Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham “Hate” Case — Update<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Paul Fromm<\/span><\/div>\n
Director<\/span><\/div>\n
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
$\"Screen$ <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
$\"\"$ <\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
April 19, 2013<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application to the court – a\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u00a01,000 pages<\/b>\u00a0of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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:<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“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.”<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As I had all the documents with me to complete the\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code<\/em>. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the\u00a0 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\u00a0 actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future\u00a0 posts.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Defences<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
(3)\u00a0No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)<\/span><\/div>\n
(a)\u00a0if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;<\/span><\/div>\n
(b)\u00a0if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
(c)\u00a0if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0true; or<\/span><\/div>\n
(d)\u00a0if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Canada.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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”.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. \ud83d\ude42<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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\u00a0Rowbotham<\/i>\u00a0application 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\u00a0Constitutional Question Act<\/i>, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the\u00a0Constitution Act<\/i>, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013\u00a0as the free speech advocates continue their struggle\u00a0to 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\u00a0 actions against Canada.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Stay tuned folks!<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,<\/span> Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the\u00a0issues since 1998”<\/b><\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
———<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
PLEASE NOTE:<\/span>\u00a0More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on.\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
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\u00a0battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist\/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
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\u00a0<\/b>don’t\u00a0<\/b>make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to m<\/b>e.<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Arthur Topham<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
4633 Barkerville Highway<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
Quesnel, B.C<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
Canada<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
V2J 6T8<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at\u00a0<\/b>http:\/\/www.radicalpress.com<\/b><\/a>\u00a0or my blog\u00a0<\/b>http:\/\/www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com<\/b><\/a>\u00a0The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Sincerely,<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Arthur\u00a0Topham<\/span><\/b><\/div>\nPub\/Ed<\/span><\/b><\/div>\nThe Radical Press<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[39,90,30],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=292"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":294,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292\/revisions\/294"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5373