Tag Archives: “hate law”

Arthur Topham Heads to “Preliminary Hearing” on “Hate” Charges; New Count Laid at Last Minute

Posted on by
Arthur Topham Heads to “Preliminary Hearing” on “Hate” Charges; New Count Laid at Last Minute
 
 
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.

 During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.
 That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.” It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote:
As I’m sure you are well aware the preliminary inquiry is an important opportunity for me to cross-examine witnesses and gather relevant evidence for pre-trial Charter applications in Supreme Court. Much of the necessary evidence for the Charter applications will be put on the record at that time and therefore I feel it behooves the Crown, in the interest of justice, to call those persons specified above for cross-examination by myself, or, in the event I am able to procure counsel in advance of the January 22nd date, my legal representative.

I never heard back from CC Johnston on this matter and so I filed another application on December 30th, 2013 stating the reasons as:

“The complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) and the police investigators (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas) are relevant and necessary witnesses for the purpose of the preliminary inquiry. The Crown is refusing to to call these witnesses. I respectfully request that the Crown be compelled to produce these witnesses.”

As a result a hearing date was set for January 3rd, 2014. During the hearing Crown argued that they didn’t have to produce any witnesses that they chose not to and downplayed the whole notion of the importance of the Preliminary Hearing process. I was given a fourteen page document indexed as: United States of America v. Shephard [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067. This document, according to both Judge Morgan and Crown Counsel Johnston, clearing showed that the threshold to be met in order to justify ordering a trial to be held was so low as to be practically impossible to refute.

Prior to the January 3rd date the Judge had set another date of January 7th, 2014 for what is called a “focus hearing” which, translated into English, means a time to go over the ins and outs of what would be transpiring during the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on Jan. 22nd. He then decided to deal with that matter too on the 3rd and skip the Jan. 7th date. It was during this hearing that Judge Morgan addressed the issue of the thousands of emails which were still on my stolen computers and had not been returned to me. I told the judge that they were relevant to my defence and that they should be returned as part of the disclosure package which had already been returned some months ago. The judge concurred with my argument and after some discussion with Crown directed CC Johnston to contact Det. Cst. Wilson and have him return all of my email correspondence to me. He gave the Crown until January 14th to prepare a response to his recommendation and it was on that date that I was to return to court to find out the results. When I appeared on January 14th I learned that the emails had been downloaded to a file that was supposedly being sent up to the Crown’s office and that I would be notified as soon as it arrived. Judge Morgan told me to contact Crown Counsel’s office if I didn’t hear anything after a couple of days.

It was also on Jan. 14th that I first learned that Crown was also calling Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit to appear at the Preliminary Inquiry. Then, to top things off, came the sudden announcement by Crown Counsel Johnston that the Crown had filed a third count against me! It was a repeat of the original May 16th, 2012 sec. 319(2) CCC charge. This new indictment, known as “Count 3”, had received the consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia on the 31st of December, 2013 and was signed by Peter A. Juk, QC Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The reasons stated were that I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Having made this announcement to Judge Morgan and myself CC Johnston then added that nothing more would be forthcoming as a result of it until after the upcoming Preliminary Inquiry when an application would then be made to the court in order that Crown might attempt to impose new restrictions on me to prevent me from publishing any more truthful articles and opinions on RadicalPress.com.

One further thing needs to be added to this update prior to closing off. This morning, January 16th, 2014 I sent a letter to Crown Counsel Johnston informing her that I had subpoenaed two witnesses to appear in my defence for the Preliminary Inquiry slated for January 22nd, 2013. In that letter I wrote:

“Please take notice that I have subpoenaed and will be calling two witnesses for the Preliminary Inquiry to be held on January 22nd, 2014.

Mr. Frank Frost will be appearing to testify on the urgency to maintain an alternative news media here in British Columbia in order to ensure that criminal activities on the part of the RCMP, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s office (Crown) are exposed to the general public. Mr. Frost is a strong, knowledgable advocate and expert witness in the areas of children and family advocacy and pedophelia within B.C.’s judiciary.

Mr. Lonny Landrud will also be appearing to testify on the importance of maintaining an alternative new media. Mr. Landrud is an expert, knowledgeable witness in the area of judicial misfeasance as it pertains to his own case. Mr. Landrud was witness to a murder of a young woman in Quesnel by RCMP officers and subsequent to reporting this heinous crime to the RCMP has been the subject of numerous attempts on his life by the RCMP. In one instance Mr. Landrud was forced to shoot, in self-defence, an RCMP officer who was attempting to murder him in his home. Since the advent of these events Mr. Landrud has been unable to have his case investigated at any level of government after years of sincere effort and the mainstream news media has refused to investigate or cover his plight. Mr. Landrud will be speaking to the court on the pressing need for an alternative news media that will and does cover his untold story.”

The next few days will be spent preparing for the Preliminary Inquiry. I will send out another update sometime after the 22nd and let readers know what transpired on that day.

For Peace, Freedom of Speech and Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network

“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”


*****


My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund

Elderly Blogger Arrested for Opposing Zionist Genocides

Posted on by

Elderly Blogger Arrested for Opposing Zionist Genocides

 

by Joshua Blakeney

 

“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” – Voltaire

Recently Prof. James Fetzer invited me to contribute to The Real Deal radio platform on a regular basis. The Real Deal has been one of the most distinguished venues for discussions about all the censored subjects that have been of import in recent years. Canada's Prime Minister Harper is surrounded by members of the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch in Ottawa<img alt=”Canada’s Prime Minister Harper is surrounded by members of the Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch in Ottawa” src=”http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HARPER-RABBI-RITUAL.jpg” width=”366″ height=”244″ />From 9/11 to 7/7 to Fukushima to JFK to the deleterious role of Zionist-neocons, Prof. Fetzer’s shows have offered the public invaluable analyses of the kind that are all too often lacking in the mainstream media and the foundation-funded alternative venues such as Democracy Now, which typically censor discussions of topics such as false-flag terrorism and Zionist power.

This week I interviewed a man who is potentially going to have to spend two years in prison in Canada due to the content of political statements he made on his website. Arthur Topham is an anti-Zionist blogger and critic of Canada’s subservience to Israel who was arrested for authoring a satirical article which brought Israel’s existence into question.

The Topham Interview:

 

According to Israel’s puppet regime in Ottawa questioning Israel’s right to exist is “inciting genocide” which is a crime in Canada. So if you support a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine debacle rather than an ethnocentric two-state solution you are “willfully promoting genocide” according to John Baird, Israel’s man in the Canadian parliament. You don’t support a multi-cultural democracy if you promote the one-state solution, you want to “drive every Jew into the sea” according to the logic of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister.
YouTube – Veterans Today –

Press TV report: “Canadians Search for Explanations for Foreign Minister’s Radicalism”

Double Standards and Injustice

 

To illustrate the double-standards applied with Israel, Topham penned a very clever parody indeed. He took the genocidal tract “Germany Must Perish!”, written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, and replaced the word “Germany” with “Israel” to see how the Zionists would like a taste of their own medicine. Opposing anti-German racism, Zionist genocides and Israeli criminality however is a criminal act in Canada. Just as kings and dictators have enshrined laws throughout history to prevent their subjects criticizing them, so Canada’s influential Zionists have successfully established legislation which allows for the criminalization of those who zealously criticize the power and influence of the Jewish “state” and its sayanim in the West.Unknown<img alt=”Unknown” src=”http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Unknown.jpeg” width=”189″ height=”267″ />

Opposer of anti-German racism, Ernst Zundle, was kidnapped from the USA and imprisoned in Toronto, Canada for two years in solitary confinement (with the lights on 24-7) for the “crime” of drawing politically incorrect historical conclusions in 2003. Esteemed British historian David Irving found himself on the floor of an Air-Canada plane in handcuffs after the Canadian government deported him to prevent the Canadian public hearing the truth about history. Similarly Mr. Topham has been criminalized for espousing viewpoints which are distasteful to those who rule Canada.

In my interview with Mr. Topham, he explains how he was driving down the highway in his home province of British Columbia with his wife when the police “swooped” down upon their car as if he was a bank-robber, tearing this internet-blogger away from his beloved spouse and dragging him off to jail. This all because he wrote a piece of satire which irritated Zionist anti-free speech groups in Canada. As Dr. Kevin Barrett recently observed in an interview with Topham, writing through the prism of satire usually gives one a great deal of latitude to say things which one would not normally opine. Indeed when I read Mr. Topham’s parody I immediately thought “this is the kind of thing Kevin or perhaps Gilad Atzmon would have written.” But in Canada it seems universally accepted literary standards are to be subordinated to the censorious whims of pro-Israel lobbyists.

Interestingly, there is a schism within the Zionist community currently between those who support anti-free-speech legislation and those who support unfettered free-speech (albeit so they can freely bash Muslims). Since Israel’s 9/11 false-flag was pinned on Muslims Zionist journalists have been authoring genocidal, Hate-Speech against Muslims with the goal of paving the way for the enactment of the Oded Yinon Plan. Whereas Topham was arrested for the hypothetical promotion of a hypothetical genocide against the most invunerable people in the world, Zionist journalists have actually succeeded in creating an environment conducive to pitting different ethnic and confessional groups against each other in the Middle East as per the Oded Yinon Plan. So it is notable that a segment of the Zionist population has begun to oppose Canada’s anti-free speech legislation, presumably realizing that it could be used to prosecute them for anti-Islamic Hate Speech, as has been attempted already. On the other hand there are still those such as the B’nai B’rith who support so called “Hate-Speech” legislation.

Truth Is No Defence

 

Canada’s Supreme Court, 44% of which consists of Jewish judges, recently upheld a segment of Canada’s anti-free speech, thought-crime legislation. On behalf of the Supreme Court Judge Marshall Rothstein wrote that “not all truthful statements must be free from restriction”. In other words a truthful statement uttered about Canada’s influential Zionist community could land you in prison in Canada.

There is great selectivity displayed when it comes to criminalizing people for their speech in Canada. In almost every instance Canada’s Orwellian Human Rights Commissions (which seemingly exist to deny and negate the Human Rights of free-speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press) target poor, vulnerable white, Christian men such as Mr. Topham. The recent Whatcott ruling, critically analyzed here, effectively makes the bible criminal. Although Zionist Ezra Levant holds opposite viewpoints to me on 99% of issues, when it comes to opposing thought-crime laws his analyses are valuable. I highly recommend watching this video.

Mr. Topham is currently in need of support in many forms. He was to be represented by Doug Christie, the inimitable and indefatigable lawyer who defended free-speech thoughout his career until his untimely death earlier this year. Christie’s death means that Arthur Topham and other victims of thought-crime legislation are without the kind of legal support necessary to defend themselves against persecution. In addition to losing his lawyer Mr. Topham has been denied legal aide which underscores the need for lovers of free-speech to contribute in some capacity to his struggle, be it financial or otherwise.

 

 
YouTube – Veterans Today –

The late Doug Christie defends free speech against establishment censors

Political Prisoner, Brad Love, Not Allowed to Receive or Send Mail

Posted on by
 Political Prisoner, Brad Love, Not Allowed to Receive or Send Mail
The establishment persecution of political prisoner Brad Love continues. He’s an enthusiastic correspondent and letter writer. I’ve been getting a letter or call from him about every 10 days since Ontario’s malignant legal establishment threw him back in prison in July. For the past month, he’s gone silent. Worried, I talked to his brother Matt today and learned the shocking news. “They have cut off all his mail, in and out,” Matt reported.
While many of his fellow prisoners while away their time watching television or semi-comatose on the medications freely ladled out by the authorities, Brad prefers to read and write. Can’t have that. Better be a compliant zombie than a dissident thinker in politically correct Canada.
 
Brad Love, a decade after his conviction under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) for writing non-threatening letters to public officials criticizing Canada’s immigration mess, is still mired in the toils of repression. In July 2012, for sending some information packages to some Toronto Jewish groups, he was sentenced to a further 18 months in prison, plus a further three year gag order from writing letters to the media or politicians. He applied for bail; pending an appeal. In July, 2013, this bail was arbitrarily revoked. So, for the past four months, he’s languished in jail, again for nothing more than the non-violent expression of his populist, no nonsense working guy  views,.
 .
 
 Brad was employed in a lucrative job in Alberta’s tar sands in Fort McMurray. The arbitrary imprisonment punishes him for his views, denies him an income and, ironically, denies the state a hefty junk of his pay in taxes.
Brad Love after addressing CAFE Meeting in Toronto, April, 2013/Photo: Political Prisoner, Brad Love, Not Allowed to Receive or Send Mail The establishment persecution of political prisoner Brad Love continues. He's an enthusiastic correspondent and letter writer. I've been getting a letter or call from him about every 10 days since Ontario's malignant legal establishment threw him back in prison in July. For the past month, he's gone silent. Worried, I talked to his brother Matt today and learned the shocking news. "They have cut off all his mail, in and out," Matt reported. While many of his fellow prisoners while away their time watching television or semi-comatose on the medications freely ladled out by the authorities, Brad prefers to read and write. Can't have that. Better be a compliant zombie than a dissident thinker in politically correct Canada. Brad Love, a decade after his conviction under Canada's notorious "hate law" (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) for writing non-threatening letters to public officials criticizing Canada's immigration mess, is still mired in the toils of repression. In July 2012, for sending some information packages to some Toronto Jewish groups, he was sentenced to a further 18 months in prison, plus a further three year gag order from writing letters to the media or politicians. He applied for bail; pending an appeal. In July, 2013, this bail was arbitrarily revoked. So, for the past four months, he's languished in jail, again for nothing more than the non-violent expression of his populist, no nonsense working guy views,. . Brad was employed in a lucrative job in Alberta's tar sands in Fort McMurray. The arbitrary imprisonment punishes him for his views, denies him an income and, ironically, denies the state a hefty junk of his pay in taxes

Further Update on Political Prisoner Brad Love’s Being Denied Mail

Posted on by

Further Update on Political Prisoner Brad Love’s Being Denied Mail

Political prisoner Brad Love called me collect this morning from prison. He confirmed that he is not allowed to send ANY mail out. His mail was held, without explanation, for over a month (October 15-November 18). He is now receiving mail. So, please send this “man behind the wire” — jailed solely for sending non-threatening letters to thin skinned ethnic lobby groups or politicians — a note or card.

He was called into the prison management’s office on November 19 and breezily informed: “Love, there’s a court order saying you’re not allowed to receive any mail.” Where do they find these prison personnel? In a country with a bogus “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” — really minority special privileges and rights that governments can cancel at a moment’s notice “for a good reason,” of course — and a tradition of individual RIGHTS guaranteed under our Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, you’d think the authorities might wonder: “There must be some mistake.”

Well, yes and no. There was, indeed, such as North Korean-like bail condition imposed on Mr. Love in Fort McMurray Alberta last May when he was charged with sending “scurrilous” material through the mail — strongly worded letters to the press and politicians about political matters. HOWEVER, in July, using arguments CAFE helped to prepare, Mr. Love went back to Court and had these conditions amended so that he can write to anyone, except the several individuals named in the criminal complaint.

the prison authorities also made vague threats to Mr. Love, saying he was writing “too many letters” and, if he didn’t desist, he could find himself spending more time in prison.

Brad Love [557137416]

 

C.E.C.C.,

 

541 Highway 36,

 

Box 4500,

 

Lindsay, ON.,

 

K9V 4S6

A date has still not been sent for an appeal against Mr. Love’s 2012 conviction and 18-month sentence for breach of probation.

Brad Love, a decade after his conviction under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) for writing non-threatening letters to public officials criticizing Canada’s immigration mess, is still mired in the toils of repression. In July 2012, for sending some information packages to some Toronto Jewish groups, he was sentenced to a further 18 months in prison, plus a further three year gag order from writing letters to the media or politicians. He applied for bail; pending an appeal. In July, 2013, this bail was arbitrarily revoked. So, for the past four months, he’s languished in jail, again for nothing more than the non-violent expression of his populist, no nonsense working guy views.

.

Brad was employed in a lucrative job in Alberta’s tar sands in Fort McMurray. The arbitrary imprisonment punishes him for his views, denies him an income and, ironically, denies the state a hefty junk of his pay in taxes.

Brad Love after addressing CAFE Meeting in Toronto, April, 2013/

Impoverished Arthur Topham Charged Under Canada’s Notorious “Hate Law”, Turned Down for Legal Aid: Poor, but Not Poor Enough; Complex Case, but Not Complex Enough

Posted on by

Impoverished Arthur Topham Charged Under Canada’s Notorious “Hate Law”, Turned Down for Legal Aid: Poor, but Not Poor Enough; Complex Case, but Not Complex Enough

Poor people can get legal aid in Canada! Dream on. Arthur Topham is very poor but the nitpicking B.C. government won’t grant him legal aid to fight anti-free speech charges under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Apparently, after humiliating disclosure of every aspect of his finances, he’s deemd not poor enough. Also, despite the facts that Sec. 319 is a rarified piece of Canadian legislation and there has been more than 1,000pages of disclosure, the BC government doesn’t feel the case is too complex for an untutored layman.

Arthur Topham should leave the country and return as an illegal and claim “refugee” status. He’d automatically qualify for legal aid. This is a measure of the suicidal depravity of the anti-White political establishment of this country that illegals fully qualify for legal aid but a Canadian born and bred being persecuted for the non-violent expression of his political views is denied aid and tossed into the legal lions’ den.
CAFE stands with free thinker Arthur Topham.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSSION

 

Radical Press Legal Update #15 by Arthur Topham

November 20, 2013  by

CanadaScalesofJusticeFinalcopy

 

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15

November 20th, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

My last Legal Update was sent out well over four months ago on July  11th, 2013 so for those who may not recall all what transpired up to  that point I’ll give a brief overview so as to put subsequent events  into some meaningful context.

All of what is going on concerns the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC  charge and arrest for the purported crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’” originally  brought on by B’nai Brith Canada’s Harry Abrams and serial Section 13  complainant Richard Warman.

Crown had anticipated that the Attorney General’s office was going to go for a “direct indictment” and skip the preliminary hearing stage of  events but that strategy fell through on July 8th, 2013. That then  brought my proposal to file for a Rowbotham application back to the forefront. As explained in earlier Updates the Rowbotham application was part of my former counsel’s plan to get government  funded legal counsel to defend me and to act on my behalf during the  preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the aforementioned Sec.  319(2) charge. Of course when Doug was alive it was he who anticipated  being that counsel.

I had met with the Trial Coordinator and via telephone spoke with  Keith Evans, legal counsel for the B.C. Attorney General’s office in  order to discuss my Rowbotham application which he was  overseeing. Prior to that I had already submitted my Notice of  Application and Affidavit to the AG’s regarding the Rowbotham back on April 23, 2013 and received a package of material back from Mr.  Evans on May 11th explaining all the additional information that I was  expected to furnish him with prior to a hearing taking place on the  matter.

On August 13th I met again with the Trial Coordinator and a date was set to hold a hearing on the Rowbotham application on Monday, November 18th, 2013.

During the interim time period leading up the hearing I had to  furnish the AG’s office with as much documentation as I possibly could  that would show that I was not in a financial position to be able to  afford to hire a lawyer to represent me at the upcoming preliminary  hearing scheduled for January 22nd, 2014. As a result the month of  September leading into the early weeks of October were spend doing what  was basically a forensic audit of all of my finances and sending all of  this information to the Attorney General’s office in Vancouver, B.C. It  was quite time consuming and left little opportunity for doing much else besides publishing the occasional article on the website. Keith Evans  of the AG’s office was very congenial and willing to assist me with any  questions that that arose during the period that I was amassing all of  my evidence I felt would show that I was in fact indigent and unable to  cover the cost of a hiring a lawyer. The term “indigent” is one that the AG’s office uses and it means “impoverished or destitute or  poverty-stricken or disadvantaged, hard up, etc.” All of these  descriptive words I felt fitted my circumstances.

