An excellent post about this most sad day…
It has quotes, links and goes through the logical steps of where this ruling will lead.
‘The verdict by the jury in the “Warman vs Fournier et al” has effectively killed good, old-fashioned, political discourse and debate in cyberspace, in Canada. Even minor insults and common hyperbole of innocent nature and made-up words not in the dictionary, can now be construed as defamation.The law lesson learned from the verdict is that defamation court actions are designed to stifle online discourse and healthy political debates that used to commonly take place around kitchen tables and then graduated to cyberspace are now less likely to happen in the blogosphere, since all owners of blogs, forums, chat rooms etc. must now become ruthless, editorial police to avoid the risk of libel suits.The law definition of libel states: “Any communication that is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.”
Each and every Canadian ought to now be motivated to action in a gallant effort to redeem free speech in Canada. Most likely, our elected representatives are not yet aware of the significant impact that the verdict in the Warman vs Fournier et al is having on our fragile and ever diminishing right of free speech in Canada.’
Read the full post here.
UPDATE: Another insightful analysis can be read here.
This is from an email from OpenMedia:
In less than a week nearly 100,000 people have signed on to our letter to Stephen Harper and other leaders telling them not to ram through an Internet censorship plan when they meet in Bali.
But now the industry lobbyists behind the Internet censorship plan are ramping up the pressure by publicly urging leaders to not “soften” amidst the public outcry.1
Can you believe that?
We need your help to take the next step to expose this Internet censorship plan before our leaders buckle under the pressure. Can you contribute now so we can step up a multi-faceted citizen awareness campaign before it’s too late?
Once the public knows about the Internet Censorship in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it will be almost impossible for political leaders to put this plan in place. We need to make sure Canadians know what’s at stake.
Here’s our plan to amplify your voice:
With your support, we’ll be able to show Stephen Harper how unpopular this extreme Internet censorship plan is, and prove that there will be a price to pay for it at election time.
We can stop this extreme Internet censorship plan by standing together to send a clear message to our government. Your donations power our efforts to keep fighting against Internet censorship – we can’t move forward without your help now.
Together, we are going to stop the TPP’s Internet censorship from stifling Canada’s future and knocking people off the Internet.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Steve and Jason, on behalf of your OpenMedia.ca team
PS Together, there are hundreds of thousands of us; if each of us gave just $3, we’d be able to send a message that our political leaders can’t ignore.
 “US Business groups warn against compromises in Pacific Rim trade talks”. Source: Financial Times (paywall) – “Among his key concerns, Mr Donohue said, were that the US would soften its push for strong intellectual property rules…”
|OpenMedia.ca is a non-profit organization that relies on donations from people like you to operate. Our small but dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way to make your voice heard. Please donate today.
We are an award-winning network of people and organizations working to safeguard the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed and participatory digital policy. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
I’ll be brief.
Today is a sad, sad day for all Canadians – and a tragic one for all freedom loving people.
The jury foreperson giggled as she said: “The answer is 42!”
As in, $42,000 awarded to Mr. Warman in damages…
In addition, Mr. Warman is seeking an injunction against Free Dominion – a gag order – that would see the Fourniers thrown into jail if anyone even mentions his name on FD, no matter how quickly it would be taken down. If that happens, Free Dominion will cease to exist…
I’ll have some details later – am too upset to write more now.
CodeSlinger has expressed eloquently what I feel – so, I’d like to share his comment here with you:
This is a sad day, but not a surprising one.
Being tried by “a jury of your peers” sounds right, and good and just… until you look closely at who these “peers” really are – by which I mean what values they have absorbed from their schooling and the mass media, both shaped by the cultural Marxist apparatchiks of the corporocratic state.
Especially in Canada.
Canadians, in general, have no concept of rights.
They speak of rights, but they really mean privileges.
Regarding the right to bear arms, they ask “what kind of arms should we be allowed to carry?”
Regarding the right to free speech, they say “what kind of things should we be allowed to say?”
And so on. It’s pathetic.
Canadians, in general, cannot imagine not being ruled.
To paraphrase what I wrote in another comment, cultural Marxists seek to breed independence and self-reliance out of us. They want to make us into Eloi. And their masters, the globalist Morlocks, are very pleased with their progress.
Especially in Canada.
In Canada, people like the Fourniers don’t have the option of being tried by a jury of their peers.
Eloi are not their peers.
This 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.
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.
 “Obama to Attend APEC, ASEAN Summits on October Asia Trip”. Source: Bloomberg.com
 Leaked draft of TPP Intellectual Property Chapter. Source: Knowledge Ecology International
 What’s actually in the TPP? Source: Public Knowledge
 US Envoy: TPPA talks to conclude next month. Source: FMT Malaysia
 “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Canadian MP’s Have No Access To Drafts US Pols Can See, NDP Says” Source: The Huffington Post
 “TPP Creates Legal Incentives for ISPs to Police the Internet. What is at risk? Your rights.” Electronic Frontier Foundation
 “International Criticism Escalates Against TPP as Negotiations Go Further Underground” Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Day 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Today, Mr. Warman was being cross-examined by Ms. Kulaszka.
It seems that, over the years, Mr Warman had instigated or filed well over 70 lawsuits – and is very comfortable on the witness stand.
He continues to paint Ms. Kulaszka as a nazi-lawyer, sort of like a ‘mob lawyer’, and thus casts her clients as nazis and bad people in the eyes of the jury.
For all her great intelligence, Ms. Kulaszka is not a good orator. Even the judge had difficulty following her questions at times and was asking for clarification. After Mr. Warman would answer a question, she’d make minutes long pauses before acknowledging the answer…
Mr. Warman appeared to be trying to help her, and won much sympathy from the jury.
Half an hour into the afternoon session, I could not take it any more and I left.
EDIT: during day 7 of the trial, the number of lawsuits initiated by Mr. Warman was said to be 69, which M. Katz side disputed by pointing out that some were multiple lawsuits against the same people but some were lawsuits with multiple defendants.
Also, I would like to clarify that the means through which Mr. Warman painted Ms. Kulaszka as a ‘nazi-lawyer’ was by name dropping and smearing, not through direct accussations.
Day 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Today is day 3 of the trial and, I am sad to report, I was not there for most of it.
Before day 2 came to a close, the jury had been excused so that the judge and the lawyers (and Mr. Smith) could discuss some technical details. Much of it was very technical legalese and I must admit, I had a difficult time following it.
What it did drive home for me was just how physically strenuous being a trial lawyer is!
The first day of the trial had been long and exhausting, but, before they left, the judge gave the lawyers homework: they were to write a short 1-2 page summary not of the facts, but from what positions they would be arguing the case.
Now, at the close of the second day, the judge gave out more homework!
And this time, it was not just a short summary: the judge wanted each of the sides to look up precedent law on the technical bit they had been discussing and present him with it before the trial resumed today!
That is a lot of work, paying close attention to all the details of the trial and then having to spend the evening doing more detailed research – as well as work what had gone on in the courtroom into the next-day’s plans…you would have to be not just intelligent, but also have a lot of physical stamina in order to withstand this kind of a highly stressful workload.
But, again, I digress…
So, this morning had been more discussions between the judge and the lawyers and no presentation of evidence to the jury. And, again, my lack of legal training is a sharp limiting factor on my ability to have followed the crux of it, but…this is the best I could glean.
The jury will be asked to rule if specific – certain, very specific – posts on the Free Dominion discussion forum (they keep referring to it as a message board) – if these constitute libel against Mr. Warman.
The problem is that these specific comments are in different conversation threads in different bits of the site, there are cross-references and soon, the mesh becomes very difficult to navigate. Time-lines complicate things even more… Yet, for the jury to render their decisions, things have to be as easy to follow as possible. So, to the best of my understanding, they were discussing how best to achieve this, how best to organize the material for presentation to the jury.
The court adjourned while the counsel counseled their respective clients on the suggested organizational methodologies.
After all this had been agreed to by all the parties – an amicable process, at least when one watched it from afar, the court re-convened. And – the judge made an exciting announcement: we had another question from the jury!
Once they begin deliberating, will they have access to their original binders, with their notes in it?
This warrants a little explanation.
The jurors are permitted to take notes during the testimony, but are not allowed to take them out of the courtroom, for security. Many of them have, indeed, been taking notes – either on note-pads or right inside the evidence binders, as they were following the testimony regarding the various posts and how they affected Mr. Warman and his reputation. To the best of my understanding, the jurors were asking if they would have access to these same binders – with their notes in them – while they deliberate, which will, of course, not be inside the courtroom.
Justice Smith smiled and said the answer was yes. Then, he asked the counsel if they think it would OK for them (judge and lawyers and Mr. Smith) to call the jurors in, give them the answer, but then excuse them until 2pm so that they (the judge, the lawyers and Mr. Smith) could finish going over the details of what and how organized and labeled and highlighted the ‘posts in question’ will be presented to the jury.
All agreed, the jury came in, got their answer, was dismissed till 2 and left.
And, even though my own load in just observing the process is much lighter than that of any other person there, I must admit, I was exhausted. I am not very healthy and not being able to lie down for this long at a stretch, several days in a row, had taken its toll on me…I was tired, so very, very tired…
Plus my pen ran out of ink…
My backup pen was in the second bag from yesterday, which I had left in the car…
My backup backup pen was in the backup notebook, which I just could not find…
so, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize but, I, too left…
I hope to gather information on what happened after 2 pm from any observers who might have been there, but, up till now, I have not received any.
What I did do, however, was to try to get a perspective on how Mr. Warman behaved on the stand from a non-Aspie observer. I am, after all, rather blind to social cues and body language, so I know my perceptions of how Mr. Warman performed on the stand are necessarily poor.
What I heard did not warm my heart.
It seems that Mr. Warman’s positioning himself as a victim was skilfully executed and that casually slipping in the ‘damaging’ (to him) information into what he said likely went quite unnoticed by the jury.
Let’s see what tomorrow brings!
UPDATE: (at 22:22) I have found my backup notebook with my backup backup pen!
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.
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.
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.
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!
From Connie Fournier: