Written by Paul Fromm
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 06:37
*Canadian Association for Free Expression*

*Box** 332**,*

*Rexdale**, Ontario, M9W 5L3*

*Ph: 905-274-3868; FAX: 905-278-2413*

*Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director*

July 22, 2009

*-- **For Immediate
Release –*

* Press Conference: Call for Jailing of Internet Dissident A “Disgrace,”
Says CAFE*

*REGINA*. The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFÉ) will hold a
press conference in Regina in front of 1920 Broad St at 9:00 a.m. Thursday
morning, July 23, to blast efforts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission
to send a former university math and computer science instructor to jail
solely for the non-violent expression of his political views on the

Regina resident Terry Tremaine faces a contempt of court hearing
Thursday (Room 1600
(Labour Relations Board), 1920 Broad St. Regina, SK) and the prosecution is
seeking a three year prison term.

Café Director Paul Fromm acted as Mr. Tremaine’s agent at his
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in Ottawa in 2006, where the
penniless Mr. Tremaine was found guilty of a “discriminatory practice” and
fined $4,000 (despite income of less than half the poverty level) for
posting his political views on the Internet. He was also slapped with a
life-time “cease and desist” gag order.

Mr. Tremaine is the victim of a vendetta,” says Mr. Fromm, who
points to the same Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman who launched the original
human rights complaint and a subsequent Criminal Code “hate law” complaint
which will be heard in a preliminary hearing this fall. Warman’s complaints
to the University of Saskatchewan also resulted in Mr. Tremaine’s losing his
position as an occasional lecturer.

“Mr. Tremaine is being targeted for his unpopular national
socialist views. His writings are non-violent and non-threatening,” says Mr.
Fromm. “The government’s determination to lock this dissident up is part of
a relentless campaign of censorship of the Internet,” he adds.

“Canada is rightly critical of countries like Communist China or
Burma which jail dissidents. We stand up for free speech abroad. It’s time
we practiced what we preach.,” says Fromm,

“ The government’s action is a disgrace and the Canadian Human Rights
Commission is a menace to all free men and women,” he charges.
Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 19 July 2009 05:54
*RCMP release documents on the CHRC Criminal Hacking Investigation** *

* *

*Investigation dropped due to jurisdictional issues with the United States *

*And the RCMP investigates Lemire for daring to complain *

In late June, 2009, the RCMP responded to an *Access to Information* request
filed by human rights activist Marc
Lemire<>for all
documents surrounding the criminal investigation of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission and their theft of an innocent woman’s internet
connection <>.

The evidence showing that the CHRC hacked into the internet connection of
Nelly Hechme came to light as a result of evidence subpoenaed by Marc
Lemire. The evidence was sworn testimony by Alain Monfette from Bell
Canada’s Law Enforcement
of CHRC employees <> during a
May 2008<>Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

The heavily censored documents released by the RCMP show that the recent
statements made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Chief Commissioner
Jennifer Lynch were inaccurate and misleading. Lynch
July 11, 2009’s National Post that “
*Mr. Hiebert says there is uncontradicted expert evidence that a commission
employee illegitimately used the Internet connection of a third party. Two
independent investigations, one by the RCMP expert unit responsible for
computer crimes, and one by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, found no
evidence to support this allegation.*”

*Highlights from RCMP Documents *

1. The RCMP found the case to be “*Complete – Unsolved*”
2. The RCMP could not pursue the case because evidence trail lead to the
United States where RCMP has no authority and no *MLAT* existed to compel
3. After a message from CHRC’s lawyer Kathleen Fawcett, the RCMP turned
around and *investigated Lemire* for daring to lay the complaint. RCMP
censored what the message from CHRC said.
4. As part of the CHRC rebuttal to the charges, they submitted their own
copy of the March 2009
which has been found to be highly questionable and “missing” key
5. The RCMP found that the distance from the CHRC offices to the WiFi
access point of Nelly Hechme was only a mere 400 meters (across an open
6. The RCMP saw this investigation as highly political and had multiple
printouts from Ezra Levants website, articles from the National Post and
other internet websites.
7. Multiple CHRC employees were involved in case and “liaised” with the
RCMP. This included the manager of the CHRC’s IT dept.
8. The Ottawa Police reviewed the case, accepted it, and forwarded it to
the RCMP, who had more expertise in federal matters.

*All RCMP Documents *

*[JPEG Images<>
] *

* [PDF Format<>

*Detailed analysis of the RCMP documents*



This is the general summary of the RCMP’s investigation of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission.

Notice the “*Clearance status*” shows the investigation by the RCMP as
– unsolved*”



In the summary, the RCMP notes that “*Matter was investigated by OPS [Ottawa
Police Service] but follow-up is now done by A Div ITCU [Integrated
Technical Crime Unit – RCMP].*” This shows that the Ottawa Police Service
investigated the case, accepted it, and sent it onto the Integrated
Technical Crime Unit of the RCMP because it involved a Federal Government

At the Ottawa Police Service, the complaint was investigated by *Martin
Detective/Forensic Examiner. Criminal Investigative Services. High Tech
Crime Unit. Ottawa Police Service.*

The summary continues: “*Investigation completed as of 2008-11-10 reveals
not enough evidence to pursue charges.*” As described in more detail below,
the RCMP were not able to use sworn legal affidavits provided by the owner
of Stormfront, because the affidavit was not collected pursuant to a Canada
/ USA “MLAT”, which is a *Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

“MLAT” agreements with the USA are generally only implemented for serious
criminal matters, such as murder, child exploitation or kidnapping, because
it involves getting many different agencies involved, including provincial
Attorney Generals.



During the course of the investigation, the officer met with RCMP lawyer
Christine Morris<>of
IPOC (Integrated Proceeds of Crime division - RCMP) who specializes in
multi-jurisdictional investigations. Any MLAT request by the police have to
be reviewed and vetted by an IPOC counsel, who then submits it to IAG
Assistance Group* - part of the Department of Justice Criminal Law
Branch) [See Department of Justice - *The Federal Prosecution Service
Handbook* at ]

While the specific recommendations of Morris were censored, it would seem to
be that, as a result of that meeting, the affidavit and other sworn legal
information provided from the United States were not allowed to be used as
evidence in the criminal investigation of the CHRC.



In a RCMP’s “Briefing Note: Theft of telecommunications – CHRC,” the RCMP
officer wrote that: “*The information obtained from Marc Lemire were
obtained without legal authorization and involved the USA country. To use
the evidence, it would require that an MLAT be obtained and executed.*”

Thus without that information about the IP address CHRC investigator Dean
Steacy (Internet codename:
used when he accessed the Stormfront website as “Jadewarr”, there was a
limited chance of the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

*RCMP investigate Marc Lemire for daring to complain about CHRC *

One of the most shocking revelations to come out of the RCMP documents is
that the RCMP actually investigated Marc Lemire for daring to lay the
criminal complaint against the CHRC!



Only a few weeks before the RCMP was going to close the case, they received
“*a message from Kathleen FAWCETT, lawyer at the CHRXCH*” [Canadian Human
Rights Commission]. The contents of the message sent by the CHRC’s lawyer
were censored from the report, but the RCMP immediately turned around and
investigated Lemire.

The report stated “*writer [RCMP Sgt. Stephane Turgeon] requested the
assistance of DCAU for a background check of COM LEMIRE, Marc*.” The
checks <> on Canadians.

CPIC is an acronym for the *Canadian Police Information Centre*. The RCMP
administers this database and says that CPIC “*is a computerized system that
provides tactical information about crimes and criminals*.” This is the
most highly secure police database in Canada and holds private details on
some 10 million Canadians.

The CPIC computer has four data banks: Investigative, Identification,
Intelligence and Ancillary. Contained in those four data banks are:

- *Vehicles*: License information, including validation tags, stolen,
abandoned or wanted in connection to a crime.
- *Persons*: Persons wanted by the police or accused persons; persons on
probation or parole; persons against whom prohibition orders have been
placed (e.g. driving, possession of firearms); missing persons, including
children; body marks/scars; clothing and dental records or body parts that
can be cross-referenced; amnesia, comatose or disaster victims.
- *Property*: Stolen guns, articles and securities.
- *Marine*: Stolen and abandoned boats and boat motors.
- *Dental Characteristics*: Individual dental records (a sub-system of
Persons File)
- *Canada* *Firearms Registry*: Every Canadian owning a firearm or having
a license. Cross-referenced with every gun serial number to registered
owner (this alone contains over 10 million

- *Criminal Records*: Full criminal record information.
- *Criminal Record Synopsis*: Condensed version of criminal records
supported by fingerprints maintained by the RCMP’s Information and
Identification Services.
- *CPIC Surveillance*: Contains criminal intelligence information and
information on persons, vehicles and boats which are under surveillance.

So, what lies did the CHRC spin for the RCMP to do an about-face and parse
through Marc Lemire’s most intimate details, which could include information
from his dental records to marks/scars to his vehicle information?

Unfortunately, the RCMP completely censored what the CHRC’s lawyer said,
but based on the CHRC past paranoid ranting on “security,” it is easy to
make an educated guess.

Through out the entire human rights hearing against Marc Lemire, the CHRC
constantly used the sphere of alleged “security threats” to stifle the
defence that Lemire was putting up. In order to keep the lid on the CHRC
spying operations, they even tried to have Lemire banned from his own
hearing, using the fraudulent accusations of “security threats.” [CHRT
Para 15-17]

CHRC lawyers – spinning tales of threats and imaginary security breaches –
used this tactic as a way to block hundreds of questions by invoking
“national security” and Section 37 of the Canada Evidence
which stopped dead all answers to questions. Looking back now, it is clear
that the CHRC invoked Section 37 to cover up their abuse and misdeeds. It
had nothing to due with security at all. For instance, the CHRC invoked
Section 37 to stop all questions about the “Jadewarr” account, which was
used by CHRC employees to infiltrate websites and post messages. The CHRC
screamed *security! Security! Security!* over any questions about
“Jadewarr”. Now that the answers have been revealed, the utter abuses of
“security” claims are clear and documented.

The CHRC have used false claims of “security” so often – to hide everything
they were doing – even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal became disgusted
by their abusive behavior.

In 2008, the Tribunal chastised the CHRC for their numerous groundless
claims of “security.” The Tribunal

“*[9] The outcome of the *[Marc Lemire’s Federal Court Appeal
*s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's
invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of
these witnesses*.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is shameless and has proven in the
past, they are willing to do and say anything to protect their censorship
franchise. Is it really hard to believe that the CHRC would call up the
RCMP and spin some imaginary tale of terror, in order to throw the RCMP off
their dirty corrupt scent? Or perhaps the CHRC could just sign onto to one
of the many websites they have memberships on and post a “violent threat”
themselves, then use it as justification to get Lemire. It all might sound
pretty conspiratorial... *BUT* the CHRC does have a proven track record of
calling up police agencies and having them investigate people who dare to
file complaints<>against
them or their friends.

Perhaps the CHRC was trying to stop the 9 months straight of negative
publicity they were receiving as a result of being under the cloud of a
criminal investigation? By having the RCMP do the dirty, and investigate
every detail of Lemire’s life in hopes that they might find something.
After all, it would have been a great *coup de grace* to have Lemire charged
with some criminal offence in the end. Then Jennifer Lynch and her cronies
could do their usual finger wagging diversion and point to Lemire and say,
“see he’s the criminal... not us!”

On an interesting side note, if Lemire was a criminal or corrupt, he would
easily be able to get a nice cushy job at the CHRC in the
After all, the CHRC and ethics don’t

For background information on the hacking allegations made against the CHRC
and the criminal complaint filed with the RCMP, please see:

- March 26/08: *CHRC Operatives Hack Unsecured Wireless Access point to
Post Hate Messages!<>
- March 26/08: *Lid Blown Off Commission Internet Spying in Lemire
- May 17/08: *UPDATE: on Criminal Complaint against Canadian Human Rights
Commission for Stealing innocent woman's internet
- April 18/08: *Privacy
filed against Canadian “Human Rights” Commission for unauthorized
use of an Internet
- April 10/08: *Motion for Disclosure of CHRC fake names and to reopen
hearing over CHRC WiFi
- June 6/08: *CHRC Transcript
* <>
[See YouTube video here <>]
- Nov 21/08: *Criminal Complaint against CHRC: Evidence leads to the USA,
where the RCMP can’t follow up. RCMP won't investigate
- Jan 30/09: *Privacy Commissioner rules on CHRC WiFi Hacking Allegations
after a shockingly poor

Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 19 July 2009 05:42
*The Great Drywall of China*

Editorial in *Chicago Tribune*, July 16, 2009,0,7626609.story
* Danger: Chinese goods*

July 16, 2009

*During the height of the housing boom, American home builders began to rely
heavily on imported Chinese drywall. Domestic supplies couldn't keep up with
demand, and imported drywall looked like a godsend.

It has turned into a nightmare. Chinese drywall is the suspected cause for
persistent foul smells in homes, for corrosion of metals and jewelry and for
respiratory problems.

The problem has been concentrated in south Florida, where the devastation
wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma in 2005 prompted huge demand for
building materials. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission has received
complaints from hundreds of homeowners in 19 states and the District of
Columbia who say they're victims. U.S. imports of Chinese drywall peaked in
2006 at 503 million pounds, enough for 32,000 homes.

The Florida Department of Health is investigating, as is the federal safety
commission. At least two home builders are replacing drywall they installed,
even relocating homeowners while the work is done. We're talking about a
massive job here.

Buyers, beware of Chinese goods. Consumers worldwide have been reminded of
this many times in recent years.

-- In 2002, the U.S. and the European Union temporarily banned the import of
Chinese honey, which was laced with a widely banned antibiotic.

-- In 2006, Chinese-made cough syrup was mixed with an industrial solvent
before it was shipped to Panama, where it killed at least 100 people.

-- In 2007, Chinese factories shipped toys with excessive lead, tires with
faulty valve stems and pet food laced with melamine to the U.S.

-- In 2008, retailers around the world removed processed foods containing
Chinese milk or milk powder from shelves after the products were found to be
contaminated by melamine.

Through it all, many Chinese manufacturers have turned their backs on pleas
to improve their quality control.

And now, there's the drywall debacle.

Ding Dawu, a Chinese geoscientist, told the Los Angeles Timesthat some
Chinese drywall plants made their plasterboard entirely out of phosphogypsum
-- a radioactive phosphorous substance that is banned in U.S. construction.
One industry insider told the Times that he believed 80 percent of Chinese
drywall manufacturers used phosphogypsum, which has no restrictions in
China. Phosphogypsum is so abundant and cheap that it's given away to anyone
who will pay hauling costs.

The Chinese drywall was far less expensive than the American product. Howard
Ehrsam, a Florida-based home inspector, told ABC News that Chinese drywall
sold for as little as $3 a sheet, while the price for American drywall
reached $22 a sheet.

A bargain -- until you figure in the health risks and the cost of removing
the shoddy, dangerous stuff.

China has yet to suffer serious consequences from the time-after-time
production of bad products. But it seems inevitable that there will be
consequences. Consumers don't take well to being poisoned. Chinese goods are
earning a reputation for shoddiness that will be hard to shake.

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

Page 448 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog