Tag Archives: Richard Warman

The Free Dominion 4 — Huge Defeat for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Posted on by
The Free Dominion 4 — Huge Defeat for Freedom of Speech in Canada
The bottom line is that, after a very costly and valiant 6-year battle, the Free Dominion 4 —  Free Dominion website owners, Mark and Connie Fournier, and bloggers, Jason Bertucci and Roger Smith — this week lost the defamation action brought against them by Richard Warman. The past six years have been filled with motions and appeals on procedure on the way to trial. The Fourniers face still two more libel actions launched by Richard Warman, a civil servant (Department of National Defence), with seemingly an amazing amount of time on his hands for legal complaints, human rights complaints, tribunals and lawsuits.
The crimes of the Free Dominion 4? Critical comments over several years about Richard Warman, usually is his role of — and in this poxy, anti-freedom environment, we must be careful — seeking to limit the freedom of expression of others. Canadian libel law is very hazy. Remarks that lower a person’s reputation — thus, almost any criticism — can be seen as defamatory. However, truth and fair comment are defences. The jury in the Free Dominion 4  case seemed unwilling to recognize truth or fair comment in numerous postings by the 4 about which Warman had complained.
Here U.S. Attorney Sam Dickson offers some sober counsel: “Juries want to do the nice thing and be popular.” They will often ignore facts, if the defendants have been cast in a bad light.
The defence painted the defendants as extremists, with unpopular, maybe even unusual views and eccentric or opinionated friends or associates. Ottawa is a very politically correct town with a very cozy judiciary, as more than one lawyer has told me. The Free Dominion 4 were clearly odd, outsiders, unenlightened yokels from the sticks or the R.O.C. (the backward Rest of Canada to the entitled Ottawa mindset.) 
The complainant (plaintiff) Richard Warman savours the victory:
“The jury found that all 4 defendants had been motivated by malice in their attacks against me and awarded $42,000 in damages broken down in the following amounts:  Connie Fournier – $7,000 general damages/$4,000 aggravated/$8,000 punitive Mark Fournier – $4,000 general/$3,000 aggravated/$5,000 punitive Jason Bertucci – $2,000 general/$1,000 aggravated/$2,000 punitive Roger Smith – $2,000 general/$1,000 aggravated/$3,000 punitive.”

But, $42,000 out of pocket, in addition to their own legal fees, is not the end of the damage: “An injunction is being sought and costs remain to be ruled on by Justice Robert Smith who presided over the trial,” writes Warman. What exactly would such an injunction mean? We don’t know the wording, but the delightfully diabolical thing about an injunction is that breaking it, even inadvertently, could mean a quick trip to prison for the poor victim impertinent to believe he should open his mouth and speak his mind.

Canada is a soft tyranny. No, we’re not yet a Third World thuggocracy, where dissidents are beaten to death by mobs or rounded up and tortured in prison. Like Singapore, we maintain the trappings of democracy. The way Singapore long maintained a virtual one party state was that there were ferocious libel judgements slapped on opposition politicians who criticized government figures. We haven’t yet reached this level of sophistication but we’re headed there.

Photo: The Free Dominion 4 -- Huge Defeat for Freedom of Speech in Canada The bottom line is that, after a very costly and valiant 6-year battle, the Free Dominion 4 -- Free Dominion website owners, Mark and Connie Fournier, and bloggers, Jason Bertucci and Roger Smith -- this week lost the defamation action brought against them by Richard Warman. The past six years have been filled with motions and appeals on procedure on the way to trial. The Fourniers face still two more libel actions launched by Richard Warman, a civil servant (Department of National Defence), with seemingly an amazing amount of time on his hands for legal complaints, human rights complaints, tribunals and lawsuits. The crimes of the Free Dominion 4? Critical comments over several years about Richard Warman, usually is his role of -- and in this poxy, anti-freedom environment, we must be careful -- seeking to limit the freedom of expression of others. Canadian libel law is very hazy. Remarks that lower a person's reputation -- thus, almost any criticism -- can be seen as defamatory. However, truth and fair comment are defences. The jury in the Free Dominion 4 case seemed unwilling to recognize truth or fair comment in numerous postings by the 4 about which Warman had complained. Here U.S. Attorney Sam Dickson offers some sober counsel: "Juries want to do the nice thing and be popular." They will often ignore facts, if the defendants have been cast in a bad light. The defence painted the defendants as extremists, with unpopular, maybe even unusual views and eccentric or opinionated friends or associates. Ottawa is a very politically correct town with a very cozy judiciary, as more than one lawyer has told me. The Free Dominion 4 were clearly odd, outsiders, unenlightened yokels from the sticks or the R.O.C. (the backward Rest of Canada to the entitled Ottawa mindset.) The complainant (plaintiff) Richard Warman savours the victory: "The jury found that all 4 defendants had been motivated by malice in their attacks against me and awarded $42,000 in damages broken down in the following amounts: Connie Fournier – $7,000 general damages/$4,000 aggravated/$8,000 punitive Mark Fournier – $4,000 general/$3,000 aggravated/$5,000 punitive Jason Bertucci – $2,000 general/$1,000 aggravated/$2,000 punitive Roger Smith – $2,000 general/$1,000 aggravated/$3,000 punitive." But, $42,000 out of pocket, in addition to their own legal fees, is not the end of the damage: "An injunction is being sought and costs remain to be ruled on by Justice Robert Smith who presided over the trial," writes Warman. What exactly would such an injunction mean? We don't know the wording, but the delightfully diabolical thing about an injunction is that breaking it, even inadvertently, could mean a quick trip to prison for the poor victim impertinent to believe he should open his mouth and speak his mind. Canada is a soft tyranny. No, we're not yet a Third World thuggocracy, where dissidents are beaten to death by mobs or rounded up and tortured in prison. Like Singapore, we maintain the trappings of democracy. The way Singapore long maintained a virtual one party state was that there were ferocious libel judgements slapped on opposition politicians who criticized government figures. We haven't yet reached this level of sophistication but we're headed there. Anti-free speech "human rights" legislation under which Warman thrived -- filing several dozen Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act -- makes criticism of privileged minorities dangerous. The definition of "hate" or "contempt" is hazy. Usually, neither truth nor intent are defences. That's assault number one. The effect of such restrictions is to mute or silence criticism of the immigration invasion, multiculturalism, minority-influenced conspiracies, or the homosexual agenda. Lively, outspoken public debate is stifled. Assault number two is the sort of persecution by libel suits or threats of such suits. That makes criticism of individuals seen to be actively limiting the free expression of others difficult. Libel judgements are capricious. CAFE and I were founded to have defamed Richard Warman for dubbing him a "censor" for his activites. Yet, the late free speech champion Doug Christie was deemed not to have been defamed when a Vancouver talk jock radio host smeared him as "a perverted monster" for having defended Ernst Zundel. We understand the Free Dominion 4 are actively considering an appeal. I attach an excellent commentary by a long-time champion of individual liberties, Tom Kennedy. Paul Fromm Director Canadian Association for Free Expression The Day Free Speech Died In Canada – October 2, 2013 By Tom J. Kennedy My heart skipped a beat when I read Xanthippa's post titled "The Verdict" on Wednesday evening, October 2, 2013: "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 Free Dominion, 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." - Xanthippa Permit me to draw attention to the infamous statement from the Zundel Hearing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in the 1990’s wherein Commissioner Pensa is quoted as saying: "It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us. Parliament has spoken. The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by Section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful. The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." In summary, the Commissioner Pensa determined that “truth is no defense,” or in other words in any case before that quasi-judicial body – the Human Rights Tribunal “truth doesn’t matter.” It seems that the absurd statement “truth is no defense” has crept into the regular court system in this 21st Century. Read Mark Weber's article: "The Importance of the Zundel Hearing in Toronto." A most important cyber-defamation case – “Warman vs Fournieret al” began on September 9, 2013 and ended on October 2, 2013 at a civil court in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Mark Fournier writes at Free Dominion about the day that free speech died in Canada: “The jury decided that we had not taken down the complained of posts fast enough so we were therefore responsible for all the posts made by third parties. This put us in a position where we had no defenses to protect ourselves. We weren’t allowed to put in evidence to prove the truth of many of the facts (such as the David Icke video), we weren’t allowed to say what we believed commenters were referring to in their comments, and we couldn’t testify to the state of mind, or motivation of, anonymous posters. We were held responsible for the words of others and systematically stripped of every possible defense.” 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. Canadians everywhere are invited and encouraged to communicate with their respective, elected Members of Parliament re: Canada's oppressive and outdated libel laws and the outcome of the "Warman vs Fournier et al" trial. Read Jeffrey Sahllit’s article: "It's time to reform Canadianlibel law" And Alan Shanoff’s article: "Timeto abolish outdated defamatory libel offence" To redeem free speech in Canada, the libel laws must be revised to modernize the original words of the Magna Carta that was written in the 13th Century when King John was the feared enemy of freedom and liberty. Lord Denning referred to the Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.” In retrospect, perhaps the six member jury would have returned with a different verdict if the Plaintiff’s responsibility was to prove that the statements were typed with malicious intent. In this 21st Century, the power of the Plaintiff in a cyber-defamation case becomes the feared despot to freedom of speech. Connie Fournier explains at Free Dominion, the challenge she and Mark faced as Defendants: “The witnesses we brought in were to prove specific facts that we needed to prove were true in order for a fair comment defense to apply. The fair comment defense doesn't apply if the comment is not based on "proven facts". Since there were specific comments about a protest at Paul Fromm's house and about events with David Icke so we needed them to give testimony about them. Newspaper articles and even tribunal transcripts were considered hearsay and much of the evidence we brought was excluded by the judge. You cannot prove a fact in court unless you call a real person who was there. So you can see how impossible it is to vet every post that is posted on an internet forum and, when you are facing getting witnesses to prove facts behind sixty-some posts, it is an enormous burden. In our case, as our opponents found out that we had witnesses to prove certain facts, they removed the related posts from their claim. In fact, they waited until the day of the trial when they knew for a fact that David Icke was coming, to remove the posts related to him and they tried to get the judge to block his testimony (after we had already paid for his flight and accommodations). In their haste, they forgot to remove ONE of those allegations so he testified. But, that is how it went all the way through the trial. The strategy was NOT to attack Richard Warman's character. We focused on proving facts related to specific posts, and we went as far as we could in trying to persuade the jury that the posts were not defamatory, but our hands were tied there. The judge is in charge of giving them the law and the definition of defamation that he gave them would encompass any negative comment. It was "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." We were not allowed to refer to any case law that gave a broader definition, and the judge specifically refused to give the jury case law relating to the extra latitude that should be given to "political speech". I was stopped from giving my opinion as to how comments are interpreted in an online forum context because I was not an "expert witness", and every time I tried to explain the context of an anonymous comment or what I thought was the motivation behind a post, I was not allowed to continue. Anyway, you can only go so far when the judge has the final word on the evidence the jury will be allowed to see. The only recourse when you feel the jury was not properly instructed is to appeal. And, for the record, our lawyer was EXCEPTIONAL.” The right to speak our mind in real life situations and/or to type words in cyberspace is a unique freedom cherished by Canadian citizens, but now freedom of speech in under threat because of the misguided verdict in the “Warman vs Fournier et al” trail. Now in 2013, any self-appointed censor can rely on their JUST US system to censor blogosphere debates on any topics or issues. This is evidence that political correctness has morphed into a totalitarian monster that must be tamed. Our inate right to speak our honestly held opinions without fear of being sued or saddled with a gag order must be restored for ourselves, our children, and, our grandchildren. As it stands now, our right of free expression as granted by the Charter of Rights is being trumped by outdated, libel law, with its attached punitive consequences. All Canadians now will suffer an extreme injustice because of fatal flaws in Canadian jurisprudence. This is because under Canada's libel law there is more protection for the Plaintiff than for the Defendant, as the burden of proof has become the responsibility of the Defendant to prove that any typed words in cyberspace do not damage the "honour" of another individual. Based on the jury verdict in the "Warman vs Fournier et al," Canada's defamation laws now permit a Plaintiff to abuse and harass a Defendant - who has little or no fair recourse in their tainted JUST US system. Paul Fromm, with the Free Dominion 4, after testifying at their trial in Ottawa, Sept. 17.