Approximately one week before the hearing on November 18th, I received all of this information back from the AG’s office along with all of my  email exchanges with AG lawyer Keith Evans. The booklet containing these communications ended up being 455 pages in length!

 

Radical Press Publisher Arthur Topham displaying the Rowbotham application documents from the B.C. Attorney General’s office

There are basically two main features or parts to a Rowbotham application, the first deals with having to prove you are in fact  “indigent” and the second being able to argue that your particular case  is complex and out of the ordinary to the point where it is evident that without legal representation you would not have a chance of a fair  trial and therefore your Charter right to a fair trial would be  infringed upon.

The hearing began at 9:30 a.m. in the Quesnel courthouse with Judge  Morgan presiding. Also in attendance was Christina Drake, a lawyer  working for the Attorney General’s office out of Victoria, B.C. who had  flown up to argue against the application.

Judge Morgan began by asking me to explain to him why I felt I was  unable to afford to hire a lawyer and why I felt my case was so  “extraordinarily complex” (another expression that the AG’s office  employed throughout their argument repeatedly). I then proceeded to tell him about how I have been battling with legal issues brought on by  B’nai Brith Canada’s two separate complaints, (the sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act complaint from 2007 and the  Sec. 319(2) CCC charge of May 16th, 2012), for the past six years and how having to do all the legal work on my  own has affected my ability to earn a sufficient income that would allow me to hire a lawyer.

Following all of that (which took a couple of hours) I then outlined  for the Judge the reasons why I felt my case was unusual and complex  enough that it warranted having a professional legal expert to represent me during the preliminary hearing stage so as to show how the illegal  search warrant that resulted in the invasion of my home and the theft of all of my computers and electronic files was an actual criminal offence on the part of the RCMP and the B.C. Hate Crime Team led by Det. Cst.  Terry Wilson. It was my argument that because of this initial illegal  act that the case should be thrown out at the preliminary hearing stage. In fact my former lawyer Mr. Christie had planned to set aside five  days for the preliminary hearing in order to accomplish this. After his  demise the court changed that time period from five days to five hours!  Obviously they felt that whatever Mr. Christie was planning to present  to the court didn’t warrant further consideration after he was out of  the picture.

Due to space constraints I won’t go into the details of my argument  for why I felt the case is complex other than I told the Judge that,  based upon my personal experience with the whole free speech issue over  the past six years, I felt it was the aim of Jewish lobby groups here in Canada, specifically B’nai Brith Canada, to set a precedent using my  charge so that, were they successful in obtaining a conviction, it would affect every other publisher and writer in Canada who might try and  criticize either the Jew’s-only state of Israel or anything else related to the Zionist political ideology or their religious practices as found in Judaism and the Talmud. It would, in other words, create a stifling  climate of censorship that would negatively affect every Canadian’s  right to freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One additional point needs to be emphasized here regarding all of the sec. 13 controversy that has taken place over the past quarter century  or longer. When I began to speak to Judge Morgan about sec. 13(1) and  about the fact that the federal government had repealed that section of  the Canadian Human Rights Code back in June of 2012 he  confessed that he knew nothing about the whole issue! I was literally  taken aback by this unexpected pronouncement on his part and my facial  expression must have surprised him as he then stated that he actually  sat on a “human rights” committee of some sort and, yet, he was still  unaware of the whole issue. Then, only to exacerbate his revelations  further, the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office also spoke up and  informed the court that she, too, was aware of what was going on in  terms of Section 13 and the Canadian Human Rights Code.

After a lunch break the hearing continued and Christina Drake,  representing the Attorney General’s office, gave her arguments as to why I ought to be refused the Rowbotham order. She cited numerous  case law examples and how in one way or another none of them met the  financial threshold that the Crown demands. Of course it’s always a  great advantage to be able to be the party that sets the threshold in  the first place and when it comes to the state having to pay for a  lawyer to defend an accused (and presumed innocent) citizen the Crown  finds such a proposal most abhorrent and the thought of it appears to  terrify them that such a precedent might actually occur (as it did in  the case of Rowbotham) and they would have to actually defray the costs of a Canadian citizen receiving justice in the courts of the land.

Screen Shot 2013-11-20 at 11.05.23 AM

 

When the issue of complexity was addressed Drake stated:

•     [The applicant] Has four years of university education and  communicates effectively orally and in writing, as evidenced by the  sophisticated written summary he provided of the arguments he wishes to  make with respect to the search warrant;

•         Has experience in legal and  quasi-legal proceedings, specifically in the context of a human rights  complaint in which it appears that he represented himself;

Of course in to my way of thinking there’s no direct correlation  between a person’s ability to express themselves either orally or  through the written word or having obtained a Teaching certificate for  Elementary school and their ability to perform the work of a qualified  and legally trained lawyer. To try and suggest that this is the case  would be akin to asserting that the Applicant, because of his university training, would also be qualified to perform the work of a surgeon.

Drake argued that I hadn’t done enough to  show that I had contacted other lawyers in order to find out if they  would work at lower rates and represent me. Of course I had checked into this and did contact those who I felt might come to my defense but I  never received a reply back from them. Again, what the AG’s office  intentionally appears to overlook is the reality that defending cases  such as mine is a very serious matter for any lawyer who wants to steer  clear of being labeled a defender of “hate mongers” and “anti-Semites”  and “racists” and end up with a reputation such as that which Douglas  Christie acquired by his willingness to defend those charged with “hate  crimes”. To defend a person against a charge of “willfully promoting  hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’” is to  accept that you will will also be attacked by these very same foreign  lobbyists who are now threatening me.

It was around 4:00 p.m. by the time the AG’s argument was completed. I was then given an opportunity to “sum up” my financial picture which I  proceeded to do culminating by emphasizing once again that I and my wife have been forced to live an extremely minimalist existence ever since  2007 and that this ought to be given consideration. Judge Morgan then  left the courtroom for about fifteen minutes and returned to give his  decision. Predictably, based upon the AG’s argument, he concluded that I hadn’t met the financial threshold and so therefore my reasons regarding the complexity of the case wouldn’t be considered. He added further  that this might change after the preliminary hearing when, should the  case go to trial (which it appears is highly likely), that I would then  have the opportunity to file another Rowbotham application and give it another shot so to speak.

When we left the courthouse it was -20 Celcius outside with a cold, bitter wind blowing. Rather fitting in some respects.

*****

The battle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech, both off and on the net, comes with great cost to those on the front lines. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

MEMO TO VLADIMIR PUTIN RE: G-20 MEETING

Posted on by
MEMO TO VLADIMIR PUTIN RE: G-20 MEETING
To: President Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
From: Paul Fromm, Director Canadian Association for Free Expression
Re: Complaints About Your Crackdown on Homosexual Propaganda
Dear President Putin:
I know you’re busy hosting the meeting of the G-20 leaders n St. Petersburg. So, I’ll keep this memo brief.Photo
Along with discussion of economic issues and the planned U.S. aggression against Syria, you may also find yourself criticized for recent legislation passed by the Duma restricting homosexual propaganda and recruitment. I know homosexuality is not the issue. It is legal in Russia. These people can pursue their peculiar practices in private. However, consistent with your country’s Christian traditions, your parliament does not want to see the sort of recruitment and aggressive propagandizing that we see in Canada and the U.S. That is your right as a sovereign country.
The restrictions on homosexual propagandizing have attracted much criticism in the West in the run-up to your hosting next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi.
At this Summit, you may run into Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird. He is an outspoken ultra Zionist and sometimes makes one think he is really the Honourable Member for Tel Aviv, rather than a minister charged with promoting Canada’s interests.
Even though many in the Conservative caucus are strong Christians, the Canadian government has recently become a key promoter of the homosexual agenda. Baird is a preachy pest and may try to bend your ear with criticisms of your country’s law against homosexual propaganda. He’ll tell you pompously how Canada believes in free speech.
I don’t know the Russian words for “hypocrite” and “phony”, but they would certainly fit. After he tells you all about Canada’s commitment to free speech, ask him: “What about Brad Love, Arthur Topham, and Craig Cobb, Mr. Minister? Aren’t they your political prisoners facing prison solely for the non-violent expression of their political or religious views? Don’t you have a ‘hate propaganda’ law that seeks to protect privileged groups from criticism?”
And just to send the canting finger-wagger on his way, you can give him a copy of this “information” laying charges against Craig Cobb under Canada’s notorious “hate law”: “Paul Craig Cobb between the 10th day of January, 2010, and the 18th day of June, 2010, in the Province of British Columbia by communicating statements other than in private conversation did willfully promote hatred against identifiable groups, namely, Jewish people, Black people and non-White people contrary to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” 

It’s not even clear, from this information sworn out by Det/Cst. Terry Wilson commissar of the “hate squad” on December 31, 2010,  how or where  Mr. Cobb is supposed to have communicated these alleged statements. He is a dual U.S. and Canadian citizen. He went into political exile in the U.S. to stay beyond the reach of Canada’s thought control police.
So, if John Baird starts any of his free speech is “a core Canadian value” cong and dance, call his bluff and give him the Russian equivalent of a big old horse laugh!

Malevolent State Revokes Brad Love’s Bail — Letter Writing Political Prisoner Heads Back to Prison

Posted on by
Malevolent State Revokes Brad Love’s Bail — Letter Writing Political Prisoner Heads Back to Prison
Earlier this week, inveterate letter writing Brad Love flew back to Ontario to turn himself in — on Thursday. His bail has been summarily revoked after the death of his mother, who was his surety.
Mr. Love is appealing his conviction last year and 18-month sentence for “breach of probation.” The lengthy probation gag resulted from his 2003 conviction under Canada’s notorious “hate law”, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. At the culmination of a series of escalating conditions,  Mr. Justice Hogg (no kidding) forbad him to write to anybody, without their consent. In 2009, Mr. Love sent four packages of writings and clippings to a number of Toronto Jewish groups, having phoned and obtained their consent. This was not good enough, Last year for Ontario Court Justice Kelly Wright who said that their had not been informed consent convicted Mr. Love and sentenced him to a further 18 months in prison.
Photo: Malevolent State Revokes Brad Love's Bail -- Letter Writing Political Prisoner Heads Back to Prison Earlier this week, inveterate letter writing Brad Love flew back to Ontario to turn himself in -- on Thursday. His bail has been summarily revoked after the death of his mother, who was his surety. Mr. Love is appealing his conviction last year and 18-month sentence for "breach of probation." The lengthy probation gag resulted from his 2003 conviction under Canada's notorious "hate law", Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. At the culmination of a series of escalating conditions, Mr. Justice Hogg (no kidding) forbad him to write to anybody, without their consent. In 2009, Mr. Love sent four packages of writings and clippings to a number of Toronto Jewish groups, having phoned and obtained their consent. This was not good enough, Last year for Ontario Court Justice Kelly Wright who said that their had not been informed consent convicted Mr. Love and sentenced him to a further 18 months in prison. Furthermore, she ruled: For three years, "Mr. Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization" that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer. In other words, a political gagging for another four and a half years. Last August, through his lawyer Peter Lindsay, Mr. Love filed an appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal against both this conviction and the Stalinist sentence. He was granted bail involving $22,000 cash he'd posted and a surety against the value of his mother's house. Six weeks ago, his mother died. Ten days ago, Mr. Love was informed by his lawyer that the vindictive Ontario justice system that has been gunning for him for more than a decade was revoking his bail. The Crown, he was told,. was having a "hissy fit." It must be understood that breach of probation is a minor offence, usually punished by 30 days in prison. For sending non-violent communications, political dissident Brad Love got a further 18 months! Similarly, bail for breach of probation often is one's own recognisance -- a promise to appear at the hearing. Mr. Love has faithfully appeared at more than 10 hearings in this case. Yet, even $22,000 of his own cash is not enough to secure his freedom. Thus, on Thursday, Mr. Love heads back to Lindsay, Ontario as a political prisoner. We use this term deliberately. Amnesty International defines "prisoners of conscience" thus on their website: "people who have been jailed because of their political, religious or other conscientiously-held beliefs, ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status, provided that they have neither used nor advocated violence." That describes letter writer extraordinaire Brad Love to a tee. No date has been set yet for his appeal. Thus, he could sit in prison for months, losing money through unemployment. The poxy Ontario justice system is nothing but vindictive. As a measure of the special abuse heaped on political dissidents in Ontario prisons, Mr. Love told CAFE that, when he was serving his previous 18 months sentence under Canada's "hate law", he was not allowed to work in the prison. Mr. Love, who puts in 80 hour weeks at his job in Fort McMurray is the Protestant work ethic on steroids. When he asked why he was not allowed to work in prison, he was told he was a "known affiliate" -- that is, of politically incorrect groups. That was worse than being a biker. As in the old Soviet Union, he was a political dissident -- the worst of the worst. The message, Mr. Love told CAFE, was: "Be a robot, Brad, and don't express your opinions." Mr. Love is instructing his lawyer urgently to seek bail pending the hearing of his appeal.

Furthermore, she ruled: For three years,  “Mr.  Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or police organization, except with the express written permission of a political or religious organization” that welcomes him as a member or associate and with the permission of his probation officer.
In other words, a political gagging for another four and a half years.
 Last August, through his lawyer Peter Lindsay, Mr. Love filed an appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal against both this conviction and the Stalinist sentence. He was granted bail involving $22,000 cash he’d posted and a surety against the value of his mother’s house.  Six weeks ago, his mother died. Ten days ago, Mr. Love was informed by his lawyer that the vindictive Ontario justice system that has been gunning for him for more than a decade was revoking his bail.
The Crown, he was told,. was having a “hissy fit.” It must be understood that breach of probation is a minor offence, usually punished by 30 days in prison. For sending non-violent communications, political dissident Brad Love got a further 18 months! Similarly, bail for breach of probation often is one’s own recognisance — a promise to appear at the hearing. Mr. Love has faithfully appeared at more than 10 hearings in this case. Yet, even $22,000 of his own cash is not enough to secure his freedom.
Thus, on Thursday, Mr. Love heads back to Lindsay, Ontario as a political prisoner. We use this term deliberately. Amnesty International defines  “prisoners of conscience”  thus on their website: “people who have been jailed because of their political, religious or other conscientiously-held beliefs, ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status, provided that they have neither used nor advocated violence.” That describes letter writer extraordinaire Brad Love to a tee.
No date has been set yet for his appeal. Thus, he could sit in prison for months, losing money through unemployment. The poxy Ontario justice system is nothing but vindictive.
As a measure of the special abuse heaped on political dissidents in Ontario prisons, Mr. Love told CAFE that, when he was serving his previous 18 months sentence under Canada’s “hate law”, he was not allowed to work in the prison. Mr. Love, who puts in 80 hour weeks at his job in Fort McMurray is the Protestant work ethic on steroids. When he asked why he was not allowed to work in prison, he was told he was a “known affiliate” — that is, of politically incorrect groups. That was worse than being a biker. As in the old Soviet Union, he was a political dissident — the worst of the worst. The message, Mr. Love told CAFE, was: “Be a robot, Brad, and don’t express your opinions.”
Mr. Love is instructing his lawyer urgently to seek bail pending the hearing of his appeal.

Arthur Topham Explains His Response to Warman’s Libel Threat

Posted on by
Arthur Topham Explains His Response to Warman’s Libel Threat
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Let’s never confuse Canada’s cankered legal system with fairness or justice. It may be the “law” but it isn’t necessarily fairness or justice.
Free speech hero and anti-Zionist advocate Arthur Topham, is currently fighting a very serious Sec. 319 (“hate law”) charge, instigated by Richard( the chronic complaint filer Warman) and Harry (“Mr. B’nai Brith B.C.”)  Abrams. Not surprisingly, the complaint was swiftly adopted by the political police out in BC, the RCMP hate squad headed by Det. Const. Terry Wilson, ex of the London Police Service hate Squad.
These charges could send Mr. Topham to prison for two years. His silencing has for some years been the goal of Canada’s thought police. In 2007, Harry Abrams who had previously tried to use the B.C. Human Rights Commission to silence war hero and columnist Doug Collins, filed a complaint against Arthur Topham and his Zionist-critical website radical[press.com. under Se. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (truth is no defence, intent is no defence).  When Marc Lemire won his case —  against yet  another  Warman complaint — on September 2, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal adjourned the several outstanding complaints, including the one against Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com, sine die.
So, Abrams and Warman, in an effort to silence Mr. Topham, then launched the present Sec. 319 “hate law” charges.
Back in 2005, speaking to the violence-prone Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and then in a boastful and expansive mood, Mr. Warman explained the tactic he called “maximum disruption.” He indicated that, depending on the circumstances and his mood, he’d file Sec. 13 (now repealed by Parliament) human rights complaints and or Criminal Code Sec. 319 complaints against his ideological targets.
He didn’t add, but he might have, that should the victims criticize him, they might find themselves subject to a libel suit. In fact. Mark and Connie Fournier of the pro-Zionist but pro-free speech FreeDominion.com website, who face no fewer than three Warman libel suits, indicate that, by their reckoning, Warman has filed or threatened to file no fewer than 60 (yes, sixty!) defamation actions against critics over the past 13 years.
So, in the effort to silence Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com, the Sec. 13 having been stymied, Mr. Warman and Abrams filed the Sec. 319 “hate law” charges. When the gutsy Arthur Topham refused to be silenced and continued to post his contentious critiques of Richard Warman on his website the latest libel threat was issued. Maximum disruption!
I’ve been there. From 2003 to final resolution, when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear our appeal in 2009. CAFE and I fought a Richard Warman libel suit aimed at CAFE’s efforts to defend the victims of Warman’s Sec. 13 complaints,. Ultimately, I can’t explain it or believe it, but Madame Justice Monique Metivier decided that our calling Richard Warman a “censor” was libellous. So, here’s one state-protected person around whom we must tip-toe carefully.
I know it’s not the free Anglo-Saxon system of open discussion we thought we’d inherited, but it’s the perverse legal reality of the present in a Canada with a judicial system, at least at the very top, firmly in the control of the cultural Marxists. We llive in enemy occupied territory where many truths can be told, if at all, only with great circumspection.
Purists may say that Arthur should fight and stand by the truths of his postings. The problem is that justice in this poxy country, as even several of the members of the current Supreme Court have noted, is beyond the means of the ordinary man. Arthur Topham has elected to withdraw from the libel fight and accept the imposition of extreme caution in mentioning the name of Canada’s legal establishment’s fair haired boy, Richard Warman and, despite his destitution, compensate the posh Ottawa civil servant $500 for his legal fees. Those who might criticize Mr. Topham should answer the simple question: “Along with your keyboard commando critique, have you sent him a cheque for $50,000 to carry on the fight?” A libel case would almost certainly be held for the complainant’s convenience close to home in Ottawa. How is the impoverished Arthur Topham,who can barely afford the gas money to go to Quesnel, to fund a libel case that could last weeks in far-off Ottawa? Mr. Topham seems to think the action would be fought in Toronto. Warman’s previous modus operandi suggests the venue would actually be his present home town of Ottawa.
The Ontario courts in Ottawa are hostile territory. A lawyer told me some years ago “the courts here don’t like you guys” — meaning free speech supporters. That would be the hostile environment in which Westerner and free thinker — both outsider groups in Ottawa  — Arthur Topham would have to fight. Justice in Canada today is for the rich or the government-funded, not for rock scrabble freethinking pensioners like Arthur Topham.
Warman’s threat of libel action, of course, comes strategically just as Arthur Topham’s “hate law” case begins. It is difficult, with limited resources, to fight on two fronts. Warman, who has, one assumes a full time job somewhere in the Department of National Defence, seems to somehow find endless time for a legion of lawsuits and complaints. Outside the weird Ottawa world, a libel suit consumes one’s life. I know, having been there with a previous Warman defamation action that gobbled up six years (!) of my time and effort, interestingly at the very time I was being hounded by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation in a prolonged and equally costly action to take away my teaching certificate for expressing on by own time, off school property, my political beliefs. 
Bottom line: Arthur Topham continues to need and shall receive our support for his battle against the forces of thought control seeking to send him to jail for his views through the current Sec. 319 “hate law” charges he presently faces.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Screen Shot 2013-07-07 at 8.47.05 AM.png
RadicalPressNewsLetter
 Warman Libel Suit Threat Against Radical Press
by
Arthur Topham
July 22, 2013
“He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain,
Can never rise to fight again.”
~Oliver Goldsmith, (1728 – 1774),
Art of Poetry on a New Plan, Vol. 2
On the evening of Wednesday, July 3, 2013 a car drove up my driveway and parked in the yard. An elderly man got out holding a large brown envelope in his hand and was proceeding to walk toward the house when I came out on the front porch. He asked, “Are you Arthur Topham?” I replied, “That depends on who you are.”
He broke out in a kind of a half laugh, half grin and came up to hand me the envelope. I asked him what it was and he again replied in a rather subdued tone that it was from some law firm from back east with a name he couldn’t pronounce. At that point my wife also walked out on the front steps and asked him point blank, “Is it from Richard Warman?” He said no, but he thought it mentioned his name and had something to do with him.
As he walked away, as if to cover his back, he mumbled something about being “only the messenger”.
I went back into the house and sat down at the kitchen table, opened the envelope and read the enclosed letter. It was from Jeff Saikaley of the law firm of Caza Sailaley out of Toronto. It began, “Dear Sir: Re: Richard Warman Libel Notice.”
The origin of the supposed offending, libellous and defamatory piece was an article by Marc Lemire which I had received from him December 31, 2012 titled, “Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada”. I published it on the RadicalPress.com website January 3, 2013 and added a Preface of my own comments. It was the Preface which Richard Warman was objecting to and using as the basis for his notice.
Having finished reading the letter out loud my wife left the room, obviously upset. I went upstairs to my office to consider what my response would be to this latest legal missile from the same person who, along with B’nai Brith Canada’s representative Harry Abrams, had laid the Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against me and RadicalPress.com back in 2012; one that culminated in my arrest on May 16th, 2012 and the seizure of all of my computers, electronic files as well as my firearms.
Not being the type of person who takes threats of this nature lightly I had a lot of things to consider over the next few days, apart from getting ready for the July 9, 2013 court appearance. Having observed Warman’s incessant, vexatious tactics of filing libel and defamation suits against anyone who he felt was not treating him in the manner in which he was accustomed to being treated by those such as the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada like the Canadian Jewish Congress, who, in the past have presented special awards to Mr. Warman for his efforts in combatting what they erroneously perceive to be “racism” and “anti-Semitism”, I realized that this latest assault was one that I would have to deal with quickly if I wanted to avoid yet another lengthy and most likely fruitless legal battle.
Warman was demanding a full retraction and apology for the things I had said about him in my Preface and he also wanted both my comments plus Lemire’s article removed from RadicalPress.com and the retraction posted where the article once was and left there permanently. I was to post the retraction/apology as the lead article on the website for five days in a row as well.
After deliberating on this ultimatum I contacted some of my legal friends for advice and it was suggested that given my overall situation with respect to the already onerous legal burdens now before me that it would be best to bow out of this additional brawl with Warman and avoid what would likely be the inescapable result.
Having no funds to hire a lawyer was the first consideration that I had to face. Given that this libel threat would be a civil suit there would be no possibility of obtaining a Rowbotham application as in my present sec. 319(2) criminal charge, also brought on by Warman. Without counsel the case would likely be heard in Toronto and that would necessitate my having to travel across Canada in order to fight it. Given that I struggle to find enough gas to get into Quesnel, a distance of approximately 30 km, the chances of finding the fuel and money to survive a trip out to Toronto (or possibly more than one trip) would be extremely thin if not impossible. Then of course was the possibility of being found guilty and having to face a huge fine which, because I wouldn’t be able to afford to pay it, would likely mean a judgment registered against my home. Given all of these factors it was easy to see (being a placer miner or not) that I was between a rock and a very hard place. Having placed my pawn in the direct path of Warman’s queen there was little left for me to do but retract.
On July 8th, 2013 I replied to Warman’s lawyer and stated the following:
I am in receipt of your June 27, 2013 letter which was hand delivered to me on the evening of July 3, 2013.
I have read it through and given it my full consideration.
Given the fact that I am currently facing two legal challenges to my constitutional right to freedom of speech on the Internet, i.e. a Section 13(1) complaint plus a Section 319(2) CCC which your client Mr. Richard Warman, along with Mr. Harry Abrams, conspired to initiate against me, I recognize that a third legal action is beyond my present ability to meet.
Mr. Warman, as I am confident you are well aware, knows full well that I am presently without legal counsel due to the untimely death of my former solicitor Mr. Douglas Christie and that my financial situation is such that, of necessity, I am currently forced to represent myself pro ce in both the Sec. 319(2) charge and the stayed Sec. 13(1) complaint pending the outcome in the Warman v Lemire appeal now before the federal court. A third civil libel suit wherein I would be basically at the mercy of forces beyond my immediate capacity to deal with is therefore not an option for me.
I recognize that I am caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place and therefore am willing to meet Mr. Warman’s demands, as contained in your letter of June 27, 2013, to publish a complete retraction and apology for the allegations contained in my January 1, 2013 Article entitled “Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada from Marc Lemire at freedom site.org” located at URL http://www.radicalpress.com and a unique website page containing the Article at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1877. 
Prior to removing said Article from www.radicalpress.com I would like written confirmation from your office stating that in doing so the matter would be concluded and no further vexatious repercussions would arise from the Article.
As well I will do everything in my capacity as the copyright holder to have all third party republications of my Article removed.
Please advise if these steps are sufficient to meet your client’s demands and if so I will proceed to fulfil them immediately.
On July 11th, 2013 I received a reply from Jeff Saikaley stating:
Dear Mr. Topham:
 
Thank you for your note.  I confirm that if you fulfill the conditions outlined in my letter of 27 June 2013 within 24 hours and pay Mr. Warman’s expenses of $500 incurred to date no later than 15 calendar days from this email, then Mr. Warman is prepared to not proceed with the libel action against you.
 
