Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case


Warman to be Subpoenaed in Terry Tremaine Case

VICTORIA. June 28, 2012. Just returned from Regina, Douglas Christie, lawyer for Canadian political prisoner Terry Tremaine, told a meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) that Richard Warman will be subpoenaed as a witness in the “hate” trial of the former university lecturer. Warman is the instigator of a slew of complaints that have targeted Mr. Tremaine in what many observers see as a political vendetta.

Warman who styles himself an “Ottawa human rights lawyer” but who works for the Department of National Defence, filed a human rights complaint under Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) against Mr. Tremaine for his postings on Stormfront in 2005. That April, more than a year before the tribunal heard the complaint, Warman wrote to Mr. Tremaine’s employer at the University of Saskatchewan threatening to go to the police and the press. The university panicked and Mr. Tremaine lost his job. He was then impoverished and unable to afford a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that was to be held in August, 2006.

At the tribunal, Warman complained again along with Canadian Human Rights Commission prosecutors to try to deny Mr.Tremaine any representation. In a motion that eventually failed, they argued that CAFE Director Paul Fromm should not be allowed to act as Mr. Tremaine’s representative because Mr. Fromm had shown “contempt” for the human rights tribunals and for the Canadian justice system.

Despite what he had told the University of Saskatchewan, Warman subsequently made a Sec. 319 (“hate law”) complaint to the Regina Police which led to the Criminal Code chargers he currently faces.

Warman has also made at least three complaints which finally resulted in contempt of court charges against Mr. Tremaine for some postings he made on the Internet after he was found guilty in February, 2007 under Sec. 13 and had been slapped with a “cease and desist order.” For about a year Mr. Tremaine continue to post on his website —–  before he was totally gagged by bail conditions which originally forbade him from owning a computer or accessing the Internet in any way.

The order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was eventually registered in Federal Court, The contempt proceedings have been complex. Mr. Tremaine was acquitted by Federal Judge Sean Henning. The Federal Court of Appeals by a 2 to 1 decision overturned the acquittal and the Supreme Court denied Mr. Christie’s application for leave to appeal. Thus, Mr. Tremaine will be sentenced in Vancouver this October for alleged “contempt” of an order under a law the House of Commons has now repealed. Mr. Warman has continued to agitate in his submissions for a prison term for his victim.

On June 4, at a motions hearing in Regina before the Court of Queen’s Bench, Douglas Christie argued for Mr.

Warman’s presence as a witness. Crown Attorney Mitch Miller said that Warman was not “part of the Crown’s narrative.” Mr. Christie did want to call Mr. Warman himself as court rules would not allow him to vigorously cross-examine him. Judge Frederick Kovach indicated that Warman could be called as a witness by the Court in the interests of justice.

At a hearing on a pile of motions, most of which have not yet been decided, including one calling for the dismissal of the charges owing to undue and outrageous delay — now over four years — in Regina, June 27, Mr. Justice Kovach ruled that Warman would be subpoenaed as a witness. The Crown undertook to do so.

The trial, scheduled for June 4, is now so bogged down in motions that it is now not likely to proceed until 2013.

However, the prospect of Mr. Warman who filedmore than two dozen complaints to silence people he disapproved of under the now repealed and discredited Sec. 13, facing Douglas Christie, renowned for his talents in cross-examination, promises high drama and a historic confrontation and fireworks in the battle to wrestle Internet free speech from the controls of the elitists who would silence popular dissent and discussion.