Paul Fromm in Ottawa, Sept. 17, with the Free Dominion 4, after testifying for them.

 

 

Anti-free speech “human rights” legislation under which Warman thrived — filing several dozen Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act — makes criticism of privileged minorities dangerous. The definition of “hate” or “contempt” is hazy. Usually, neither truth nor intent are defences. That’s assault number one. The effect of such restrictions is to mute or silence criticism of the immigration invasion, multiculturalism, minority-influenced conspiracies, or the homosexual agenda. Lively, outspoken public debate is stifled.

Assault number two is the sort of persecution by libel suits or threats of such suits. That makes criticism of individuals seen to be actively limiting the free expression of others difficult. Libel judgements are capricious. CAFE and I were founded to have defamed Richard Warman for dubbing him a “censor” for his activites. Yet, the late free speech champion Doug Christie was deemed not to have been defamed when a Vancouver talk jock radio host smeared him as “a perverted monster” for having defended Ernst Zundel.

We understand the Free Dominion 4 are actively considering an appeal.

I attach an excellent commentary by a long-time champion of individual liberties, Tom Kennedy.

 

Paul Fromm

Director

Canadian Association for Free Expression

 

The Day Free Speech Died In Canada – October 2, 2013
By Tom J. Kennedy
My heart skipped a beat when I read Xanthippa’s post titled “The Verdict” on Wednesday evening, October 2, 2013:
“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 Free Dominion, 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.” – Xanthippa
Permit me to draw attention to the infamous statement from the Zundel Hearing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in the 1990’s wherein Commissioner Pensa is quoted as saying:
“It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us. Parliament has spoken. The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by Section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful. The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”
In summary, the Commissioner Pensa determined that “truth is no defense,” or in other words in any case before that quasi-judicial body – the Human Rights Tribunal “truth doesn’t matter.”  It seems that the absurd statement “truth is no defense” has crept into the regular court system in this 21st Century.
Read Mark Weber’s article: “The Importance of the Zundel Hearing in Toronto.“
A most important cyber-defamation case – “Warman vs Fournieret al”  began on September 9, 2013 and ended on October 2, 2013 at a civil court in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mark Fournier writes at Free Dominion about the day that free speech died in Canada:
“The jury decided that we had not taken down the complained of posts fast enough so we were therefore responsible for all the posts made by third parties. This put us in a position where we had no defenses to protect ourselves. We weren’t allowed to put in evidence to prove the truth of many of the facts (such as the ‪David Icke video), we weren’t allowed to say what we believed commenters were referring to in their comments, and we couldn’t testify to the state of mind, or motivation of, anonymous posters. We were held responsible for the words of others and systematically stripped of every possible defense.”
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.
Canadians everywhere are invited and encouraged to communicate with their respective, elected Members of Parliament re: Canada’s oppressive and outdated libel laws and the outcome of the “Warman vs Fournier et al” trial.
Read Jeffrey Sahllit’s article: “It’s time to reform Canadianlibel law“
And Alan Shanoff’s article: “Timeto abolish outdated defamatory libel offence“
To redeem free speech in Canada, the libel laws must be revised to modernize the original words of the Magna Carta that was written in the 13th Century when King John was the feared enemy of freedom and liberty. 
Lord Denning referred to the Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
In retrospect, perhaps the six member jury would have returned with a different verdict if the Plaintiff’s responsibility was to prove that the statements were typed with malicious intent.
In this 21st Century, the power of the Plaintiff in a cyber-defamation case becomes the feared despot to freedom of speech.
Connie Fournier explains at Free Dominion, the challenge she and Mark faced as Defendants:
“The witnesses we brought in were to prove specific facts that we needed to prove were true in order for a fair comment defense to apply. The fair comment defense doesn’t apply if the comment is not based on “proven facts”. Since there were specific comments about a protest at Paul Fromm’s house and about events with David Icke so we needed them to give testimony about them. Newspaper articles and even tribunal transcripts were considered hearsay and much of the evidence we brought was excluded by the judge.
You cannot prove a fact in court unless you call a real person who was there. So you can see how impossible it is to vet every post that is posted on an internet forum and, when you are facing getting witnesses to prove facts behind sixty-some posts, it is an enormous burden.
In our case, as our opponents found out that we had witnesses to prove certain facts, they removed the related posts from their claim. In fact, they waited until the day of the trial when they knew for a fact that David Icke was coming, to remove the posts related to him and they tried to get the judge to block his testimony (after we had already paid for his flight and accommodations). In their haste, they forgot to remove ONE of those allegations so he testified. But, that is how it went all the way through the trial.
The strategy was NOT to attack Richard Warman’s character. We focused on proving facts related to specific posts, and we went as far as we could in trying to persuade the jury that the posts were not defamatory, but our hands were tied there. The judge is in charge of giving them the law and the definition of defamation that he gave them would encompass any negative comment. It was “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.”
We were not allowed to refer to any case law that gave a broader definition, and the judge specifically refused to give the jury case law relating to the extra latitude that should be given to “political speech”. I was stopped from giving my opinion as to how comments are interpreted in an online forum context because I was not an “expert witness”, and every time I tried to explain the context of an anonymous comment or what I thought was the motivation behind a post, I was not allowed to continue.
Anyway, you can only go so far when the judge has the final word on the evidence the jury will be allowed to see. The only recourse when you feel the jury was not properly instructed is to appeal.
And, for the record, our lawyer was EXCEPTIONAL.”
The right to speak our mind in real life situations and/or to type words in cyberspace is a unique freedom cherished by Canadian citizens, but now freedom of speech in under threat because of the misguided verdict in the “Warman vs Fournier et al” trail.
Now in 2013, any self-appointed censor can rely on their JUST US system to censor blogosphere debates on any topics or issues. This is evidence that political correctness has morphed into a totalitarian monster that must be tamed.
Our inate right to speak our honestly held opinions without fear of being sued or saddled with a gag order must be restored for ourselves, our children, and, our grandchildren.
As it stands now, our right of free expression as granted by the Charter of Rights is being trumped by outdated, libel law, with its attached punitive consequences. All Canadians now will suffer an extreme injustice because of fatal flaws in Canadian jurisprudence.
This is because under Canada’s libel law there is more protection for the Plaintiff than for the Defendant, as the burden of proof has become the responsibility of the Defendant to prove that any typed words in cyberspace do not damage the “honour” of another individual.
Based on the jury verdict in the “Warman vs Fournier et al,” Canada’s defamation laws now permit a Plaintiff to abuse and harass a Defendant – who has little or no fair recourse in their tainted JUST US system.

 

Three Parties Supporting Nullification of Bequest to National Alliance Get “Intervener” Status

Posted on by

Three Parties Supporting Nullification of Bequest to National Alliance Get “Intervener” Status

ST. JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. AUGUST 19. Powerful groups seeking to hijack a will leaving a bequest to a U.S. White nationalist group were in court here today seeking “intervener” status.
The controversy surrounds the late  Harry Robert McCorkill who died in St. John in 2004. After a long delay. the will was recently probated. Mr. McCorkill, a university professor, left a valuable collection of old coins and artifacts, valued at between $250,000 and $1-million, to  the National Alliance, a  U.S. White Nationalist group headquartered in West Virginia of which he was a member.
 Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, an extreme but well funded anti-racist group in the U.S., is seeking to prevent the NA from receiving its legacy. They retained the assistance of Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer with whom we have clashed on numerous occasions. He styles himself a “human rights” advocate and has filed numerous complaints under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).
Anyway, soon after Isabelle Rose McCorkill of Ottawa came forth — nine years after her estranged brother’s death. She owns a house in Ottawa but states that she lives on $1,000 a month and is thus unable to post any security. Nevertheless, she is represented by one of Moncton’s best and, one would assume, priciest law firms McInnes-Cooper (Marc-Antoine Chiasson).
.
 In late July, she obtained an ex parte injunction that froze the assets and ordered that they not leave the Province of New Brunswick. The coins and artifacts are in storage in Moncton.
A hearing on the application is set for September 10 in St. John’s. The application seeks, inter alia, the Court declaration that the bequest “is illegal and/or contrary to public policy: …as a result of the failed bequest an intestacy has resulted’ .. the Estate be shared amongst the surviving brothers and sisters; … that costs be awarded to the Applicant.|’ The application is to be heard before the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division. The case Number is S/M/49/13. Thus, she seeks her “costs” for nullifying the bequest which is the major portion of the estate and, if the application succeeds, walking off with her brother’s assets.
The judge tasked with this matter is Judge Glennie.
However, today’s proceedings were before Judge Grant. The three would be interveners, the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs were admitted. There was no mention of security for costs.
Indeed, the only previous mention of costs was in Isabelle McCorkell in her affidavit. She said she had limited mans and stated that should there be a requirement of security for costs she could not participate further. There was no mention of security for costs in regards to the three parties granted intervener status today.
John Hughes, lawyer for Executor Fred Streed, sent a letter to Judge Glennie on Friday advising there could be one or two interveners coming forth on behalf of the estate.
A live issue to be argued on September 10 is whether the Isabelle McCorkill motion should be converted into an action. If it is, there would have to be a trial, which would be more costly but which would also, inter alia, permit the cross-examination of Isabelle McCorkell.
The Judge allowed the Estate to pay Revenue Canada from the previously frozen funds. However, a request to unfreeze funds to pay Executor fees, lawyer’s fees, a storage costs in Moncton was turned down.
An interesting sidelight, the lawyer for Isabelle McCorkell was not in court today. When he was finally reached by phone by the judge part way through the hearing, he said he was in another hearing and had not been advised by the court of the date. Whether this was the court staff’s error or a problem at his end remained unclear.
Paul Fromm

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham

Posted on by

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham

And don’t forget all Arthur Topham ever did was express opinions critical of Zionism and Israel. His life is cast into poverty and turmoil by repeated complaints by Richard Warfman and Harry Abrams and an anti-free speech law that enables such thought suppression. And our hypocritical Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a virtual mouthpiece of both the Israel First lobby and increasingly of the homosexual lobby, dares criticize Russia: “ ‘We don’t imprison people for their expressing political positions. I think our position in this regard represents the position of Canadians and they expect that we speak in favour of these rights,’ he added during a speech in Miramichi, New Brunswick.”  Tell that to Arthur Topham. Of course, Canada seeks to imprison those expressing political positions strongly critical of privileged minorities.

CAFE is proud to support this scrappy freethinker in his battle against thought control and state suppression of free speech,

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15

August 16, 2013 

CanadaScalesofJusticeFinalcopy

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15 August 16, 2013

“There’s no such thing as ‘Hate Speech.’ You either have FREE speech or you don’t – it’s that simple.” ~Anonymous

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 saw my return to Quesnel’s provincial courthouse for yet another appearance related to the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and my arrest and incarceration May 16th, 2012 for the spurious crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’

The previous time was back on  July 9th, 2013 when the issue of CC Johnston’s attempt to go for a direct indictment failed. It was also then that further efforts were made to set dates for my Rowbotham application hearing, the Rowbotham being my only option at this stage of the proceedings that will literally afford me a lawyer in order to act in my defence. As well, a the date of August 13th was supposed to be when I would appear before Judge Morgan and speak to my application for particularization of the evidence which the Crown was planning to base its case on.

At this point in the process where every appearance tends to hold unanticipated surprises it has become my practise not to get too bent out of shape trying to fathom what may or may not occur. That way of thinking appears to be best and so again I wasn’t disappointed to find that things didn’t go as planned.

I was scheduled to also meet with the Trial Coordinator, Sherry Jasper, after dealing with the particularization issue in court but while waiting in the courtroom for Judge Morgan to appear CC Johnston approached me and said that she was sure that she had heard the Judge say during our previous appearance that I could postpone the Particularization application until such time as I knew whether or not my Rowbotham application was going to be approved and I could have counsel representation for the Particularization hearing.

I didn’t recollect the judge telling me that but at the same time I also realized that given the option it would be best to wait until I knew if the Rowbotham application was going to be approved and a lawyer appointed for my defence. Knowing I was ill equipped to do so beyond just reading out the information to the court that my former lawyer Doug Christie had prepared in my defence I decided to heed what CC had just revealed to me and so I told her that I would opt for not proceeding with the application at this time. Johnston then suggested I let the Trial Coordinator know what had transpired and that was that for the courtroom side of things.

I went to Jasper’s office and explained what had just taken place in the courtroom and she told me that she would strike the Application from today’s list and that once I knew the outcome of the Rowbotham application I could then bring it back before the Court to fix a hearing date.

That taken care of we moved on to the Rowbotham application issue and she called Keith Evans the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office in order to fix a hearing date for that application.

It should be mentioned here that prior to my appearance on August 13th I had spoken with Keith Evans via the telephone regarding all the additional documents which the AG’s office still required in order to process the application. Mr. Evans told me at that time that he would not likely be able to hold a hearing on the matter until after September of this year as he was already booked up for that month and that I still would have time to submit further materials to back up my application. I had already begun the process of putting together some of the documents requested and filling out forms allowing the AG’s office to access my bank accounts and contact Canada Revenue Services, etc. and had shipped these off to his office prior to my appearance on Tuesday so when Jasper contacted Evans he told her that the process was unfolding according to plan and that he expected the remaining documents from me would be forthcoming well in advance of the hearing date then to be set. Jasper then suggested November 18th, 2013 for the hearing date along with a time allotment of two hours. Evans responded by saying that he would rather see five hours set for the hearing as that was usually how long they took. Jasper expressed surprise at that but then agreed to set a longer period of time. The 18th was also a date when Judge Morgan would be able to preside over the hearing which is a good thing given that he has been overseeing the case to this point.

I should add here with respect to this Rowbotham application that the expectations of the Attorney General’s office are the equivalent of having to perform a forensic audit of my financial situation since last November 5th of 2012 when the indictment was finally handed down. It’s intense and very time consuming having to justify every penny since that time period.

That concluded the day’s events and my wife and I left the building.

One other related issue that came up during the interval between August 13th and my previous appearance on July 9th was a Notice of Libel that I received from Richard Warman, one of the complainants in this case. Warman had taken issue with some prefatory remarks made by me in an article I had posted on the Radical Press website back on January 1st, 2013. He then hired the Ottawa law firm of Caza Saikaley to represent him and demanded that I remove the said article and commentary from the site and post an apology and retraction. After some reflection and knowing that I was ill equipped to take on another legal battle I had no option but to adhere to Warman’s wishes and do as requested. In addition to publishing the retraction and apology I also had to send Warman a money order for $500.00 to cover his legal expenses. That meant yet another frantic appeal for funds to those supporting my legal struggles. Thank God kind souls came to the rescue and I was able to pay the costs for which I am deeply grateful.

So for now I must complete the task of sending all the required information to the AG’s office over the next month or so and await my next court date of November 18th, 2013.

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Everywhere,

Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press Canada’s Radical News Network “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

——-

P.S. I would once again please ask readers to consider helping me out financially with a donation if they can. Go to the top of the Home Page at www.radicalpress.com and click on the “PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICAL PRESS FREE SPEECH DEFENSE FUND” link where you will find all the information necessary to send financial help. Thank you.

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham

Posted on by

System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in “Hate” Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham
And don’t forget all Arthur Topham ever did was express opinions critical of Zionism and Israel. His life is cast into poverty and turmoil by repeated complaints by Richard Warfman and Harry Abrams and an anti-free speech law that enables such thought suppression. And our hypocritical Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a virtual mouthpiece of both the Israel First lobby and increasingly of the homosexual lobby, dares criticize Russia: “ ‘We don’t imprison people for their expressing political positions. I think our position in this regard represents the position of Canadians and they expect that we speak in favour of these rights,’ he added during a speech in Miramichi, New Brunswick.”  Tell that to Arthur Topham. Of course, Canada seeks to imprison those expressing political positions strongly critical of privileged minorities.

CAFE is proud to support this scrappy freethinker in his battle against thought control and state suppression of free speech,  Paul FrommDirectorCANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15

August 16, 2013
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15
Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15 August 16, 2013“There’s no such thing as ‘Hate Speech.’ You either have FREE speech or you don’t – it’s that simple.” ~Anonymous
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 saw my return to Quesnel’s provincial courthouse for yet another appearance related to the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and my arrest and incarceration May 16th, 2012 for the spurious crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’

The previous time was back on  July 9th, 2013 when the issue of CC Johnston’s attempt to go for a direct indictment failed. It was also then that further efforts were made to set dates for my Rowbotham application hearing, the Rowbotham being my only option at this stage of the proceedings that will literally afford me a lawyer in order to act in my defence. As well, a the date of August 13th was supposed to be when I would appear before Judge Morgan and speak to my application for particularization of the evidence which the Crown was planning to base its case on.At this point in the process where every appearance tends to hold unanticipated surprises it has become my practise not to get too bent out of shape trying to fathom what may or may not occur. That way of thinking appears to be best and so again I wasn’t disappointed to find that things didn’t go as planned.I was scheduled to also meet with the Trial Coordinator, Sherry Jasper, after dealing with the particularization issue in court but while waiting in the courtroom for Judge Morgan to appear CC Johnston approached me and said that she was sure that she had heard the Judge say during our previous appearance that I could postpone the Particularization application until such time as I knew whether or not my Rowbotham application was going to be approved and I could have counsel representation for the Particularization hearing.I didn’t recollect the judge telling me that but at the same time I also realized that given the option it would be best to wait until I knew if the Rowbotham application was going to be approved and a lawyer appointed for my defence. Knowing I was ill equipped to do so beyond just reading out the information to the court that my former lawyer Doug Christie had prepared in my defence I decided to heed what CC had just revealed to me and so I told her that I would opt for not proceeding with the application at this time. Johnston then suggested I let the Trial Coordinator know what had transpired and that was that for the courtroom side of things.I went to Jasper’s office and explained what had just taken place in the courtroom and she told me that she would strike the Application from today’s list and that once I knew the outcome of the Rowbotham application I could then bring it back before the Court to fix a hearing date.That taken care of we moved on to the Rowbotham application issue and she called Keith Evans the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office in order to fix a hearing date for that application.It should be mentioned here that prior to my appearance on August 13th I had spoken with Keith Evans via the telephone regarding all the additional documents which the AG’s office still required in order to process the application. Mr. Evans told me at that time that he would not likely be able to hold a hearing on the matter until after September of this year as he was already booked up for that month and that I still would have time to submit further materials to back up my application. I had already begun the process of putting together some of the documents requested and filling out forms allowing the AG’s office to access my bank accounts and contact Canada Revenue Services, etc. and had shipped these off to his office prior to my appearance on Tuesday so when Jasper contacted Evans he told her that the process was unfolding according to plan and that he expected the remaining documents from me would be forthcoming well in advance of the hearing date then to be set. Jasper then suggested November 18th, 2013 for the hearing date along with a time allotment of two hours. Evans responded by saying that he would rather see five hours set for the hearing as that was usually how long they took. Jasper expressed surprise at that but then agreed to set a longer period of time. The 18th was also a date when Judge Morgan would be able to preside over the hearing which is a good thing given that he has been overseeing the case to this point.I should add here with respect to this Rowbotham application that the expectations of the Attorney General’s office are the equivalent of having to perform a forensic audit of my financial situation since last November 5th of 2012 when the indictment was finally handed down. It’s intense and very time consuming having to justify every penny since that time period.That concluded the day’s events and my wife and I left the building.One other related issue that came up during the interval between August 13th and my previous appearance on July 9th was a Notice of Libel that I received from Richard Warman, one of the complainants in this case. Warman had taken issue with some prefatory remarks made by me in an article I had posted on the Radical Press website back on January 1st, 2013. He then hired the Ottawa law firm of Caza Saikaley to represent him and demanded that I remove the said article and commentary from the site and post an apology and retraction. After some reflection and knowing that I was ill equipped to take on another legal battle I had no option but to adhere to Warman’s wishes and do as requested. In addition to publishing the retraction and apology I also had to send Warman a money order for $500.00 to cover his legal expenses. That meant yet another frantic appeal for funds to those supporting my legal struggles. Thank God kind souls came to the rescue and I was able to pay the costs for which I am deeply grateful.So for now I must complete the task of sending all the required information to the AG’s office over the next month or so and await my next court date of November 18th, 2013.

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Everywhere,
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press Canada’s Radical News Network “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″ ——-

P.S. I would once again please ask readers to consider helping me out financially with a donation if they can. Go to the top of the Home Page at www.radicalpress.com and click on the “PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICAL PRESS FREE SPEECH DEFENSE FUND” link where you will find all the information necessary to send financial help. Thank you.

“Fighting for Democracy” NB Attorney General Seeks to Hijack Scholar’s Will

Posted on by

“Fighting for Democracy” NB Attorney General Seeks to Hijack Scholar’s Will

MONCTON. July 29, 2013. Christian free thinker and himself a victim of Zionist repression, Malcolm Ross reports from Moncton that the New Brunswick Attorney general has entered the fray to try to hijack the will of Robert McCorkill who left a large bequest of ancient coins to the National Alliance, a U.S. White nationalist group. The AG’s office, Mr. Ross told CAFE today, is claiming that it is joining the effort to  nullify the bequest because it “is joining the fight for democracy.” That, says the Moncton author, is “like saying we will invade Afghanistan to bring them peace and democracy.”
“The efforts to overturn Mr. McCorkill’s bequest pose a serious threat to freedom and personal property,” says Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE).”Is there now to be a ‘politically correct’ litmus test applied to bequests?” he asked. 

 

Last Tuesday (July 23) the National Post reported on the latest temporary, we hope, victory by a band of mischief makers and meddlers to hijack a bequest by late scholar Robert McCorkill to the National Alliance, a White Nationlist group in the U.S. The Post reported:”

Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.“Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.

The sister of a New Brunswick man who left a collection of coins and artifacts worth an estimated $250,000 to a neo-Nazi group in the United States has obtained an injunction.

The court order temporarily blocks any distribution of Robert McCorkill’s estate or transfer out of New Brunswick, Ottawa-based lawyer Richard Warman stated in an email.

McCorkill, who also went by McCorkell, left his collection to the U.S.-based National Alliance when he died in Saint John nine years ago, but the estate has remained unsettled.

The ex parte injunction was obtained on Monday on behalf of McCorkill’s sister Isabelle McCorkill, who will be challenging the bequest on public policy grounds, Warman said.

‘I anticipate that other groups will intervene in support of the application in the coming days,’ he said.

Anti-racism groups had planned to try to stop the National Alliance from receiving the items, fearing they could be sold and help spark a rebirth of the neo-Nazi group that has been in decline since its founder died more than a decade ago. … ‘All assets of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (a.k.a. McCorkell) shall remain in the province of New Brunswick until further order of this court,’ he said.”

A far leftist blogger going by the handle BigCityLib confirmed the role of the busybody Richard Warman. “I’ve written about Robert McCorkell (or McCorkill) a few times.  He was a  Canadian chemist with White Nationalist leanings, and when he died he bequeathed  $1,000,000 in ancient gold coins and other valuables to the National Alliance, an American hate/terror group.  The collection itself is quite impressive: ancient Libyan, Roman, and Turkish artifacts.  It would be a pity if it wound up helping to refinance American Neo-Nazis.
Behind the scenes, a number of people (including BCLSB fave Richard Warman) have been working to stop this from happening.  And it looks like they’ve succeeded, at least temporarily. Yesterday afternoon an injunction was obtained blocking any distribution of Robert McCorkill’s estate ‘until further order’ from the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.  …  It would be nice to see an academic institution of one sort or another adopt the collection.”
Warman supposedly actually has a full-time job doing something or other at the Department of National Defence. He’s currently preparing for a mega libel trial where he’s suing neo-con bloggers Mark and Connie Fournier of freedominion.com. He’s also recently slapped Arthur Topham another of his victims  (a Sec. 319 “hate law” complaint)  with a threat of libel. Anyway, the mystery remains how he can manage so much all consuming litigation and still discharge his duties at  National Defence. Free Dominion asserts that Warman has filed libel suits or threatened such suits against at least 60 parties in the past dozen years!

In a later report, the National Post  (July 26, 2013) expanded on the role of the newly found litigant, Mr. McCorkill’s long stranged sister Isabel, who apparently only now — 9 years later — has learned about his will and has developed an outrage at the money being left to a U.S. nationalist group: “Robert McCorkill left his collection to the National Alliance when he died in Saint John nine years ago, but the estate remains in dispute.

Isabelle McCorkill, his estranged sister, is now arguing the will should be null and void. ‘We’re not taking any issue with how it’s drafted or anything like that. We’re taking issue with the specific gift to the National Alliance,’ said Marc-Antoine Chiasson, her Moncton-based lawyer.

He contends giving nearly $250,000 to a white supremacist group violates Canadian policy and is against the law. ‘In our view, the gift would basically be financing a hate group, which flies in the face of what we stand for in Canada,’ said Chiasson.

‘Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.’

Chiasson says his client, who didn’t have any contact with her brother since 1991, is not interested in the money. But when she learned it had been willed to the National Alliance, she felt compelled to act, he said.”

 

Mr. Ross points out that the long lost sister Isabelle has turned up and, although apparently impoverished, has been able to retain one of Moncton’s top laws firms — most convenient for the meddlers who’d like to nullify the bequest to the National Alliance.

 

Mr. Ross calls the current proceedings “a money grab. They are trying to bleed the estate through litigation.” Sadly, because of the freeze placed by the court last week on the estate’s assets, the current storage costs for the coins and artifacts left by Mr. McCorkill have actually had to be paid out of the executor’s own pocket.”

 

Isabelle McCorkell did not even attend her brother’s funeral. “The National Alliance paid for his funeral,” Mr. Ross, who lost his teaching position because of his anti-Zionist writings in the 1990s, explained.

 

In the past week, John Hughes, lawyer for the National Alliance, has been assembling affidavits from National Alliance Chairman Erich Gliebe, Malcolm Ross and others who have knowledge of the estate.

 

A further hearing will be held on Wednesday. Mr. Hughes will be arguing that the wishes of the testator should not be violated. He is also seeking to examine the newly emerged Isabel McCorkell. Her lawyer argued against it but the presiding judge is apparently going to allow it.

 

The attempt to nullify the McCorkill bequest is a serious threat to freedom in Canada. That the state should be able to alter a will for political reasons is scandalous. Much rides on the legal efforts of National Alliance attorney John Hughes, defending the right of a person to will his estate to the persons or causes he chooses.

 

 

 

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

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance

Posted on by
The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance
Let’s be quite clear “anti-racists” are anti-White. We are in an all-out war with people who wish to suppress any ideas contrary to their own. No marketplace or ideas for them, free discussion. In their jihad against free speech, nothing is sacred to such people.

 
The sanctity of a man’s will means nothing to people like the well-funded ($125-million war chest)  Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center. They are certainly not suffering from poverty.
.
In an error-riddled article, the National Post (June 28, 2013) reports the latest example of this phenomenon. Beginning  with the headline, the Post manages a serious error or untruth in almost every sentence.
The article is headlined “How a late Canadian coin collector’s $1M estate could be used to revive ‘most dangerous neo-Nazi group in America.” I am reliably informed by sources close to the case that the estate is much more modest, about $250,000, of which the Canadian taxman wants about a third, leaving perhaps $150,000, not chump change but considerably less than the Southern Poverty Law Center alleges with its magic million number.
First sentence: “A U.S. racist group that has been linked to assassinations and bombings is poised to inherit an estate worth as much as $1-million from a late Canadian coin collector, the Southern .Poverty Law Center said Thursday.” The “link to assassinations and bombings” is utterly bogus. The National Alliance was/is an explicitly non-violent group. The Post explains: “The author of The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of a U.S. race war and the apparent inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Mr. Pierce advocated the creation of a whites-only homeland through the eradication of Jews and other races.” National Alliance founder Dr. William Peirce promoted non-violent political education. The Turner Diaries is a novel — that is, fiction — no different in its violence than a Rambo or James Bond story. Timothy McVeigh, the person alleged to have bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, was not a National Alliance member. There is also considerable question as to whether he DID, in fact, commit this act or was merely a patsy.
The Post continues: “Before he died in Saint John, N.B., in 2004, Robert McCorkell bequeathed his assets to the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group that waged a three-decade campaign of racist violence in the United States, the SLPC said. While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement.” The National Alliance was NOT involved in violence. As usual, the catch-all smear “neo-Nazi” is used to muddy the waters. The National Alliance was White Nationalist. They did not emulate National Socialism. They did not wear uniforms. In fact, the only “uniform” Dr. Pierce, who held a  Ph.D. in physics, advocated was conservative dress for the young men and women in the movement to be able to recruit their peers. Dr. Pierce, according to Wikipedia, “was descended from the aristocracy of the Old South, descendant of Thomas H. Watts, the Governor of Alabama and Attorney General of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.”
Then, we’re told by the Post: “While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Alabama-based civil rights group and a top expert on hate and extremist groups.” Hang on a second, if the National Alliance is “now basically defunct” and “has no money at all”, what is there to revive? And Mark Potok may be a senior fellow or an odd  fellow, but the SPLC is NOT a “civil rights group.” Just the opposite: It is actively opposed to freedom of speech.
The meddling U.S. group is now trying to reach into Canada to nullify Robert McCorkell’s bequest to the National Alliance: “The SPLC has hired Ottawa lawyer Pam MacEachern to examine what could be done to stop the Alliance from inheriting Mr. McCorkell’s estate. She found two cases suggesting the bequest might be halted through the courts. ‘At this point we’re really not sure what we’re going to do next, if anything. But certainly we felt it was important that Canadians knew about this in particular,’ Mr. Potok said. ‘It‘s very rare. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all.’” It might be noted that Pam MacEachern represented EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) a militant homosexual lobby group in arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that the normal traditional definition of marriage (a man and a woman!) was unconstitutional. The judicial revolutionaries on the Court agreed and, so, Canada has same-sex marriage. MacEachern also represented anti-Internet free speech complainer Richard Warman in a lengthy libel suit against Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, alleging that inter alia he had been defamed by being called a “censor.”
And now the man himself, tearing himself away from whatever he does in the bowels of Canada’s Ministry of National Defence: “‘I think it’s possible to challenge the bequest legally,’ said Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and anti-racist activist. He said he hoped either the family or interest groups would step forward to do so.The basis of such a challenge could be that the will goes against public policy as well as Canada’s international legal obligations, which require Ottawa to prevent the financing of groups espousing racial hatred, he said.”
A U.S. source close to the case called the SPLC’s and Warman’s remarks “Orwellian. They seem to want to cancel the Canadian and American legal tradition of respecting a testator’s wishes and intent.” the National Alliance espouses White pride, not hatred. The SPLC-Warman line seems to be that the courts should be able to step in and nullify a will if the bequest goes to an ideology of which they disapprove.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Robert McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s hilltop compound in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s
hilltop headquarters in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update

Posted on by
Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update

 

We forward Arthur Topham’s latest update on his Sec. 319 “hate law” case, resulting from complaints by B’nai Brith’s Harry Abrams and complainer-in-chief Richard Warman. This is a crucial case, as it involves the Internet. Mr. Topham, first with a now-stayed Sec. 13 complaint by Abrams, and now with the Criminal Code charges has been in the censors’ sights for a half dozen years. The late Doug Christie was Mr. Topham’s lawyer. With or without counsel, the impoverished Mr. Topham will battle on and we must support him — morally, financially and with advice.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Screen Shot 2013-04-18 at 11.39.37 AM.png
April 19, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada. 
A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.
Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada. 
As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present. 
Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013. 
Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time. 
When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.
Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.
Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.
When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through. 
Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.
On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:
“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”
Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.
Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013. 
Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.
As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia. 
By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.
Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the  laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the  actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future  posts.
Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an 
                   opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;             
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of 
                   which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be 
                   true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters 
                   producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in 
                   Canada.
When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.
I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. 🙂
I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.
So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own  actions against Canada.
Stay tuned folks!
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, 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

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Posted on by

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Judge Sean Harrington’s sentencing decision delivered November 7, 2012 is a nasty piece of work.  It opens:  “The time has come, at last, to penalize Mr. Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

 

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

 

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

 

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009),a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.
at last, to penalize Mr. …Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009), a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.See

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Posted on by

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Dissident Terry Tremaine was sentenced to one month in prison definite and six months more, should he not remove several dozen postings from his website and request that STORMFRONT remove some of his postings as Mathdoktor 99, including the statement of defence he proposed to read at his contempt of court hearing in Regina, July 22, 2009. [Unbeknownst to him and CAFÉ’s Paul Fromm who was advising him, the hearing had been adjourned the day before.] Oh, yes, the impoverished Mr. Tremaine was also saddled with the flush Canadian Human Rights Commission’s costs and certain costs for civil servant and chronic complainant Richard Warman. The Canadian justice system proceeds at a ponderous pace. In December, Mr. Tremaine’s sentence was stayed pending an appeal against this sentence later this Spring. However, he faces a hearing before sentencing Judge Sean Harrington where the Canadian Human Rights Commission will seek a warrant of committal, which will actually send Mr. Tremaine to prison [although its execution is stayed pending the appeal.] This hearing will determine whether Mr. Tremaine goes to prison for a month or six. He has removed the designated posts from his website http://nspcanada.nfshost.com. Will this satisfy the judicial censors? Who knows?
Terry Tremaine Receiving CAFE Free Speech Award, Regina, 2012,
from CAFE Director Paul Fromm
Doug Christie Mr. Tremaine’s lawyer will argue that Mr. Tremaine already served 22 days in jail in Regina in August, 2009 in regards to the STORMFRONT post and should be credited against his one month sentence on a 1.5 for one basis, thus effectively negating the sentence.

 

Help CAFE Support The Victims of Canada’s Anti-Free Speech Laws

 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s campaign to support the victims of Canada’s censorship laws..

__    Please activate my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

 

Please charge ______my VISA#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________