I wrote Saikaley back confirming that I would immediately attend to fulfilling all the demands stated in his initial letter and that I would send the $500.00 blood money before the allotted time period ended.
Following that I sent out an appeal to my list asking for financial help in raising the money to pay Warman. I’m extremely happy and grateful for the fact that help came in time to meet the deadline. I am still awaiting final confirmation from Warman’s lawyer that he received the postal money order that I sent off to him via registered snail mail. Once that is done then hopefully this will be the end of it.
Should anything further arise of a weird nature I will alert readers to it but as it now stands it looks like this episode in the history of Canada’s struggles to maintain the right to freedom of speech is now over.
My sincerest thanks on behalf of myself and my dear wife for all the support and financial assistance that was forthcoming. God bless you all.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
——

 
PLEASE NOTE: Now that Section 13 is dead that still leaves me having to carry on with my own Section 319(2) criminal charge laid against me by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams. With the untimely death of my former lawyer Douglas Christie I am all the more in need of financial support in order to carry on the fight to retain my fundamental rights to publish on the Internet. 

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer

Posted on by

 

Update in Topham “Hate” Case: Crown Refuses to Particularize Charges Against B.C. Writer
 

Dear Reader,
Here is the latest report on my case with Canada’s censorship commissars (B’nai Brith Canada) and the Canadian court system. Please try to pass it along to all concerned with the issue of Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Also, as a special bonus treat for Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the leader of BC’s “Hate Crime Team”, I’m enclosing here a political cartoon featuring Terry’s mugshot and mindset, a grim reminder of where our national police force’s heads are at these days. Please feel free to pass that along to your sources on the net. I know that Terry just loves to have his picture in the media. 🙂
Sincerely
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
_____________________________________

Screen Shot 2012-12-14 at 11.52.30 AM.png
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial. 
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th. 
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ” There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so. 
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism. 
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger (this was not stated but implied in her comments) using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging. 
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary enquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying. 
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—-
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
 

Crown Threatens to Deny Arthur Topham a Preliminary Hearing and Proceed by Direct Indictment

Posted on by
Crown Threatens to Deny Arthur Topham a Preliminary Hearing and Proceed by Direct Indictment
Screen Shot 2013-04-18 at 11.39.37 AM.png
May 16th, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Today, May 16th, 2013, marks the first anniversary of my arrest and incarceration last May 16th, 2012 when Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and the BC “Hate Crime Team” flew up from Vancouver and along with a crew of approximately 14 police officers, stopped my vehicle containing myself and my wife while on route to Prince George on a business trip and charged me under the criminal code of Canada with a sec. 319(2) “Hate Crime”. I was read my rights, arrested, handcuffed and carted off to the Quesnel jail where I spend the rest of the day in a cell while Det. Wilson’s team awaited an illegal search warrant and then entered my home and stole all of my computers and electronic files as well as my firearms which are my only means of defense well outside of any RCMP range of immediate help in case of an emergency.
Coincidentally today was also the latest in a protracted series of court appearances that began back on October 9th, 2012. Today’s menu of misfeasance included a new item that suddenly popped up when I was supposed to be appearing before the provincial judge to discuss my last application to the court requesting particularization of the disclosure material submitted by the Crown. Those who have been following these legal updates will be aware of what that was all about and for anyone new interested in finding out they can go to Legal Update #1 at the following url and review it there. That application plus setting a date for a preliminary inquiry and an update on my Rowbotham application were all scheduled for the 16th. For some unknown reason Judge Morgan who normally hears my case was unable to be there and  another out of town female judge was sitting in for him.
The judge, after looking over the menu, decided that she would not attempt to deal with the application for particularization and told the Crown that she would postpone that until May 28th, 2013 when Judge Morgan would be in attendance as he had been dealing with it and knew much more about the case. Seeing that I was without counsel the judge, having looked at my Rowbotham application and noted that it had all be prepared properly and had been accepted, then took the time to explain to me how and why the Rowbotham application works and when a person can file one. For obvious reasons I knew how it worked as I had already prepared the document awhile go but I stood quietly and listened to her review the process. She then explained that if I wished to have counsel prior to the planned preliminary enquiry that I would have to apply beforehand but that if, after the preliminary enquiry, it was determined that the case would proceed to trial then I would have to file a second Rowbotham application in order to obtain another counsel to represent me in the trial. 
I had received a package of material from the Ministry of Justice Legal Services Branch on May 11th in response to my Notice of Application and Affidavit which I had served on the AGBC April 23, 2013. In it Keith Evans, legal counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC), explained all the details of how to go about filling in the additionally required documents related to the application and also informing me that I would have to decide beforehand whether or not I wished to have the application relate to obtaining counsel for the preliminary enquiry or the pending trial or both. If both then I would have to submit two separate applications. 
At this point I asked the honourable judge if I might ask her a question and she consented. I wanted clarification as to primary purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry and I asked the judge if, in fact, the preliminary enquiry was meant to determine whether or not the Crown had a strong enough case to warrant going to trial. She answered in the affirmative saying yes, that was the main reason for conducting such a procedure. I said thank you for explaining that.
It was around this point in the proceedings that Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston brought up the new item mentioned earlier. She informed the judge that she had just recently received word from Det. Wilson’s “E-Division” office in Surrey, B.C. that additional information had gathered and was being sent to Crown and that the Attorney General’s office was now planning to take the unusual step of attempting to circumvent my right to a preliminary enquiry by going for what the Crown termed “a Direct Indictment”, a process by which I would be forced to go to trial without having the opportunity to argue against the Crown’s charges as laid out in the original Indictment of November 5th, 2012. 
Crown counsel Johnston then informed the judge that no final decision had been made as of today but that she expected the Attorney General’s office would have their final decree in place prior to the next court appearance this coming May 28th, 2013. At this point Cst. Wilson was sending the additional to Crown via a thumb drive or memory stick and that I would also be receiving a copy of whatever new “evidence” they had come up with in their “ongoing investigation”.
All that covered the judge then looked at me. I gave her a sort of dazed and confused look and she, half-smiling and half-laughing, apologized for all the apparent incertitude and then did her best to provide me with a general overview of what had transpired, ended by saying that everything would be postponed until the return of Judge Morgan on May 28th, 2013. 
—–
[Editorial comment: The new item of going for a Direct Indictment on the part of the Attorney General’s office still remains a mystery to me at this point. They are obviously not happy with my wanting to have a preliminary enquiry which is standard procedure in most cases. They are also planning to introduce additional evidence or information into the case. Where would that evidence come from? One can only assume that it comes from whatever additional posts I have been making on the RadicalPress.com website. Why additional evidence in the first place? Didn’t they feel they had enough already? 
Feedback on these issues is always appreciated. 
As Walt Disney used to say at the end of his productions, “Stay Tune Folks!“]
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone Everywhere, Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
———
PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on. 
The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. 
Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses. 

 

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press