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

  1. Western Canadian: “Maybe history will repeat itself yet and these liberal fascists will wind up hanging from light posts like their predecessors.”
    But of course it’s crazy to think that violent wingnut vitriol might actually have spurred Jim Adkisson to action… Scatter enough such seeds, even stunted ones, and eventually some will take root.

  2. Brent Weston said: “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.”
    My desire, Brent, is to see that this country remains safe for me and mine to live in. A country where one pernicious individual can use an entire arm of the government as his personal crowbar to lever open the wallets of people he doesn’t like, this is not a safe place to be. How is it reasonable that Lucy here should be allowed to use court cases to financially punish his personal enemies, people who have done nothing other than report on his shenanigans? He’s admitted under oath to doing what they said he did, in a sane legal environment he’d be under investigation for a variety of crimes, not suing people for speculating he’s been up to his old tricks again.
    Speaking as a potential member of the jury, as one of your peers sir, I would consider justice done if Mr. Lucy had visited upon him the same financial ruination, moral vexation and naked terror that he and his willing accomplices have used the HRC “justice” system to visit upon his victims.
    Failing that, sabres in the parking lot as Truewest says, or pistols at dawn as I said earlier. Given that W has been picking on -single women- one of whom is under 5 feet, pistols seem more reasonable.
    I understand Ms. Shaidle has been practicing for just such an eventuality.
    Finally, for you lawyers out there supporting Lucy, I have an observation. At this time in history, your collective efforts have created a system whereby the courts -prevent- justice in many cases. The cost alone ensures this. The HRCs actively dispense IN-justice, and do so shamelessly.
    This is analogous to a hospital system that not only doesn’t dispense proper health care, it actually prevents you from getting better and indeed does its best to make you sick if you’re healthy. If I did my job the way you boys seem to do yours, I’d be beating old ladies in the street with a baseball bat and stealing their purses.
    Speaking as a Canadian who remembers when it didn’t use to be this way, I’d like to request that you consider this when you focus on the technical minutiae of cases like this Lucy vs. Kate business, instead of considering Justice as the point and purpose of the entire affair and how that might be delivered.
    Any lawyers out there who feel unfairly tarred with my overly broad brush, please seek out one of your colleagues who deserves your share of the tar and kick him in the b@lls for me. I figure its the least you can do for your profession.

  3. Figulous Whatsis said: “Scatter enough such seeds, even stunted ones, and eventually some will take root.”
    Sir or madam, there is a job awaiting you at your provincial or federal Human Rights Tribunal. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.

  4. Thanks Lance for the spam listing update. I was wondering why my comment got deep sixed. I thought it was a safe one considering there was no “v” word(pharmaceutical),” I or M” word (religion of peace), “N” word (racial), “C” word (crude biological) but now I realize I have to watch out for “W” (litigation inducing) words.
    And here I thought “i before e, except after c” was tough to remember.

  5. Allen sure as hell doesn’t know more about Canadian law than I do. And it’s pretty clear he has no relevant experience. This isn’t a bill collection, pal. These people know what they’re doing. You’re out to lunch.

  6. I presume there are hundreds, if not thousands, of actresses who belong to the Screen Actors Guild.
    It doesn’t follow, however, that all these actress are equally likely to be cast as Lady Macbeth in an upcoming film.
    Some are too old or too young. Some will be previously engaged. Others not talented enough to declaim the lines or master an accent. Some will have had career killing dust-ups with the announced director, or producer, or screenwriter. Others might be offered the part but decline.
    Despite the thousands of actresses listed in the SAG director, therefore, the number of truly likely _realistic_ choices is relatively small, maybe just 5 or 6. Just because thousands of actress COULD play Lady Macbeth, it doesn’t follow, here on planet earth, that thousands of actresses WOULD.
    You see where I’m going with this, I trust.
    The chances that a completely random person would just happen to visit the same website as had another person a short time earlier, and just happen to post something amazingly similar to that previous person’s post, using the same (completely coincidental, randomly generated) IP is….
    ?
    This is one of those “can you prove it DIDN’T happen” Plan 9 arguments conspiracy nuts love so much. Occam’s razor, everybody.

  7. So Kathy, you need a second? For the dawn thing, y’know.
    I’ve always thought that the passing of the Code Duello was a net loss for Western civilization.

  8. truewest:
    Thanks for your thoughts. It does seem to me that the defendants’ political views of the CHRT should not preclude them from acting upon any findings (and I am somewhat aware of the difference between the Chair accepting testimony from Klatt and the Chair “finding” based upon said testimony). However, I concur with your last statement that it does not argue in the defendants’ favour to persist in the Cools’ post logic without at least presenting a bona fide rebuttal of the analysis that has surfaced in the February-May timeframe.
    Now, while we are at it here, would you also offer your thoughts on Ezra’s comments on the National Post/Jonathan Kay? It seems to me that it will be difficult to prove damage done – the buzz in Cyberspace centred more on the retraction than on the content of the post… Thanks for your thoughts once again.
    …. and, still waiting for allen….

  9. One way or nuther, I’m hoping the warthog and his insidious slimebags are found around a burning oil barrel, come winter.

  10. “However, I concur with your last statement that it does not argue in the defendants’ favour to persist in the Cools’ post logic without at least presenting a bona fide rebuttal of the analysis that has surfaced in the February-May timeframe.”
    …
    Rebuttal – It’s bunk that proves nothing, accept it;)

  11. Brent,
    You’re right; The defendant’s disdain for the CHRT does not preclude them from arguing that they were merely presenting the findings of an “expert” testifing before the CHRT. That opens the door to a plea of qualified privilege; i.e. that the post merely presented the accurate reporting of the proceedings of the CHRT. I would suggest, however, that the impugned posts went well beyond that.
    ,

  12. Brent,
    You’re right; The defendant’s disdain for the CHRT does not preclude them from arguing that they were merely presenting the findings of an “expert” testifing before the CHRT. That opens the door to a plea of qualified privilege; i.e. that the post merely presented the accurate reporting of the proceedings of the CHRT. I would suggest, however, that the impugned posts went well beyond that.
    ,

  13. Brent,
    You’re right; The defendant’s disdain for the CHRT does not preclude them from arguing that they were merely presenting the findings of an “expert” testifing before the CHRT. That opens the door to a plea of qualified privilege; i.e. that the post merely presented the accurate reporting of the proceedings of the CHRT. I would suggest, however, that the impugned posts went well beyond that.
    ,

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation