Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 21 December 2012 07:02

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp264.net/zSlWy6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham in "Hate" Case ... Radical Press Legal Update #7 Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house. The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application. Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case. According to Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure. After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact . The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated. When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my seized firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail. Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday. After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me. Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential. Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it. At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade. The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me. It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments. Court resumed and Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety! [Can you believe it! Armed police afraid of a now unarmed, Internet dissident and blogger. In politically correct Canada, the oppressors always cry that they are so afraid of the victims. -- Paul Fromm] This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments. The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication. Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration. He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument. During Crown’s argument Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument. One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown's arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes. While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision. So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well. For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season. ——– NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,500.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it's virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses. As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me 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 to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works. 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/ ( http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radicalpress.com%2F&h=VAQEa7zj_&s=1 ) or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com/ ( http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesnelcariboosentinel.com%2F&h=3AQGoPP3d&s=1 ) The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Sincerely, Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical PressSee More _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp264.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqghwegguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider

 

Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 21 December 2012 06:31

** *Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham in "Hate" Case* ... * Radical Press Legal Update #7* Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house. The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application. Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case. According to Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure. After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact . The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated. When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my seized firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail. Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday. After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me. Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential. Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it. At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade. The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me. It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments. Court resumed and Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety! [Can you believe it! Armed police afraid of a now unarmed, Internet dissident and blogger. In politically correct Canada, the oppressors always cry that they are so afraid of the victims. -- Paul Fromm] This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments. The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication. Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration. He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument. During Crown’s argument Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument. One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown's arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes. While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision. So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well. For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season. ——– *NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,500.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it's virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses. As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me 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 to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.* 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/<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radicalpress.com%2F&h=VAQEa7zj_&s=1>or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com/<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quesnelcariboosentinel.com%2F&h=3AQGoPP3d&s=1>The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Sincerely, Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical PressSee More [image: Photo: Judge Reserves Decision As Crown Seeks Brutal Gag Order on Political Prisoner Arthur Topham in "Hate" Case Radical Press Legal Update #7 Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house. The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application. Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case. According to Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure. After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact . The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated. When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my seized firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail. Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday. After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me. Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential. Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it. At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade. The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me. It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments. Court resumed and Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety! [Can you believe it! Armed police afraid of a now unarmed, Internet dissident and blogger. In politically correct Canada, the oppressors always cry that they are so afraid of the victims. -- Paul Fromm] This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments. The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication. Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration. He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code. To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument. During Crown’s argument Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument. One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown's arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes. While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision. So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well. For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season. ——– NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,500.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it's virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses. As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me 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 to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works. 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. Sincerely, Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical Press] <http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=120646998101549&set=a.102988609867388.7682.100004687473766&type=1&relevant_count=1>

 

CHRC: Gag Lemire Now – Who cares whether or not Section 13 is constitutional?

Written by Paul Fromm

Wednesday, 19 December 2012 06:56

*CHRC: Gag Lemire Now – Who cares whether or not Section 13 is constitutional?* ** ** **** ** ** *Fanatical CHRC wants to impose a lifetime speech ban against Marc Lemire and refuses to wait for * *Court of Appeals to**even rule on the constitutionality of the internet censorship law* ** ** ** ** http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/12/chrc-gag-lemire-now-who-cares-whether.html **** http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2012/12/chrc-gag-lemire-now-who-cares-whether.html **** ** ** ** ** The fanatical and discredited Canadian Human Rights Commission<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal>is demanding that a lifetime speech ban be placed on internet webmaster Marc Lemire – and they are refusing to even allow the Federal Court of Appeals to make a ruling<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/marc-lemire-appeals-outrageous-ruling.html>on the Constitutionality of Canada’s shameful internet censorship legislation – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act<http://www.stopsection13.com/> .**** ** ** The utter arrogance and obsession with censorship that infests all those who staff the Canadian Human Rights Commission is shocking to many Canadians. Is it any wonder that its senior investigators consider freedom of speech to be "an American concept<http://ezralevant.com/2008/09/chrc-legal-brief-steacy-was-ri.html>?" **** But even in the face of their censorship empire (Section 13) crumbling around them <http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html>, the censors insist on remaining aboard a sinking ship." **** ** ** Over the past few years, Canadians of all political stripes have roundly condemned <http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html> the fanatical and outrageous behavior<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/03/ezra-levant-on-lemire-case-and-chrc.html>of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their “nazi fetishist <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1LR_QCIs&feature=youtu.be>” investigators. Front page articles in the National Post denounced the CHRC. Editorials <http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html> from every<http://www.stopsection13.com/articles/20080126-torontosun-sapping_freedom.pdf> major<http://www.stopsection13.com/articles/20080103-CBCNational-Human_Rights_Gone_Awry.pdf> mainstream<http://www.stopsection13.com/scanned_articles/20080204-GlobeAndMail-Shake_that_role_of_policing.pdf>newspaper <http://www.stopsection13.com/articles/20080126-TorontoStar-Censorship_is_not_the_answer.pdf>have called for the CHRC to get out of the thought control business. The House of Commons has voted to repeal Section 13<http://www.stopsection13.com/repeal_sec13.html>of the Canadian Human Rights Act and that bill is now before the Senate<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/07/senator-findley-speaks-in-senate-on.html>of Canada. In the Lemire case, the handpicked Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was so disgusted over how the CHRC was conducting itself that a Senior Tribunal member not only found that Section 13 was unconstitutional<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>, but that it was also an affront to the guarantees of freedom of speech in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms**** ** ** As is typical for the elitist CHRC censors, they simply brushed aside all legitimate criticism. They responded by once again screwing Canadian taxpayers by hiring the super expensive public relations firm<http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/11/13/16126101.html>Hill & Knowlton for a whopping $170,000! This was a futile and an expensive attempt to reverse the tide of public opinion that was turning against them. But a leopard never changes its spots as the CHRC continued with its devious ways<http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2008/03/dean-steacy-007.html>, including spying and trying to entrap<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/mar26-08_hearing_wrapup.html>Marc Lemire. **** ** ** So desperate was the CHRC to repair the damage that had been done to its image that it hand picked an expert to write a review of Section 13. After collecting a hefty sum of money, the reviewer turned on them by recommending that Section 13 be repealed<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/11/chrc-hand-picked-independent.html>! The only people supporting the CHRC's draconian thought control regime were those who were directly paid and/or living off the 'human rights teat.' **** ** ** Knowing that their days of harassing and abusing Internet writers, bloggers and message board owners are numbered, the CHRC censors knew that the only thing they can do now, is to grind many people through the systems as possible, before their house of cards comes crashing down.**** ** ** But they have a big problem, and that problems name is Marc Lemire<http://www.freedomsite.org/legal> !**** ** ** Because of his nine year legal battle with the CHRC<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>, and the fact that all human rights cases have been stopped<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2010/05/breaking-canadian-human-rights-tribunal.html>pending a final determination in his case, the CHRC can't pull out its *Coup de grace*, and issue lifetime speech bans on all those waiting. **** ** ** Not only do they demand that a lifetime free speech ban be applied on Marc Lemire, but they don't even have the decency to wait for the Federal Court of Appeals to rule<http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/marc-lemire-appeals-outrageous-ruling.html>whether Section 13 is even constitutional. **** ** ** The CHRC has refused to agree to a stay of an earlier decision of the Federal Court – which is currently under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals. As crazy as that sounds, the CHRC is pushing for the punishment against Lemire even before the Federal Court of Appeals can even examine the case.**** ** ** Because of the CHRC’s refusal; this now opens up a costly two-front battle that Lemire has to face. While before the Federal Court of Appeals, he also has to fight a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal simultaneously. **** ** ** **** ** ** *Merry Christmas from Lemire: Motion to Stay* ** ** As an early Christmas present to the censors, Marc Lemire has filed a 240 page motion to the Federal Court of Appeals requesting a stay of the earlier Federal Court ruling so that the CHRC cannot issue a lifetime speech ban against Lemire.**** ** ** Here is a copy of the motion filed with the Federal Court of Appeals on December 11th, 2012, written by Marc Lemire’s courageous and brilliant lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka.**** ** ** ** ** ** ** *APPLICANT’S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS* **1. **The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in a decision dated September 2, 2009, held that the applicant had contravened s. 13 of the *Canadian Human Rights* *Act *by posting an article entitled *AIDS Secrets* on his website, the Freedomsite. However, the Tribunal also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) were inconsistent with s. 2(*b*) of the *Charter*, which guaranteed the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression in that these provisions were not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the *Charter*. Since a formal declaration of invalidity was not a remedy available to the Tribunal, it refused to apply the provisions for the purposes of the complaint against the applicant and did not issue any remedial order against him. [CHRT Decision, para. 307 at Motion Record, page 116]**** ** ** **2. **The respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission filed a judicial review application which was allowed by Mr. Justice Mosley of the Federal Court on October 2, 2012. He upheld the constitutionality of section 13 by severing the penalty provisions of the Act which he declared unconstitutional. [Warman v. Lemire, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1233 at Motion Record, pp. 119-187]**** ** ** **3. **The Federal Court held that the application for judicial review was granted and the following judgment granted:**** ** ** 1. The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is remitted to**** the Tribunal to;**** a. issue a declaration that the publication of the article "AIDS Secrets"*** * by the respondent Marc Lemire constituted a breach of s 13 of the**** Canadian Human Rights Act ; and**** b. for determination of whether a remedy for the breach is to be**** imposed under ss. 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Act;**** 2. It is declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights**** Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act,* *** 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;**** 3. The respondent Richard Warman is awarded costs for the preparation of**** his record and his out of pocket disbursements for attendance at the**** hearing against the respondent Marc Lemire.**** [Judgment of the Federal Court, at Motion Record, p. 187]**** ** ** **4. **The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Mosley on the following grounds:**** **(a) **Mr. Justice Mosley erred in applying the doctrine of severance in upholding s. 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b) of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*; **** **(b) **Mr. Justice Mosley erred in basing his decision on a misreading of the *Canadian Human Rights Act* as it existed at the time s. 13 was upheld as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under s. 1 of the *Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms* by the Supreme Court of Canada in *Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor*, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; this misreading of the Act informed the reasons given by Mr. Justice Mosley and led him into further error in upholding the constitutionality of s. 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*;**** **(c) **Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*; the Tribunal was entitled to examine the real and factual context in which s. 13 and s. 54 existed in determining whether the provisions remained a reasonable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the *Charter, *including the manner in which complaints were prosecuted and the practical operation of the statutory scheme. The decision of the Tribunal that this evidence showed that ss. 13 and 54 were no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of expression was correct;**** **(d) **The extension in 2001 in the *Anti- Terrorism Act*, S.C. 2001, c. 41 of the application of s. 13 of the *Canadian Human Rights Act* from telephone answering machines, as considered in *Taylor*, to computer networks, including the Internet, has rendered s. 13 an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the *Charter*;**** **(e) **The allegation of “hatred” in s. 13 of the Act imports moral blameworthiness and stigma which renders the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression pursuant to s. 1 of the * Charter*;**** **(f) **The words “hatred” and “contempt” in s. 13 are vague, overbroad and highly subjective, rendering the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the *Charter*;**** **(g) **There is no rational, non-arbitrary or fair connection between s. 13 and the objectives of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*, rendering the provision an unreasonable and unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;**** **(h) **Mr. Justice Mosley erred in challenging and reversing findings of fact made by the Tribunal to which he owed deference;**** **(i) **Mr. Justice Mosley erred in failing to respect and defer to Parliament’s repeal of s. 13 and s. 54(1) and (1.1) in Bill C-304, which passed the House of Commons on June 6, 2012 to protect freedom of expression. **** ** ** **5. **The article which the Tribunal found contravened section 13 was voluntarily removed from the Freedomsite by the applicant on April 9, 2004, some two weeks after he received notice of the complaint from the Commission. **** **6. **Only 8 persons from Canada viewed the article, a number which would include the applicant, the complainant Richard Warman and the investigators at the respondent Canadian Human Rights Commission. **** **7. **The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has adjourned two pending cases before it under section 13 on a *sine die* basis, until final determination of this case. **** **8. **In *Canadian Jewish Congress v. Makow*, [2010] C.H.R.D. No. 13 the Tribunal held:**** 8 I have reviewed the submissions of the parties and have concluded that it would be appropriate and would properly serve the interests of justice if this matter was adjourned. While the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor,1990 3 S.C.R. 892<http://lnproxy.lsuc.on.ca/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23SCR%23decisiondate%251990%25sel2%253%25year%251990%25page%25892%25sel1%251990%25vol%253%25&risb=21_T16260102520&bct=A&service=citation&A=0.1539306781954053>that s. 13 (1) of the CHRA is constitutional, the application now before the Federal Court seeks to bring clarity to this issue in view of the distinct factual and legal context giving rise to this Tribunal's decision in Warman v. Lemire. Clearly Member Hadjis' decision goes beyond the consideration alone of the penalty provisions in s. 54 of the CHRA, as he chose not to "read out" the penalty provisions and preserve s. 13 of the CHRA. It is now up to the Federal Court to determine the operability of s. 13 of the CHRA. This will achieve the clarity that the Commission has indicated and that I agree is desirable in order to allow the Tribunal to be able to determine this and other cases brought under s. 13 of the CHRA.**** 9 For these reasons I hereby adjourn these proceedings *sine die* pending the final outcome in the Warman v. Lemire case.**** **9. **A similar ruling was made in *Abrams v. Topham*, [2010] C.H.R.D. No. 14. **** ** ** *ARGUMENT* * * **10. **This Court is granted the jurisdiction to impose a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 50(1)(b) of the *Federal Courts Rules* which provides:**** *50.** (1) The Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court may, in its discretion, stay proceedings in any cause or matter* *(**a**)…* *(**b**) where for any other reason it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings be stayed.* ** ** **11. **In *RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)**,*[1994] 1 S.C.R. 311<http://lnproxy.lsuc.on.ca/ca/legal/search/runRemoteLink.do?langcountry=CA&linkInfo=F%23CA%23SCR%23sel2%251%25year%251994%25page%25311%25sel1%251994%25vol%251%25&risb=21_T16256688992&bct=A&service=citation&A=0.7553140341859643>, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a three-part test for determining whether a stay should be granted: (1) Whether there is a serious question to be tried; (2) Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and (3) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the stay.**** ** ** ***(a) ****Serious question to be tried* ** ** **12. **It is submitted that the case raises a serious issue to be tried, namely, the constitutionality of section 13 and ss. 54(1)(a) and (b) of the *Canadian Human Rights Act*. **** ** ** **13. **The Notice of Appeal raises serious issues with respect to the effect on freedom of speech of section 13, including whether the doctrine of severance was correctly applied by Mr. Justice Mosley and whether section 13 is still a justifiable limitation on *Charter* rights to free speech under s. 2(b) given its legislative extension in 2001 to the Internet and other computer mediated networks.**** ** ** ** ** ***(b) ****Irreparable harm* ** ** **14. **If the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, it can no longer issue a penalty order as the provisions authorizing such an order have been declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court. However, it can issue a cease and desist order against the applicant which is in effect for his lifetime and is a direct violation of his freedom of speech. The order, once made, would remain in effect notwithstanding any subsequent finding in this case that section 13 is unconstitutional.**** ** ** **15. **No damages can compensate the applicant for the loss of his right to free speech under such a cease and desist order.**** ** ** ***(c) ****Balance of convenience* ** ** **16. **The article “AIDS Secrets” was voluntarily removed by the applicant in April of 2004 in an effort to settle the complaint, some two weeks after he received notice of the complaint. His remedial actions were ignored by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the complainant, who instead began a search for other material with which to sustain the complaint. None of those other communications were found to be a violation of the Act. **** ** ** **17. **The public interest is not damaged by a stay of the order of Mr. Justice Mosley since the article found to contravene section 13 is not on the applicant’s website and has not been for almost nine years. Only 8 persons from Canada looked at the article and probably all of those persons were those involved in the complaint, including the complainant, investigators from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the applicant himself.**** ** ** **18. **There are presently only two cases pending before the Tribunal, that of *Makow* and *Topham*, *supra*. Both cases have been adjourned *sine die* by the Tribunal pending final resolution of the Lemire case in order to obtain clarification of the law. This has been a well-founded caution since the penalty provisions of section 13 were declared unconstitutional.** ** ** ** **19. **In the meantime, the House of Commons repealed section 13 and its remedial provisions in section 54 by Bill C-304 on June 6, 2012 to protect freedom of speech. The Bill is now at second reading before the Senate. The House of Commons recognized the threat section 13 posed to the freedoms of Canadians and passed a bill to repeal the law. This factor must play an important role in determining the balance of convenience in granting a stay. **** ** ** *Order Requested* ** ** **20. **The applicant requests:**** ** ** **(a) **an order staying the judgment of Mr. Justice Mosley in *Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Lemire*, T-1640-09 pending final determination of the herein appeal;**** **(b) **Costs of the motion.**** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ------------------------------------**** *Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.***** ** ** *I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. * ** ** Please support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. **** Marc Lemire is the *only* person to beat the CHRC<http://www.stopsection13.com/constitutional_challenge.html>in it's 33 year history! **** ** ** *Marc Lemire***** *762 Upper James St***** *Suite 384***** *Hamilton, Ontario***** *L9C 3A2***** ** ** Email: [email protected]**** Web: http://www.freedomsite.org | http://www.StopSection13.com<http://www.stopsection13.com/> **** Twitter: @marc_lemire <http://twitter.com/marc_lemire>**** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** YouTube - Videos from this email