because we need to raise $50,000 to cover the cost of all of those trials.
 
Almost immediately, the Free Dominion website was attacked by hackers.  We are fighting what is called a DDoS SYN attack where dozens of computers are sending messages to our server in an attempt to overload it and shut it down.  We keep blocking IPs, but new ones spring up almost immediately and the attacks start again. 
 
Sometimes we will have periods where the site is accessible to read, but many people cannot post.  Then they come back and increase the attack until the site becomes inaccessible again.
 
We desperately need help!
 
We can’t get the word out about our fundraiser because many of our regular readers can’t get into our site to find out about it.
 
We really need people who care about free speech to circulate this email, tell your friends, or post it on your blogs.
 
Somebody doesn’t want us to meet our fundraising goal, but we have to do this.  Internet freedom depends on it!
 
Here is the link to our fundraiser, please pass it around!  http://igg.me/at/internet
 
Thanks so much for your help!
 
Connie’
H/T:  Andrew
Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology, war. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Free Dominion and John Does won the right to have a jury trial!

January 4, 2013 — xanthippa

In today’s world, individual civil liberties are consistently being eroded, bit by bit, from all sides.

Religious an ethnic minorities demand special group rights, only to then use these extra powers to oppress minority voices within their community.

Corporations with well-funded lawyers and lobbyists are subverting the patent and copyright law infrastructure to erode individual customer rights to an unprecedented degree.

Governments are abusing powers given them for legitimate security purposes to spy on their own citizens.

Even though these all seem like separate issues, they all have one thing in common:  slowly but certainly, they are stripping us of our rights.  We must fight all these assaults, as best as we can.

And, there are brave and strong people among us who are indeed standing up and fighting for our rights.  The one tool we must not loose, the one without which we will be completely unable to defend ourselves, is freedom of speech.  Anonymous speech is an essential component of freedom of speech, both on city streets and on electronic super highways!

Mark Cuban and Notch have recently each donated quarter of a million dollars to EFF to help protect our freedom on the internet.  Mark Cuban even went as far as to establish  ‘The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents’!

Here, in Canada, Connie and Mark Fournier are fighting the same fight, though in a slightly different manner – and more and more of us are beginning to understand the importance of the legal precedents they are setting in this most worthy battle.

 

Today, a motion hearing in the case of Warman v. Free Dominion and John Does was held in Ottawa. Connie Fournier has written up her account of today’s hearing here.

I have reported on this case in the past.  If you are unfamiliar with it, here is a quick summary (simplified and the way this all appears to my untrained, layman’s eye, to the best of my highly limited understanding):

Richard Warman is suing Free Dominion and its founders/operators, Connie and Mark Fournier, and several of the posters on the forum Free Dominion (the ‘John Does, two of whom have still not been identified) for posting things online about him that he does not want people to post online.

It’s kind of hard to keep the details straight because this is not the only lawsuit Mr. Warman has brought against the Fourniers and Free Dominion (FD).

And, FD and the Fourniers are not the only ones who are being sued by Mr. Warman – he has filed tens of lawsuits against many conservatives in Canada in what his targets believe are attempts to silence political debate in Canada.

This particular lawsuit has been going on for five or so years…so far!

The last time there was a hearing in this case, the judge gave both sides until the end of January 2013 to file any amendments to their pleadings (i.e. improve their arguments, which they have to adhere to when they argue their case in court).  Still, whenever an amendment to pleadings is made, the other side has to see the changes, so they may address them and therefore submit corresponding little changes of their own.

So, whenever one side makes changes to their pleadings, the other side gets to see them and either agree to the changes or argue in a ‘motion hearing’ why these changes should not be allowed – and why.

Warman’s lawyer had submitted some changes to their pleadings and the Fourniers and their lawyer did not contest them.  However, when the Fournier’s and their lawyer submitted some changes of their own (some as a response to the changes from Warman’s side and some of their own) Warman’s side refused the changes and forced this motion hearing to decide which, if any, of these changes will be permitted.

And that is what today’s court session was about.

I arrived at Ottawa’s Elgin St. courthouse nice and early and headed to Courtroom #35, where this motion hearing was being held.  Since I have last been there, they have added nice new little boards beside the door to each courtroom, where a lit sign informs you whether the court is in session.  Below that there are special bits where sheets of paper can be affixed which inform you of all kinds of things, including what cases are scheduled to be heard there, who is the judge hearing them, and so on.  In the past, these announcements were simply stuck to the wall beside the courtroom door with sticky tape – this looks much fancier and very professional.

The information posted on the new fancy board let me see that today, the 3rd of January 2012, civil motions including  the Warman v. FD & John Does will be heard by Justice Toscamo Rocammo.

Connie and Mark Fournier arrived smiling and full of confidence, with their lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka following them shortly.  Just as we were entering the courtroom, Richard Warman (in a stark black suit, starched white shirt and shiny silver tie) arrived – on the heels of his lawyer, the ever charming James Katz.  (I am sad to report that Mr. Katz is still clean-shaven and has not returned to wearing his distinguished-looking beard.)  Both were smiling and though Mr Warman was busy studying his shoes as he passed me, he offered me a polite greeting.

The courtroom itself was very quiet and as we entered, we all automatically adopted very hushed tones.

Mr. Warman’s side was seated on the left (as one would reference it when just walking through the doors in the back wall of the courtroom).  Mr. Warman seated himself with his lawyer at the front (the tables from behind which the lawyers plead their case) while the Fourniers sat further back, on the spectator benches, letting their lawyer Ms. Kulaszka sit at the table by herself.  The courtroom itself was large, with a glass prisoner box in the centre and a spacious jury seating at the front right, at right angles to both the judge and the litigants/spectators.

In addition to the above-mentioned participants and a smattering of spectators (yours truly included), there were two more people present during the proceedings – but they were participants in a motion hearing for another, quite unrelated case, which was also being heard this morning.

At 10 o’clock, the (presumably) judges clerk came in and announced that as the judge was quite tied up this morning, we may have to wait for a while before the hearing would begin.  By this point, the tension in the room was palpable and the hushed tones became even softer….to the point that I realized that the pen I had taken out to take notes with (and with which I was drawing nervous doodles while waiting) was exceptionally loud and I scrambled to find another, less noisy one.  That’s how thick the atmosphere was!

At 10:07, the bailiff came in through the door at the judges’ end of the room, ushered in a young, dark haired mystery woman and seated her in the spectator gallery directly behind Ms. Kulaszka.

At 10:20, we rose and Madam Justice Toscamo Rocammo herself entered, the traditional black judges’ robes with a bright crimson sash billowing about her slender frame.  Her dark hair was cropped in a shapely cap and her gaze was sharp and penetrating. She positively bristled with energy and intelligence.

I am not knowledgable in what is ‘usual’ behaviour for judges, having only spectated in a handful of cases.  However, Justice Toscamo Rocammo’s behaviour was somewhat different from how I have seen other judges behave – much more direct and very refreshing.

She informed us that she had read through all the submissions and understood them.  She also realized that their motion was set for 1 hour only and that if they (and I am strongly paraphrasing here) intend to haggle over every detail in every paragraph, this would – by far – not be enough time.  She gave the lawyers a choice:  pick a different date, when more time could be set aside for the hearing, or she could give them some guidance as to what parts of their respective positions were strongest and they could then focus their arguments accordingly, so we could get through it in that one hour.

Wow!

This seemed to take both lawyers by surprise and they hummed and hawed a little bit, so the judge repeated her offers and then queried them again as to which way they’d like to proceed. Led by Ms. Kulaszka, both lawyers agreed that they would welcome the judge’s guidance and would like to hear her views on the case.

Because all the parties involved – the judge and both lawyers – were very familiar with all the facets of all the arguments, I can now choose to report exactly what was said in the sequence it was said, or I can jumble up the timeline a little and present the various points that were made in the point by point fashion, so that those of us who have not studied the full submissions would follow the points themselves….  I do hope you’ll forgive me, but I am going to choose the latter option because, to be perfectly frank, that’s the only way, with my limited layman’s knowledge, I think I can make it understandable.

1.  Increased costs from additional discovery

If, at this point, the type of trial is switched from ‘by judge’ to ‘jury’, Mr. Warman’s side argued, this would necessitate that they do a whole new lengthy and costly ‘discovery process’, which is unnecessary and who should pay for it…  Madam Justice made it clear she did not think a whole new discovery process would be necessary.

2.  Jury Trial

The FD side was asking that instead of being heard only by a judge, they would like their case to be heard by a jury as well.  The Warman side said that, 5-or-so-years into the trial, it’s a little late to request such a big change:  there’d have to be a whole new discovery process and that is costly and time consuming and unfair and all that.

Justice Toscamo Rocammo said that whatever her own personal feelings may be, there is a legal precedent for situations  of ‘late jury notice’, set in the case of Nikor v. Proper in 2010 (2010 ONSC 2307).  The test that is applied in these situations is two-pronged:

1.  Circumstances.

2.  Prejudice (is someone trying to get an unfair advantage)

She stated that the right to a jury trial is a very fundamental one and to vacate it, one must have a very strong argument.

The affidavit Mr. Katz had submitted to support his claim that the request for a jury trial be denied was, in her opinion, unsupported and unsupportable.  She told Mr. Katz that his case ‘has frailty in the second prong of the argument’, while Ms. Kulaszka’s argument ‘is good’ and strong.

Madam Justice pointed out that this case was getting ‘long in the tooth’ and that, from her reading, both parties bear a partial responsibility for this but that.  And, some cases are complex and they do need the time to sufficiently address all the facets of the case.  However, (and here, I am very strongly paraphrasing) since the previous judge had given both parties till the end of January 2013 to file any amendments (such as this), she does not see why the counsel did not simply agree with this and forced a hearing to be held at all.  It is my impression that she considered it a disrespectful waste of the court’s time and of everyone’s money…

3.  Increased time for cross-examination

Both sides were asking for a 2-hour increased cross-examination time on the witness stand – to address all the amendments and changes that were made…  I must honestly admit that if Madam Justice addressed this point at this time, it escaped me.

*   *   *

However, she did offer the counsel on both sides to go, sit down somewhere for 30 minutes (while she’ll begin hearing the second case).  Then, they could come back and inform her that they had reached an agreement (a choice I somehow sensed she strongly preferred), if they will make the shortened arguments or if the case should be re-scheduled for a full hearing at a later time.

Now she did something I have never seen another judge do, either.  She turned to us, the spectators, and asked if we were there concerning this or another matter!

I must admit, I was not sure how to answer the question correctly:  does she mean if we are there in some sort of an official capacity with one party or another, or what….  My face must have shown my confusion clearly (I am NOT fast on my feet, thinking like this….).  Luckily, Connie Fournier came to the rescue and informed the judge we were there for that case, so the judge thanked us and gave us a chance to leave the courtroom.

I waited in the hallway outside the courtroom while the litigants found an open room where they could discuss things in private.

At 11 o’clock, both sides returned, smiling, and we went back into the courtroom…  As the last of us made our way in, Madame Justice was already discussing things with Mr. Katz and Ms. Kulaszka.

The two lawyers had informed her that they had indeed come to an agreement on the majority of the issues:

  • Jury trial was on
  • All changes submitted by the FD side were in
  • Additional costs associated with any additional ‘discovery’ will be paid for by whoever loses the case
  • FD side agreed that Connie Fournier could be under cross-examination for additional 2 hours

The only thing that was still in contention was the FD request that Richard Warman should also be cross-examined for 2 more hours – something Mr. Warman was not willing to agree to.

So, there was a bit of back-and-forth on that as the judge asked some very focused questions on this matter.

The judge said that if Ms. Kulaszka could demonstrate to her that she needed the additional time to cross-examine Mr. Warman as a result of ANY of the changes he had submitted to his pleadings, she would allow it.  At this, Ms. Kulaszka bowed he head low and her short reply was in a voice so soft, I could not hear her words in the spectator seats.

Madam Justice replied to her that since Ms. Kulaszka wanted the additional time for something ‘she could have asked earlier, but did not bother to’, she would not allow the extended time for the cross-examination of Mr. Warman.  A setback, but a relatively minor one!

All sides agreed that this will all be filed and formalized by the end of the day – and the hearing concluded!

As we were were departing, Madam Justice Toscamo Rocammo once again turned to us in the spectator gallery and thanked us for coming and participating in the process.

What a judge!

Outside the courtroom, I congratulated the jubilant Fourniers on this major victory, which puts them into a better position when the main trial itself will take place, likely in early September 2013.

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Michael Geist: F is for FreeDominion.com

January 3, 2013 — xanthippa

Over at OpenMedia, Dr. Michael Geist has written up ‘Milestones in 2012 from A to Z‘. 

From the remarkable battle over the Stop Online Piracy Act to the massive public backlash against Internet surveillance in Canada, law and technology issues garnered headlines all year long. A look back at 2012 from A to Z:

I particularly like ‘F’:

F is for FreeDominion.com, an online chat site that defeated a claim of copyright infringement involving the posting of portions of newspaper articles.

Well said!

And, congratulations to Connie and Mark Fournier, the founders and administrators of Free Dominion, for the recognition which they so richly deserve.  As I write this, they are heading beck to court.

5 years and no end in sight…

But they do fight the good fight!!!

H/T:  Andrew

Posted in freedoms, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Brian Lilley and John Robson on Free Dominion & Freedom of Speech

July 3, 2012 — xanthippa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmZJn3s1BkU&feature=colike

OK, John Robson is as close to a genius as it gets – in non-science fields, that is…

Thomas Sowell is even closer – he is as close to divine as you can get without having to surrender your ‘atheist’ identity!!!

Help the Fourniers pay their legal costs:  if you are reading this over the internet, you are benefiting from the legal fights they have already won…

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Dr. Dawg saga continues…

June 15, 2012 — xanthippa

Last year, I reported on the courtroom proceedings in the defamation lawsuit John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) had brought against Connie and Mark Fournier:  part 1 and part 2.

The judge in that hearing dismissed it in a summary judgment for the Fourniers.  (In his ruling, it seemed clear to me  that the judge did not think Mr. Baglow had handled things well…)

John Baglow appealed.

Now, a panel of 3 judges has ruled that Dr. Dawg will have his day in court:

‘Questions about what constitutes defamation in the caustic world of blogging have not been addressed by Canadian courts “in any significant way,” Blair noted. It means, he said, that a full-blown trial is needed to explore key questions…
‘

In other words, the case may indeed be vexatious, but the judges want to make new laws to govern the internet – and plan to do it on the Fourniers’ dime!

Ayayayayay!

When I know the details of when/where the case will be heard by the court, I’ll update this post.

UPDATE:  While there is still no word of the court date/time, I have received a comment on this from Connie Fournier:

‘This case will be going to a full-blown trial now and there will be expert witnesses and a full examination of the role of defamation law in the blogosphere.  This is of critical importance to any Canadian who operates a website where visitors are allowed to post comments.  If the law stands as it is, anyone who operates such a site should have $50,000 in the bank so that they can defend themselves when Spockluver sues CaptKirkFan for defaming his online persona.’

 

Posted in freedoms, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »