64 Replies to “Richard Warman vs The Entire Free World”

  2. One of the most egregious pieces that speaks to the character of Richard Warman is that video where he clearly manipulates his silly little disciples into throwing a pie into David Icke’s face, it really needs to be put into evidence. It’s still there on YouTube for the world to behold what a clown this guy is.
    I really hope that this smarmy fool has badly miscalulated the Canadian courts and takes a big hit to his wallet.
    I would assume by now that he’s damaged goods within his own tribe. That in itself has to be hard on a sociopathic narcissist.
    I’m betting he withdraws his lawsuit as the date gets closer, which begs the next question, could he still be hit in the wallet for filing such a frivolous suit to begin with?

  3. Maybe history will repeat itself yet and these liberal fascists will wind up hanging from light posts like their predecessors. Go back in history and read Hitler’s response to his critics, you made the laws not me.
    The HRC is one of those bodies that can be used to circumvent not only democracy but also personal freedoms under the guise of law. The HRC would have made the socialist Hitler proud. What passes as our constitution could be best described as the Quebec and legal full employment act and in it the Human rights section is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation ever conceived, it goes against the very meaning of democracy.

  4. And this clown is still a practicing lawyer? Seems to me that he should have been disbarred long ago.

  6. Well, the Trudeau Charter circumvents Democracy in it’s purist form as well. These creeps feed on it. It’s the reason the majority is ceding to the minorities and it’s all bucked up by Multiculturalism. It’s also the reason the Islamic activists flock to this country and entrench themselves, practicing their extremist ideas in a safe, secure environment and all for FREE.

  10. That’s an excellent and very clever statement of defense.
    Essentially, Levant has turned the tables and put Warman and the HRC as defendants and himself as complainant.
    The issues are not only freedom of speech, but the misuse of the law by malicious harassment.
    This means that he’s put the HRC ‘on call’. If they approve of Warman, if the HRC don’t reject Warman, then, that means that they approve of misuse of the law and malicious harassment. Using taxpayer money..
    So, it’s not only Ezra and anyone else whom Warman has filed lawsuits against that Warman is up against (Kathy, Kate, etc). Ezra’s defense has also set up a situation where the HRC have to reject Warman – or openly, publicly, declare that they approve of malicious harassment, of HRC staff posting on websites to stir up hatred and so on.
    Very clever.

  13. I think the old ways are better. Defamation suits settled at 20 paces = far fewer nuisance suits and much lower court costs.
    It makes me wonder, is there no way justice can be delivered in this country that doesn’t make a nuisance lawsuit the instant ruination of the average citizen?

  14. It is interesting to read many of the comments over at Ezra’s blog. Many of them are opining that W should withdraw his suit based upon what Ezra, et. al. have written. I suspect that this will continue to court. The reason is that one of the main points of W’s suit is the Senator Cool’s post.
    Whereas in January of this year, I felt that there were sufficient reasons in support of the idea that W was the author of the Cool’s post to initiate a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada, I came to later see that I had incomplete information. As such I sent this letter to the Law Society on April 15, 2008.
    I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my complaint with regard to Mr. . To write my initial letter on January 20, 2008, requesting you perform an investigation, I relied upon information at the website freedominion.ca . I have now come to the conclusion that the information contained therein is unreliable. I consider a more reliable source of information to be at http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/ and the analysis there has influenced me sufficiently to withdraw my complaint.
    It appears that some of the defendants have not been persuaded by the excellent work by buckets at bouquetsofgray. I can understand attempting to mount a defense based upon “it was reasonable to believe at the time”, etc. and then laying out those reasons. Yet, to continue to hold to the idea that the author of the Cool’s post is W does not seem to me to be a strategy that will work in the defendants’ favour.
    Whatever other morals and ethics Mr. W may be lacking – as evidenced by his own writings that Ezra, et.al. have documented – he also should not be accused of something that he did not do.
    Hat tip to buckets on some excellent sleuthing.

  15. Brent, wouldn’t it be better to drag W kicking and screaming into discovery, and find out the actual truth of the matter from his own records and those of his ISP?
    Because I’d LOVE to know who actually wrote that crap about Sen. Cools, I really would. She’s a stand-up individual. If a minion of the HRCs scribbled that, it should be arranged that a planet fall on them.

  16. And, Brent, the point is not to convict Warman of making the Cools post. The point is to show that it’s reasonable in the circumstances to believe that he did post it and to say so. I myself have no way of actually knowing who made that posting; but for the reasons set out in Ezra’s defense, I think I’m entirely justified in concluding that Warman did it. If he hadn’t, he would have been trying to bring in evidence of who actually did it, and instead he did everything he could to keep that evidence out.

  18. I was impressed that Ezra maintained his claim that warman was the author of the Cools post. There seems to be be some doubt about that now, that was not there some months ago. Still, Ezra relies on some of Warman’s behavior which strongly implies that he was the author of that post. It is certainly something that Warman is going to have to explain if he is to succeed in the lawsuit. Given the nature of the defence, I expect Warman will quietly discontinue, but only after some months have passed and it won’t make much of a splash.
    I don’t know the Ontario practice — is it the case that there can never be discovery in a $50,000 lawsuit? In Alberta, even in small claims court, there can be discovery in a proper case. This would seem to be an appropriate case for pre-trial discovery.

  19. Phantom:
    Whereas I appreciate your zeal to see justice done, I would hope that you share my desire to see justice done based upon facts and not upon politics alone. Now, there are at least two issues here: the issue of who wrote the Cools’ post and the issue of a libel suit.
    Let us consider for a moment the issue of who wrote the Cools’ post. You mentioned discovery. Eventually, both sides must open themselves up to some sort of examination process. Part of the defendants’ case rests upon certain information provided by freedomsite.org to a CHRT hearing and some testimony given by an expert witness at that hearing. The summary of buckets’ analysis is that the “expert” testimony is less than expert and that the very evidence that was formerly believed to implicate Mr. W is the very evidence that proves that it was not him. I will repeat that another way. The strongest defense that Mr. W has that he did not author the Cools’ post will come from a more detailed examination of the evidence that the defendants’ originally relied upon to author their writings. It will not be necessary to submit his own evidence; only his analysis (authored by buckets) of the defendants’ evidence. This is a technical matter and the evidence does demonstrate that Mr. W did not author the Cools’ post.
    The second item is more difficult for me to comment upon. It is a legal matter. Is the stating of a false statement (that was honestly at the time believed to be true and with at least some reasonableness for the belief) sufficient grounds for libel? Can it be specifically shown that the false statement caused damage to the reputation of the individual? That would need to be differentiated from the idea of: did the individual’s reputation also suffer (justifiably) from the publication of truthful yet unpleasant statements simply because the public did not yet know all the details? These questions will be decided by the court. And, of course, the suit is not limited to the Cools’ post.
    If you would like to examine what will probably be presented by the plaintiff in regards to the Cools’ post, you make examine buckets’ work at his blog and start by examining the threads at the top left.

  20. it would be a better defence if you struck out about 80% of the irrelevant and improper pleading. that being said, the claim itself is a joke.
    ms shaidle, simplified procedure is only mandatory where the claim is only for money or property $50k or under. i recall the claim sought declaratory relief which allows the defendants to object.

  21. Brent,
    You raise some good points about the “Cool post”, but also miss the bigger point.
    There are now two analyses of the source of the “Cool post”. One says that Mr. Warman is the author, the other says that he isn’t. A classic he said/he said.
    Perhaps more experts need to weigh in. But it still comes down to the courts having to decide which expert(s) to believe. You have become convinced that Mr. Warman is not the author, but that doesn’t guarantee that the courts will agree with you. If they do, then so be it.
    I expect that both Mr. Warman and Mr. Levant have had access to both opinions, have reached their own conclusions, and are proceeding accordingly.
    Now it’s for the courts.
    Anyone up for popcorn?
    Alan

  22. Quote: If you would like to examine what will probably be presented by the plaintiff in regards to the Cools’ post, you make examine buckets’ work at his blog and start by examining the threads at the top left.
    No thanks, I am completely comfortable in my belief that Mr. K was telling the truth about who wrote the Cools post. Further more if the CHRC was comfortable giving him expert status and accepted his evidence as fact that is good enough for me. Mr. W himself didn’t attempt to clear his name with a rebuttal from someone who could of refuted the assertion that he wrote the posts at the hearing. As Ezra noted W. had a chance to refute that he wrote the post but he made no attempt to do so at the hearing. Once the Cools post became public knowledge he could of also cleared his name but all we hear is the sound of silence. His buddies’ word that he didn’t write the post holds absolutly no credibility with me, I really don’t care if he wrote it or just POSTED it W. had his chance at tribunal to refute the CHRC expert and he didn’t–why?
    I suspect that the civil suit will open a can of worms that the CHRC don’t want opened, I can’t wait for the MSM to stop hiding behind their desks and start reporting on the Slapp suits W. has filed.
    Ezra was also correct in his assertion that W. has written so many bigoted posts on the net why would we doubt he wrote that one?

  24. Brent why did Lucy work so hard to quash the Rogers subphoena? Why then was the Cools post removed as part of the complaint? Who feared it’s continued inclusion?
    Riddle me that;)

  25. Part of the defendants’ case rests upon certain information provided by freedomsite.org to a CHRT hearing and some testimony given by an expert witness at that hearing. The summary of buckets’ analysis is that the “expert” testimony is less than expert and that the very evidence that was formerly believed to implicate Mr. W is the very evidence that proves that it was not him.
    You place too much faith in the anonymous socialist blogger “buckets”. After all of his pontification, all he’s shown is that the ip in question is a proxy that could have been accessed by any one of Rogers 700,000 customers at the time. On that point he’s accurate, yes.
    Here’s the funny thing though, out of those 700,000 customers, the only time that ip showed up in the site logs, it was accessing only pages/materials that eventually made their way into Warman’s complaints. Does that make sense to anyone?
    Look at it this way; You’ve got an ip which is 1 out of 42 that is being accessed by Ontario’s 700,000 customers at any given point in time. That works out to about 16,000 customers/proxy ip. Out of those 16,000, one would reasonably expect that there’s be more than one individual looking at the site in question. If that were the case though, the different people would be looking at different things no? What are the odds that 2 or 3 or 4 different individuals, out of a pool of 700,000 (to use bucket’s #’s) would look only at pages/materials that were cited in Warman’s complaints and nothing more?

  26. WORD OF WARNING.
    Including the “W*man” word means an instant +10 on the spam filter.
    Please spare this lowly admin some time and use the above shorthand.
    Cheers,
    lance

  27. ms shaidle,
    it’s ‘allen’ not ‘allan’. i’m not familiar with the lawyers involved, except for mr. honickman, whom i believe did a citytv law beat or something. sorry, i’ve also dealt with shillers. nice guys.
    i’m a toronto litigator. i’ve been doing commercial litigation for 15 years, i don’t just dabble in it.
    i don’t do pro bono work on vanity files. and yes, i think i do know more about “Canadian law” than your friends do.

  28. Man…these pleadings look far too long on both sides and must have cost a fortune to draft. I would agree with the comment that there is a lot of irrelevant info but I guess that’s what happens when lawyers know that the public will be reading them.

  29. Sorry about that, Lance. I hadn’t realized that HWNSNBB had… um… graduated to spam-dom.
    Alan

  30. Allen,
    Your comments on Levant’s Statement of Defence were spot on. It’s prolix, padded with irrelevant and arguably vexatious pleading. And what kind of putz opens his Statement of Defence with 20-odd paragraphs of self-serving puffery?

  31. Some people seem to be labouring under some sort
    of misapprehension that this is a purely legal matter.
    Meanwhile, some people are playing a deeper game.

  33. Vitruvius, you’re absolutely correct, and the deeper game is not concerned with “[prolixity]” or “arguably vexatious pleading”. In fact, unlike our day-to-day justice system, it’s not a game at all.

  34. jeff k,
    You had me scratching my head trying to figure out what I’d done to deserve that comment. Then I realized you were meaning Allen, the lawyer. Our names sound the same, but I think we’re each partial to our particular spelling. (Think: jeff or geoff)
    Anyway, no harm done.
    Alan

  35. Truewest
    Off the top of my head I can think of at least two reasons for the 20 paragraphs outlining Ezra’s background. 1) He wanted to highlight both his and W’s political affiliations to lay grounds the suit is political. 2) In light of the recent Rafe Mair Supreme Court ruling giving wide latitude to journalistic fair comment Ezra wanted to document his long and varied journalistic career.

  36. Although funny, what relevance to the matter is the fact that Warman finished 5th in an election?
    I guess Ezra has plenty of money to spare on this one.

  37. “Thanks for the free legal advice, Allan. Worth every penny.”
    I enjoyed reading “Allen/Allan/allen”‘s response to Shaidle and then counting the number of times he used the word “I”.
    Time to reread Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self.

  38. fritz,
    i agree that those are fine reasons why you might want to include that information, but it doesn’t belong in the statement of defence.
    when you get to trial, all the judge gets to read beforehand is the pleadings.

  40. Crap. Oops.
    Alan, very sorry. I usually post here when on vacation and have time, and after a couple Kokanee. Please accept my apology.
    Allen, you are a lawyer?
    Capital “I” It is the “shift” button.

  41. sorry hannibal,
    i guess my repeated use of the word “I” is a flagrant attempt to assume personal responsibility for everything i’ve said.
    maybe it’s time to read whatever self-help book is next on your list.
    allen

  42. you are correct vitruvius, but the plaintiff can move to strike these statements from the defence on the grounds enumerated. i would at least recommend that. vigorously, with a cya letter.

  43. So what, Allen, so they’re struck? Meanwhile the political argument has been made, to all readers of the defence, not just the court, at no additional cost, and perhaps with some sort of indemnity as a statement of defence. Salvo fired, no return.
    PS: What the he11 is wrong with some of you people? The topic of this thread, as clearly elucidated in the single sentance Kate posted pursuant thereto, is: Ezra Levant’s statement of defence. Your stupid going on and on and on, on both sides, over silly stylistic debates, is, per the cyan words below, not on topic. Would you please try to grow up?

  44. vitruvius,
    yes, no matter what the court decides if the pleading is challenged, the original is always online to view.
    i was only commenting on the legal strategy. i agree with the defendants’ position.
    i’m also confident that this matter will not go to trial. there’s no money in it. at this point it’s all about posturing and legal costs.
    i predict little, if any, fanfare.

  45. Yet it remains the case, Allen, that it is human nature for us, or at least some of us, from time to time, to elevate some of these sorts of political battles (or “posturing”, as you put it), to a moral plane that transcends (at least as far as possible) purely æsthetic monetary matters. Axiology is like that.

  46. allen:
    I’d like to come out of lurk mode since my earlier posts to take advantage of your legal opinion.
    Notwithstanding my detractors, I am very confident in the technical arguments and could make them myself regarding the Cools’ post. However, I will not do that here as I have already provided a link to someone else’s work.
    I agree with the idea that the motive behind the suit is political and that a win by the plaintiff may slightly hamper efforts at HRC reforms in Canada. I also agree that all the points raised by the plaintiff except one are somewhat frivilous. Please humour me with this one hypothetical: suppose it does go to court and a court agrees that W did not write the Cools’ post. What effect will a defense of: “well, we thought it was reasonably at the time” have. In short: it can be demonstrated that W did not author the Cools’ post; is it libel if there were some grounds for the statement at the time?
    Thanks for your opinion.

  47. I would not be surprised, Brent, if your final question is one that is argued in the case. If so, then as I understand it, it’s going to depend on the kinds of tests which were recently reviewed by the SCC in the Rafe Mair case. We shall see.

  48. Thanks, Vitruvius. As I see it, it is quite fundamental to the whole situation. As I now see it, it is very clear W did not write the Cools’ post. It will not take long for a capable person to demolish Klatt’s arguments. However, in the event that the judge does not recognize the defendants’ writings as libel and if it is clear from the outset, then I can see the point that it should not go to trial. Otherwise, I see the stakes as higher than just a libel win for W. Perhaps allen has retired for the evening; I will look for a response tomorrow. Good night.

  49. Allen,
    As I’m sure you know, there is seldom any money in defamation claims. And yet they go to trial all the time, for reasons known only to the parties. Perhaps it has something to do with some ancient notion of honour.
    It would be so much easier to settle these things with sabres in the courthouse parking lot. And we could sell tickets.
    Brent,
    You’ve asked whether one might argue as a defence that there were reasonable grounds at the time of publication to claim that W wrote the Cools post, even if it turns out that he didn’t (or that you can’t prove he did.)
    The short answer is “maybe”. The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized the defence of “public interest responsible journalism”, which provides a defence to journalists who make factual errors if they took reasonable steps to confirm the accuracy of the information. The difficulty here is that none of the defendants really took any such steps; having previously established Warman as the devil incarnate, they were only too eager to spread the word of his perfidy, with scant concern as to whether or not it was true. Having repeatedly dismissed HRTs as “kangaroo courts” where any old b.s. passes as evidence., it’s a bit rich for them now to rely on the CHRT’s recognition of Klatt as an “expert” in their defences.
    The other difficulty with that defence is that most of the defendants have continued to assert that Warman did write the Cools post, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Responsible journalists admit mistakes. Polemicists go down with the ship. As Levant’s Statement of Defence makes clear, he falls into the latter camp.

  50. There is no “overwhelming evidence” to either disprove or definitively prove that W, authored the Cools post. At this point the balance of probability has to be considered. Buckets analyses does nothing to prove that W did or did not write that post. Funny how the attempt was made to quash the Rogers records and then lo and behold the Cools post was discarded as part of the complaint though, my my my.
    I think it a reasonable assumption that if push comes to shove, the defense will not be basing their position on either Klatts or Buckets analyses.
    Forensic experts in such matters do exist in the wild I hear.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation