sda2.jpg

January 22, 2008

Richard Warman update: required reading

IMPORTANT: Regarding my post of this past Sunday.

The FreeDominion post I read and linked to says: "the rest of what he [Richard Warman] wrote" and then quotes a highly incendiary racial screed.

This original post also quotes a sworn affidavit by an "expert technology witness":

"Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts "90sAREover" and "lucy" are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed "Cools don't belong in our Senate" posted September 5, 2003."

The couple behind FreeDominion and their lawyers obviously have profound confidence in this evidence, so much so that they published it on their website.

Other people received the same information and they too posted it on their sites that morning, using the exact words "Richard Warman wrote", the phrasing in the original FreeDominion statement. Which led me to post the story here, confidence being contagious, I suppose.

However, Small Dead Animals is not my site -- I am a guest here and as such, was obliged to mind my manners. I didn't. I apologize. I have no excuse and take full responsibility.

I HAVE EDITED MY ORIGINAL POST HERE to include the words "alleged" and "claimed" because, quite naturally, the information stated with such confidence in FreeDominion's original post is now being challenged and questioned by others.

This is an ongoing matter with accusations and evidence on both sides, and it was reckless of me to write about it here as if the matter was completely settled.

The bell cannot be unrung. However, I request that the many readers of Small Dead Animals take this addendum to heart and publicize it to the best of their ability, by posting a link to this update on their sites and even emailing it to anyone to whom they might have emailed the original links.

I invite other suggestions, along with your criticisms, in the comments below. No, I'm not being sarcastic. I deserve it.

Posted by KShaidle at January 22, 2008 6:42 AM
Comments

I Hate the word alleged. However, it may have been good to use it.

And- if they aren't able to use enough white wash to obscure the matter- the truth will eventually Out.

So. I for one accept your apology over your enthusiam for seeking the truth.

Others- jd and wk come to mind- will cheer for your supposed downfall. I very much hope they are severely disappointed.

In the meantime, be prepared to write as well as Ezra has been doing.

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 7:42 AM

well otter, if I did something stupid, i deserve to be called stupid, by whoever does it, right?

:-)

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 22, 2008 8:04 AM

I see on Mr. Kinsella's site that Mr. Warman has a sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that he did not write the posts. It is indeed a criminal matter to lie on a sworn affidavit. It's called perjury. Mr. Warman has always been more than careful and I highly doubt he would perjur himself. It is wise that you have changed the text of your post. I think there will be legal action here but not against Warman. Rather I see a potential libel action that can involve all those who posted and continued to post what seems to be a white supremacist hoax.

Posted by: mordechai at January 22, 2008 8:07 AM

Thanks for the comment morcechai.

If it turns out that I have fallen for a hoax, and I'm not saying I have -- FreeDominion stands by their evidence as of my emails to them this very morning -- then I will humbly apologize and take full responsibility etc for that, should that turn out to be the case.

I'll be embarrassed and I'll deserve to be.

I and others posted about FreeDominion's claims (which were presented not as claims so much as assertions of fact.)

However, Kate did not. I hope people won't include her in their criticisms of me but that may be too much to ask.

That's why I want this post to get as much traction as possible.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 22, 2008 8:32 AM

Free Dominion is evidently sticking to it's guns. We will have to see how this shakes out. Whatever one may think of Lemire et al, it is immaterial to the facts.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 8:42 AM

Well, I blocked the IP from my blog I'm not undoing it.

I see on Mr. Kinsella's site that Mr. Warman has a sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that he did not write the posts.

Yeah I trust Kinsella, NOT.

Posted by: dinosaur at January 22, 2008 8:42 AM

Well I wish you would add this addendum, dinosaur, but obviously I can't force you.

If I 'go silent' today it is only because i have an appointment I can't change.

I will stay on top of this and return this afternoon.

I've asked FreeDominion to weigh in here in support of their side of things.

Please flame me and not Kate if you think flaming is warranted.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 22, 2008 8:46 AM

I would be equally guilty of enjoying the delicious schadenfreude of the odious Warmen hoist on his own petard, but for one thing only: there are better ways to heap coals on his head, and there are consequences to such guilty pleasure. Allow me to get all protestant on you and quote scripture:
Proverbs 24:17,18 – Do not rejoice when you enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the LORD see it, and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.

Let us see how this plays out...

Posted by: Tenebris at January 22, 2008 8:49 AM

"Seems to leave some people a bit on the vulnerable side. Truth is a defence in libel cases, of course, and a neo-nazi witness or two may save your bacon, being really credible and all, but...are you sure of your facts?"
Posted by: MsMew at January 21, 2008 7:55 PM

Is this true?! Not being one who has EVER looked in on neo-nazi websites, I had no idea that the Free Dominion website was run by people who could be construed, in ANY way, as white supremacists.

The thing I find most disturbing is that Small Dead Animals would even consider linking ANYTHING from such a contentious website. Doing so certainly puts SDA in a completely different light as far as I'm concerned. There has most definitely been a pall cast over anything which SDA has written, or linked, in the past. Frankly, NOTHING which Small Dead Animals discusses in future can be taken completely on trust.

Ms. Shaidle, you seem to have overstepped the limits of the very "free speech" you were trying to defend by linking the article in question, and then inviting comment about it. There can't be much question that at least some of the posts in the Comments section are completely incendiary, as evidenced by simply reading them.

mordechai's post above at 8:07, might very well tell the tale of how this all could end. Some peoples' good names are in question here!
What a crying shame.

I WILL NOT be back at Small Dead Animals.

Posted by: Joe B. at January 22, 2008 8:49 AM

You can say anything you want on the internet and people do it all the time. I personally don't see any merit to the hypersensitivity to race and ethnicity and could care less who said what. All this does is create resentment for bitches like Kinsella and the clotpoles at the HRC to wallow in and I have no time for it.

Sticks and stones, etc.

Posted by: Jim at January 22, 2008 8:49 AM

You can say anything you want on the internet and people do it all the time. I personally don't see any merit to the hypersensitivity to race and ethnicity and could care less who said what. All this does is create resentment for morons like Kinsella and the clotpoles at the HRC to wallow in and I have no time for it.

Sticks and stones, etc.

Posted by: Jim at January 22, 2008 8:49 AM

Joe B, you are so full of BS, I can smell it from here...

Posted by: Tenebris at January 22, 2008 8:54 AM

Free Dominion is not a neo-nazi website. People link to them all the time.

I was alerted to their post by people I trust. I in turn posted to it here and other people received the same info and posted it too.

>This is not a Small Dead Animals issue.

I posted it and ask you to direct your criticism to me, while remembering that this all evidence is still being disputed, and FreeDominion tells me they stand behind it 100% and have even more.

That said, I am logging off as mentioned earlier. I have no choice. Do know that I will be back, continue to investigate all this and am taking this very seriously.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 22, 2008 8:59 AM

So Lemire et al are alleged Neo-Nazi's? Who cares? If Free Dominions allegations regarding Warmans posting prove true then their being alleged Neo-Nazi's is immaterial, it does not change anything. Boy that's a lot of "allegeds". SDA is not a neo-nazi haven, never has been. Joe B you are full of BS.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm still in your corner Kathy. Hang in there.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at January 22, 2008 9:13 AM

"I WILL NOT be back at Small Dead Animals."


Well, not under THAT NAME, anyway...
What a maroon. Hang in, Five Feets.

Posted by: dean spencer - fox at January 22, 2008 9:21 AM

What a bunch of school children...

Posted by: quebecois separatiste at January 22, 2008 9:24 AM

you need to put up a readers tips forum for today!!!

Posted by: cal2 at January 22, 2008 9:27 AM

Joe B,

Don't hit your head on the way out.

Look, the only one who deserves flaming here is the fascist Warman.

This is the biggest creep in Canada. Rather than just hoping, I will be doing everything I'm able to spread the word on this criminal in anticipation of a federal investigation and conviction.

His name is not his own anymore. The justice system owns it.

Posted by: irwin daisy at January 22, 2008 9:38 AM

What Tenebris and Blazingcatfur said. Joe B you are full of BS

Posted by: John W at January 22, 2008 9:40 AM

The problem here is that an accusation of something nasty against a respected public figure will seldom come from sympathetic sources. As someone noted recently, you may get police officers to testify where there are serious allegations of corruption against the local police department. But you may be forced to rely on the testimony of prostitutes, pimps, and drug dealers.

What we have here is an allegation that if true calls into question the credibility of Canada's human rights commissions and tribunals. While one may be overstepping one's bounds to treat the allegation as if it has been proven, there nevertheless appears to be a number of coincidences that raise more questions than they answer about the human rights commission and the way it functions.

Citing the transcripts from the Lemire case, FreeDominion is now alleging that CHRC commissioner Steacy has presented testimony that appears to contradict the alleged testimony of his former colleague with regards to assuming identities on the Internet and posting on unsavory websites. This is a serious allegation. I assume the CHRC keeps records of its transcripts, so this should be easily verifiable by anyone investigating the allegation.

There is also the allegation of a former commission employee reportedly bringing a number of cases before his former employer, in which there may have been some pecuniary interests involved. Again, this may not be proven or true, but it's serious enough an allegation that it should be investigated by a neutral third-party in my opinion.

There's simply too much uncertainty and "he says" versus "she says" floating around. Canadians have the right to be confident that their judicial and quasi-judicial bodies will act impartially in dispensing justice. A neutral third-party investigation can hopefully clear things up.

Posted by: Veritas at January 22, 2008 9:43 AM

Kathy:

I appreciate the greater caution that you are showing in your edited post. I had tried to show greater restraint than you and some of your posters in my entries in your first post. A simple denial by Mr. Warman (even in a sworn affadavit) is not sufficient to conclude the matter; however, for those of us who believe in due process, it should mean that the words "allegedly", "possibility", "claimed", etc should be used until the issue is resolved by competent authorities - if the matter should get that far. Should the matter get that far, our disagreements with Mr. Warman's political beliefs should never extend to the point where we would want to deny him the benefits of "due process".

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 9:51 AM

Kathy--just because Warman signed an affidavit and posted it on Kinsella's site does not mean that he is 'innocent'. He is known for this behaviour. He is a provocateur of the worst kind--he is afraid to be a man and take his lumps. He finds it more profitable to sue. Just google his name.
The only thing that gives me concern over this is I see it as manipulation to justify certain groups control of the internet. There have been so many proposals and justifications put forward to institute this control of free speech that I fear Warman is manipulating this scenario to gain his ends. Frightening to say the least.

Posted by: George at January 22, 2008 9:54 AM

well for me the part of the story that was interesting was not what was said in the offensive post, but that the HRC removed it from the complaint after FreeDominion subpoenaed the ip addresses to do some investigating of their own.
why was that?

Posted by: Russ Graham at January 22, 2008 9:54 AM

There is a difference between www.freedominion.ca and www.freedomsite.org . freedominion is not a neo-Nazi site.

To Connie Fournier:

Please repost your entry from this morning into this thread as I believe the discussion has moved to this thread and your comments are significant. Thank you.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 9:55 AM

"So Lemire et al are alleged Neo-Nazi's?"

Blazing anyone who has the same values on immigration as Mackenzie King and Saint Laurent did as PM are obvious Neo Nazi's to todays left.

They are so whacked.

Tenebris I can smell it in Winnipeg too.
:)

Posted by: dinosaur at January 22, 2008 9:57 AM

Oh please ... CYA may be the prudent thing to do but if you ask me you've been Warmaned.

The facts point to an intolerable abuse of a public institution and that's a story that deserves to be told.

Posted by: OMMAG at January 22, 2008 10:02 AM

HEAR FULL DETAILS ON THE WHOLE SORDID STORY IN MARK FOURNIER'S OWN WORDS HERE:

http://www.therightside.ca/index.php?c=listen

"click" on the "Fournier on Warma" hot links to download the whole CHRC/Warman story....this is a scoop the MSM will never take.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 10:05 AM

the chill of litigation

agent provocateur indeed - the MSM has been silenced in Canada and now the bloggers are scared

as the one member of the HRC is quoted, and I paraphrase, "freedom of speech is an American concept, Canada doesn't offer such protection"

and I suppose that was the intent of this little exercise

Posted by: Brad at January 22, 2008 10:09 AM

I read Kinsella's take on this whole deal last night. I think we also have to bear in mind that the leading voice in defense of Warman is a man who acted as a spokesman and stategist for the LPC during a period when it as actively engaged in a wide ranging fraudulent fund-raising scheme whereby various government funded agencies and social groups routinely returned a large portion of their federal funding back to the Liberal Party of Canada. This, as we all know, is basically racketeering. Kinsella is well aware that this was at the very least, a tremendously unethical abuse of the pubic trust, yet he coninues to defend not only the perpetrators, but their organization and is actions. We should take his defense of Warman with the same grain of salt that we would if John Gotti's lawyer were acting as a character reference.

Posted by: Bill Greenwood at January 22, 2008 10:10 AM

Richard Warman has already admitted under oath that he has posted to various neonazi and violently antisemetic websites, such as Stormfront and the radical VNNForum.
http://www.richardwarman.com/covert_ops.html

There is no question (and Warman admitted under oath) that he posted the following message:

"Theres a reason it's called "White" Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement..." (Richard Warman as "Lucie")


Talk about a split personality, since Warman has told the homosexual newspaper XTRA! that he is a member of Canada's largest homosexual lobby group EGALE. (http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=3296&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2)

The above post about homosexuals as "cancer" or the one on freedominion are in a similar vain, and both are highly offensive and inflamatory.

Posted by: Dean Steacy at January 22, 2008 10:12 AM

This is a perfect example of the kind of politics of personal destruction that is the specialty of the left.

The basis for our article was a technical report based on objective findings regarding IP addresses and log files. The evidence was submitted by someone who has been accepted by the CHRT as an expert witness on several occasions, and the report was in the public transcripts.

Anyone who thinks that Free Dominion is a white supremacist site has never been there, they are idiots, or they are lying through their teeth. Free Dominion is one of the most pro-Isreal sites in Canada and the white supremacists ridicule us on their sites for that reason.

What is happening here is that the issue is deliberately being clouded. Warman and company have no evidence to refute what we have presented or they would have produced it before now. This has been in the public record since 2006.

So, now we are being called racists. Predictable.

I guess the question to all of you who AREN'T sockpuppets is "How badly do you want to be free?".

Are you willing to stick your head up and allow people to throw muck at you because you know that it isn't true and you know that your friends will stand behind you?

Or will you stand up and fight with people whose opinions you abhor because you know that if the leftists win this battle we are all doomed?

Nobody said that standing up for the truth would be easy, so if you choose to throw us to the wolves to save yourselves, I won't blame you one bit.

But, I'm not going to bow to them.

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 10:13 AM

Kathy, just keep in mind- statements like joe blow's are ENTIRELY intended to hurt and demoralize.

You asked to be flamed, NOT lied to. 'tis a typical leftist tactic.

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Nothing in the nature of FreeDominion excuses the power of interference within the free discourse of Canadians that the CHRC has arrogated unto itself. If you can't defeat with debate and historical example someone whom you allege thought Hitler was doing the right thing, if you can't shred his feeble arguments with your own wit and have to rely on the government to do it for you, then you should get out of that game and leave it to those private citizens who can. Are all of you who think the HRC is justified in what they do afraid that the bigots will, unchecked, corrupt you? Of course not; you're afraid they will corrupt everyone who isn't as smart and well-educated as you are. And given the vehemence with which you back up a faceless bureaucracy Nazi-hunting under the bed, or zealously protecting fragile religious sensibilities, you must think the number of susceptible, stupid Canadians out here is so large as to include everyone who isn't you or your friends.

Whether Warman acted as alleged, or is as pure in motive as any bureaucrat picked at random from the thousands from which we could choose is not the ultimate issue: neither he nor anyone else should ever have been given the power to arbitrarily punish a Canadian citizen for saying what is on his mind. And if what is on that citizen's mind is evil? The rest of us - even the smart and well-educated ones - are more than capable of defeating such hatred as we find with logic and decency.

Posted by: T. Robert Wolfram at January 22, 2008 10:16 AM

And of course I hit enter before the last line reached my fingers:

The main purpose of joe blow's lies was to paint FreeDominion as a r****t site, when one does a google search. Note that I left that word Out of my sentence, to prevent from helping the worthless sod.

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Ezra Levant noted on his web site yesterday "But I think Elmasry's Kids are realizing what I think is the truth: that their frontal assault on Canadian values like free speech, freedom of the press and the separation of mosque and state has kicked a beehive."

It's all connected.

Whether or not the claims by Free Dominion against Warman are correct or not, a spotlight needs to be shone on him.

And when the battle gets heated, the occasional punch gets thrown. This is true of any epic struggle.

But backing down is not an option. People like Kinsella and others are adult versions of school yard bullies, but only worse because their bullying is calculated.

Look what Kinsella has said over the years about Paul Martin. Carefully crafted words sitting just short of the legal threshold of libel. And it's all fine and dandy as far has he is concerned.

But when when the words "alleged" and "claimed" are missing from Kathy's post then she becomes an instant villain.

The stench of hypocrisy is enough to make one faint.

Posted by: TJ at January 22, 2008 10:18 AM

An important lesson, and until a court rules i remains allegation....like a numbe of other cases I am aware of.

The blogosphere is good at raising evidence that soemtimes is ignored, dan rather incident for example, however evidence is not proof and allegation is not conviction.

So warman has denied that he wrote the post. A reasoanble defence, how do you prove it? first step is explaining how the IP addresses could be the same....

1) It is the same computer
2) Someone was able to obtain the IP address
3) The documentation is false

1 and 3 seem resaonable to me, I dont know how you can get to 2)....perhaps someone with better computer knowledge can explain how either how a computer can hang onto that IP address for a long long time and/or how one might go about obtaining a particular IP address from the pool of IP's that rogers would have.

If it is really not possible or unlikely we are let with 1) and 3)


WHOEVER wrote those screeds deserves a the full derision and punishment that will come.

But it is easy to deny because you cannot prove without video of someone typing at their keyboard. You get left with balance of probabilities that if the IP address is for the address then whoever is in control of the address is the liekly author...

One other possibility for the defence is if he uses unsecured wireless connection someone can war drive onto their connection and use their IP.

1) What a tool if he hasnt used simple security
2) Rather evil of whoever did it, definitely a vendetta if that was the case

Occums razor says if the IP address was the same then it was the same author.....I am troubled by the time difference on the IP address not changing....Rogers can clear that up, was his address assigned that IP address at that time.

This is how the cops track down kiddie porn peddlers and users....thank goodness....easy solution....but watch for the unsecured wireless connection argument.

Posted by: stephen at January 22, 2008 10:24 AM

by posting a link to this update on their sites

no problem kathy.

kathy shaidle, five feet of f*#ked.

Posted by: jeff davidson at January 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Cable IP addresses tend to stay the same for long periods of time. Mark was on Shaw cable in Edmonton and he had the same IP address for three years.

We are using Cogeco cable now and we have had the same IP address since we set it up (a year and a half).

But, the IP address is only half the story. The operating system and browser were also a perfect match.

Freedomsite was a small web forum. The chances of two different people visiting that site within a couple of months with the same IP address, operating system and browser (a rather unique set-up that Warman admitted to having) are astronomical.

We are standing by the evidence we have presented, and we will be releasing more of it in the next couple of days.

Don't let them play the divide and conquer game!

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 10:36 AM

jd proves my opening point on this thread, using vile language in the process (but when does he ever Not?). wk far behind?

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 10:38 AM

da proof iz da proof and when you ave da good proof, den you ave the proof

Posted by: stubby at January 22, 2008 10:45 AM

the photography business appears to be going poorly for jeff. and with the market meltdown his $5000 RSP savings are off by $500. causing him to have some mental meltdowns, I feel sorry for his two kids.

Posted by: cal2 at January 22, 2008 10:46 AM

This is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a libel issue. You are not allowed to say people did things that they did not, if that is the case.

This is why so many blogs suck. You see a story and it fits your ideology and then instead of you know, checking your sources and seeing if it's true you run to your computers, post it, and then do a celebratory dance thinking you've scored a point for the good guys.

And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Are you people so willing to give up our most basic of rights in order to vilify someone?

Posted by: Peter D at January 22, 2008 10:46 AM

jd, that's pretty nasty language considering the current content of your site. Bible College Online? Weird.

Good luck Connie.

Posted by: Shere Khan at January 22, 2008 10:46 AM

freedominion does not appear to be a neo-nazi site. And 'freedomsite.org' is Marc Lemire's site, against the HRCs and for freedom of speech. Doesn't seem to any any nazi overtones to it!

So, I'm puzzled by the allegations of 'neo-nazi'.
Or are these allegations red herrings?

Back to the issue. Free Dominion, based on the ISP addresses, claims that Richard Warman posted on their site both as 'Lucy' and as 90sAreover.
Mr. Warman admitted under oath on Feb 1/07, in the Warman v Lemire case before the CHR Tribunal (Case T1073/5405) that he posted under the email address of 'Lucy'.

The question then becomes, whether he also posted under the other name, which used the same ISP address?

But, the deeper questions are about the role and function of the HRCs in Canada. Not about their role in allegations of discrimination in housing and employment. But their role in their defining speech as 'likely to cause hate or contempt'.

Such a declared authority of interpretation about the future effect of someone's speech is a serious and fundamental concern. Who can with any wisdom or accuracy, predict the results of speech?
It is this self-defined authority of prediction that is of deep concern. Furthermore, since prediction deals only with speculation and not actuality, the fact that the HRC deals with hypotheticals rather than actual provable events, means that the decisions of 'right and wrong' are located only and completely - in the minds of the HRC commissioners.

There are no criteria of evaluation, no objective standards to use - because there is no real, actual event on which to focus. It's all 'likely to'; it's all fictional hypothetical speculation. For a legal body to make decisions based on pure speculation, means that it has moved out of accountability and justice and into the realm of totalitarianism.

By the way, the G&M has today a webonly commentary by the law students who brought their complaint against Ezra Levant. The comments to their quite weak reaction, are 95% against them, against the HRCs, in favour of our fundamental right of free speech.

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 10:53 AM

Peter D, Have you read the transcripts or are you just jumping on the bandwagon?

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 10:54 AM

five feet of f@*ked!

typos. my uncontained glee has crippled me.

Posted by: jeff davidson at January 22, 2008 10:55 AM

"I will be doing everything I'm able to spread the word on this criminal in anticipation of a federal investigation and conviction."

Screenshot taken.

Posted by: MsMew at January 22, 2008 10:57 AM

Connie.

Both.

Wanting something to be true, and it actually being true are two very different things. Hope you have a good lawyer.

Posted by: Peter D at January 22, 2008 10:57 AM

Peter D where have you been the last few months?

This is very much a freedom of speech issue. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Posted by: TJ at January 22, 2008 10:57 AM

Warman is a distraction to the main events - the Maclean's and Levant cases. All the time and effort wasted on this ancillary topic would be better spent bringing attention to the winnable arguments for the right to free-speech in Canada. Instead, today its damage control for many blogs and the supporters of the Osgoode 4 and Sowarhardy et al are given some respite from the pressure that was building against them.

From my own post today: "Reflect for a moment that any changes effected by the publicity and outrage over these (Macleans/Levant)cases will also affect any potential for abuse by serial complainants like Warman, or any other persons or groups that would use the HRC's for censorship and/or nuisance complaints."

Posted by: dailybayonet at January 22, 2008 10:58 AM

TJ - how is it a freedom of speech issue? Claiming that someone wrote a racist diatribe when they may not have is not an issue of free speech. It is an issue of criminal libel - it is what protects us from random idiots like Kathy accusing us of doing something we have not.

And for the record, I think Ezra was within his right to print the cartoons. Now that is an issue of freedom of speech.

Posted by: Peter D at January 22, 2008 11:00 AM

Thanks for the info....I just reread the post

So the allegation is that according to the evidence of the expert witness the 90's are over IP address was used first before the admitted Lucy....even odder.

It is an odd situation, I look forward to seeing more evidence presented. However if it were me I would have chosen a less controversial expert witness....and I will be completely honest it sure gives me significant pause when the source of the evidence is mentioned. Sorry but courts look at the character of witnesses all the time as do individuals.....they dont dismiss evidence based on source alone, but they will severely discount especially if the story isnt bullet proof.

Anyway, everyone needs to present their evidence and have it measured in the crucible of the court. Neither potential scenario of this story is comforting

1) An HRC complainent (is there such a word) is complaining about his own posts and writing ugly hateful stuff to entrap (he has already admitted to doing it once I believe) a=oh and lying to the court about his authorship

2) A hateful post and evidence has been concoted to entrap the complainer.

Neither scenario is a good one and the stakes are now sufficiently high that one of the two sides, and their supporters, are going to have major issues after this.

Neither of which gives me joy.

As I said before, WHOEVER wrote that screed deserves whatever is coming down the pipe.

The stakes keep getting higher.

Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2008 11:00 AM

Peter D says "Hope you have a good lawyer"

Ah yes, the solution to anything and everything in today's society, a good lawyer.

Posted by: TJ at January 22, 2008 11:00 AM

I guess Kate had to spank you last night. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: Throbbin at January 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Just to be clear, the posts by Lucy and 90sAreOver were made on Freedomsite, not Free Dominion.

The log files have been examined by an expert witness (approved by the CHRT) and it is his opinion that the two identities are the same person.

Warman admitted under oath to signing up as Lucy. This is all documented in the public transcripts.

And, PeterD, don't waste your time worrying about me when your buddy Richard is in the political crosshairs. Lawsuits don't scare me.

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Sigh... Ever notice how the lefties typically use obscenities, vulgarities and appalling punctuation? I guess for them, literacy is elitist.

Posted by: EdS at January 22, 2008 11:03 AM

"So, I'm puzzled by the allegations of 'neo-nazi'.
Or are these allegations red herrings?"

Exactly ET. The ACLU defended the right of Nazi's to march in Skokie - appalling as that stand may have been it was still the right thing to do. Trust me I am no fan of the ACLU, but they were right in this instance.

I can't wait for this play out. I assume it must be possible to have the ISP used by the author of the posts in question divulge who "owned" the ip addresses in question during the period of time these postings occurred.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 11:03 AM

Kathy,
You're obviously not a "cover your ass first" nit-picking, petty minded lawyer.

How can ANYONE fault you for this?

Posted by: Doug at January 22, 2008 11:03 AM

"I read Kinsella's take on this whole deal last night. I think we also have to bear in mind that the leading voice in defense of Warman is a man who acted as a spokesman and stategist for the LPC"

Kinsella is a spent force credibility wise....he slunk off to the jounalism game but he never stopped politiking...and he was never very good at politiking...besides I recall this asshat mocking Stock Day's religieous faith in a public form with his Barny the dinosaur stunt...something which ( if Stock was a Jew or Muslim) would have had the ultra sesitive and easily offended Warman and the CHRC all over him.

Kinsella's largest fault is his hypocrisy.

As for Kathy being afraid of what Warman can do...that must be a reflex action from the days when Warman's brand of fascist internet bullying was tolerated...when this all clears in the legitimate courts, he'll be lucky to have a pot to pee in or a place to hide...so slag away...anything you can say about this disreputable creep is now backed by evidence that will stand in court.

Jeff: as always you never disappoint...your comments make us all a little more secure in our denouncement of leftard domatism..and again you demonstrate that leftist dogma is an orthodoxy which keeps its practitioners in perpetual childhood.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 11:04 AM

Generally, on domestic cable systems, IPs are assigned more or less permanently to your computer out of the ISP's block of IPs. A cable router holds the ISP assigned IPs for a multi-computer system, ie a home network, and matches the IP to the computer's network card MAC address when somebody powers up and logs on. Each computer gets its own external IP.

DSL systems dynamically assign a new IP (out of the pool the DSL ISP holds) to the networked computer or router with each fresh logon to the network, and the router dynamically assigns local IPs to MAC addresses (network cards/circuits, be they computers or other devices)

In both cases, the opposite arrangement can be structured, but the default typically is assigned fixed IPs on cable, dynamically assigned on DSL.

Posted by: Skip at January 22, 2008 11:07 AM

The evidence presented is hardly conclusive. IP Addresses can be spoofed. They can change frequently. 66.185.84.204 could be assigned to one computer today and another computer tomorrow.

I'm certainly not defending Warman. But it's surprising that free dominion would go as far as they have down this legally actionable path if this is all the information available to them.

Posted by: john g at January 22, 2008 11:09 AM

... my uncontained glee has crippled me ...

That, and the fact that you're a moron.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at January 22, 2008 11:11 AM

Skip - thanks for the info - looks the ISP in question is Rogers Cable so the poster would likely have a fixed IP.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 11:11 AM

Peter D big struggles are never 100% clean.

When blacks protested for the right to vote bricks were thrown at policeman. And that led some to say that we can't give blacks the right to vote because they threw bricks at policemen.

I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep over the fact that Warman has had a punch thrown at him.

And let's not exaggerate either. Kathy corrected her post in absolutely clear terms.

Others on the other hand intentionally want to make a mountain out of mole hill, so as to distract from the real issue at hand which is the desire by these commissions (and those who support them) to stifle free speech.

Posted by: TJ at January 22, 2008 11:13 AM

"but watch for the unsecured wireless connection argument."

Not just unsecured. WEP is so badly compromised that anyone using it might as well have their wireless wide open. I can usually sniff WEP keys within seconds of starting to scan. I wouldn't recommend anything less than WPA2 these days. If that means upgrading hardware, so be it.

Posted by: Sean at January 22, 2008 11:13 AM

"it is what protects us from random idiots like Kathy accusing us of doing something we have not."

Peter D. Apparently you have missed the point of your own post...

Posted by: Skip at January 22, 2008 11:15 AM

Retraction, smedaction. I ain't reading anything else. I have my mind all made up. And it's all because of you.

Awesomeness squared.

Posted by: Lefty at January 22, 2008 11:16 AM

Mr. Warman has been known to 'fib'. Apparently, he repeatedly lied to a judge when asked if he had ever logged on to various sites as 'Lucie'. His repeated answer was an emphatic 'NO' until the defense showed physical evidence to the contrary. He then claimed to stand 'corrected'.

Is his statement on Mr. Half-truth Kinsella's website (protector of Liberal theives) just another lie?

PC Socialist scum

Posted by: Marko at January 22, 2008 11:19 AM

Libel chill strikes again. Perhaps like minded defenders of free speech...both left and right should set up a trust fund with a elected board of trustees to manage and disperse said monies in cases when the Warmens of the world throw shit from their cages.

Posted by: Rednik at January 22, 2008 11:21 AM

here is a liberal lawyer you wouldnt want to hire. "Little Overbillings on the Prairie", Its not about law, its about billing.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/21/jaffer-investigation.html

Posted by: cal2 at January 22, 2008 11:26 AM

Skip & Blazingcatfur, I am on Rogers in Ontario. I do not have a static IP; you pay extra for that service. Dynamically allocated IP addresses are subject to change; if you power down your cable modem and reconnect it, the chances are very good that your IP address will be different from what it was before you powered down. Mine changes all the time.

Again, I'm not defending Warman, and would like to see an investigation; but the evidence presented is nowhere near good enough to stand up in court, and I'm surprised anyone would base their "expert testimony" solely on this. If the free dominion folks have more, I hope they release it.

Posted by: john g at January 22, 2008 11:27 AM

Peter D. Apparently you have missed the point of your own post...

No, in my world, when someone posts a claim that someone did something and the only proof they have is the "expert" testimony of a website that has a super hard on to vilify said guy, then that person is an idiot. Especially when said person is known to be sue-happy. I'm no lawyer, but that would seem easy enough to prove in court.

Sometimes so wanting to prove something leads to people jumping to conclusions without doing their homework. Sure, Kathy wrote a retraction, but not before 2 days of gleeful "he's a racist" charges from the right wing blog-o-sphere. I just wonder what happens to people's brains when stuff like this happens.

Posted by: Peter D at January 22, 2008 11:27 AM

"The chances of two different people visiting that site within a couple of months with the same IP address, operating system and browser (a rather unique set-up that Warman admitted to having) are astronomical."


It's going to be pretty hard running away from those facts. Even after qualifying his behavior with "alleged", it doesn't change the fact that Warman, who has admitted posting on sites to bait people, should be a big person of interest in exposing the corruption of the CHRC which is coming.

If Warman as alleged submitted 50% of the cases to the CHRC that alone should start a public government inquiry into this guy. How can that not go unexamined now that it is made public? I can't imagine any gov't agency in the US having half of their litigation/claims/sales/whatever originate from one person without a public outcry.

The tenacity of ordinary citizens in seeking the truth exposed Dan Rather's/CBS's scam and a multitude of others since. It was the little details that started the unraveling.

Can Warman stand up to public scrutiny? He's free to fire off a lawsuit and open the door to that.

Posted by: penny at January 22, 2008 11:28 AM

Not Here though.

Posted by: John W at January 22, 2008 11:30 AM

I just gotta shake my head. Whenever a leftist posts a comment here, (or anywhere on the web,) his utterances consistently destroy any legitimacy of his position. Jeff D. is a prime example.

When they run out of arguments (easy to do for a leftist), they resort to ad-hominem, insults and vulgarity.

Posted by: EdS at January 22, 2008 11:31 AM

Well, I have more information from tribunal hearings that I have to release today so I don't have time to stick around and feed the trolls here.

This isn't over.

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 11:32 AM

"but watch for the unsecured wireless connection argument."

I doubt that wireless was that widespread in 2003 when the posts were made.

Posted by: penny at January 22, 2008 11:36 AM

"I will be doing everything I'm able to spread the word on this criminal in anticipation of a federal investigation and conviction."

"Screenshot taken."

MsCatshit,

Am I supposed to be frightened? Pathetic idiot.

Based on their comments and actions against our basic freedoms, is there a more definitive answer to what a leftist is other than fascist?

Posted by: irwin daisy at January 22, 2008 11:37 AM

It does not pay to go after serial complainers like Warman. They are not nice people, they hold grudges (most likely carry them to their grave), they do not forgive and forget. They have friends, and eventually they will exact revenge, even if you win the current battle. Best just to note what side they are on, and remember that in all dealings with them. Remember that people like that are never your friend, if they are helping you it is because they are also helping themselves. If you find yourself on the same side of an issue as them, probably a good idea to have a serious think about your opinion. Agreeing with known lefties does not make you wrong necessarily, but it certainly increases the chances.

Read Kinsella's blog to get insight into how to do politics in an amoral and cut throat manner. Read the blog to get insight into the Liberal mindset. Don't expect to find any answers to any pressing question though.

Posted by: Kevin at January 22, 2008 11:40 AM

So then based on the only evidence presented so far

90's are over PRECEEDS the Lucy post (Sept and Nov respectively)

I am assuming ofcourse that the evidence is the evidence provided from Rogers.

The next question is what billing address had leased these IP's at the time.

Sean info(thanks) shows that people can get on your IP address with some minortechnical sohpistication....essentially sit on the street and post on you IP.

BUT ths goes back to the timing of the posts, the ugly anne cools content post preceeded the admitted Lucy post.

The timing is a difficult one to get around, assuming of course the evidence backing it is accurate. It would mean you would have to believe that someone made the post in September as a trap thinking that the same IP address would make the Lucy post sometime later.

That scenario seems to stretch credibility.

Once again, even if the IP's match nothing so far proves conclusively that Mr Warman wrote the post. It could have been a guest in his house, which raises the troubling question of who and was this a regular operation.

Mr W may have plausible deniability of authorship in this case but he may have to answer some questions about why this case was dropped, was there some other person doing the same thing, (is that a conspiracy?)

But all of this hinges on the veracity of the evidence brought forward, once again I would have chosen a less controversial expert witness (CHRT approved or not) if only to close any lines of attack.

Mr W is innocent of the charge until proven guilty, cliche but true.

But this is a situation that needs full examination, the stakes are high enough now that
it is clear someone is fudging the truth on some pretty serious and ugly matters.

Tested evidence will play it all out. I look forward to every side making its case and laying out its evidence.

Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Well I wish you would add this addendum, dinosaur, but obviously I can't force you.
Yeah do you think you are a human rights commission. ;)

I link to my source, which is better than newspapers often do with "unnamed sources". Like what does that ever mean? I always figure they are making it up when they say that.

I'm quoting what someone else said what could be the harm in that in Canada?

Please flame me and not Kate if you think flaming is warranted.
Oh no, you Kathy isn't perfect, at least you admit it when you think you are wrong, unlike some. Posted by: dinosaur at January 22, 2008 11:43 AM

Peter D~ what part of 'Warman admitted to it in Affidavit' don't you get?

He said he did it.

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 11:45 AM

Stephen I suggest we summon Ted Rogers to the stand, then lynch him;)

Yup this will be fun, my money is ridiing on Connie here.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 11:47 AM

Warman swears he did not write the posts, yet they came from his IP. Perhaps a pal wrote them on his computer? Is it possible to prove otherwise?

Posted by: BillBC at January 22, 2008 11:53 AM

:I have my mind all made up. And it's all because of you."

Hey Lefty; Seems this is a little pit of projection posing as satire.

Funny how the really dogmatic leftards reflexively reject any attempt, by any orthodoxy but their own , correct violations of rights...funny also in this case is the fact that the CHRC attacks on the media and blogosphere will silence the "offensive" left as well (although leftards are under the illusion it won't)

...also funny is the all encompassing shroud of insentient nescience leftard dogmatism provides its adherents which allows dupes like lefty to defend those who would damage rights as well.

...this to me demonstrates something profound about dogmatic leftards like lefty...even a dog knows when it's been kicked...obviously leftards like lefty are not as sensate as a common dog.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 11:55 AM

One of the things I enjoy about this site is the irony free atmosphere. For example;

Connie projecting at 10:13

This is a perfect example of the kind of politics of personal destruction that is the specialty of the left.

on a right wing site on a thread about trying to destroy someone. Mind boggling.

Or eds with the bit about leftists being illiterate. Evidently you don’t read many other blogs right or left.

As to the more substantive issue at hand. A quick web search about Mr Lemire and Mr Klatt reveals (Lemire has a wiki page) both have been associated with white supremacist organizations. It is one thing to avow free speech quite another to work and ally with notorious racists.

Posted by: gray at January 22, 2008 11:57 AM

Kathy & Kate, I am very disappointed by this post. If you feel obliged to apologize for simply expression your opinion, then Warman and the HRC have won.

Posted by: Manny, in Moncton at January 22, 2008 12:05 PM

"It is one thing to avow free speech quite another to work and ally with notorious racists."

As in the ACLU and the Skokie Nazie's Gray?

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 12:07 PM

"It is one thing to avow free speech quite another to work and ally with notorious racists."

As in the ACLU and the Skokie Nazi's Gray?

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 12:08 PM

Thanks for the apology, kathy. That took class. Apologising for a mistake and taking responsibility is what separates the grown-ups from the kids.

Posted by: Richard Boyko at January 22, 2008 12:10 PM

Kathy, I understand you are sensitive because you've inadvertently involved Kate into something she and you would rather you hadn't.

Beyond that, don't stop throwing smoke (hard to hit pitches) at vermin like Warman et al.

Still a Big Fan of yours.

Posted by: geothermal at January 22, 2008 12:11 PM

IP logs can be faked. According to FD, Lemire is a techie. Just sayin'.

Posted by: MsMew at January 22, 2008 12:13 PM

You know, as long as the evidence provided by FreeDominion is for real, then in my judgement, Mr. Warman cannot likely win over an impartial jury who can see that he's not a very trustworthy individual. First he denies ever having posted to a specified forum at all, and then, when presented with evidence that he did, admits it. Hard to believe someone like that.

Then we have evidence that would tend to convince an impartial jury that, all evidence taken into account, he is the one who wrote the offensive passage about Senator Cools. The IP address is his; it's proven and admitted. It appears that it's his computer or one to which he had access. If, however, he can create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury that someone other than he did it, and specify a range of potential users of his computer or the same computer he used as "Lucy", then...

But the way I see it, Mr. Warman appears to be in deep trouble with the law.

Have the RCMP or some local police force been notified?

There are laws against expressing hateful sentiments towards identifiable groups, and it's the duty of the police to investigate.

If it wasn't Mr. Warman, then he should tell police that someone used his computer to post illegal passages online.

As long as the proof provided by FreeDominion is for real, then I'm afraid Mr. Warman is in big trouble, and having bloggers point out what FreeDominion is providing vis a vis evidence is the least of his worries.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at January 22, 2008 12:14 PM

"...my uncontained glee has crippled me."

No Jeffie, your mental retardation and lack of friends has crippled you.

Piss off.

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 12:17 PM

No Jeffie, your mental retardation and lack of friends has crippled you.

Piss off.

you were alot more pleasant a few months ago when you left me daily messages at my blog.

love hurts.

Posted by: jeff davidson at January 22, 2008 12:24 PM

but do you think Warman can ever again use the various HRC's as his personal cash machine ??

That career is over. That the HRC staff and ex staff cruise select internet sites trying to snare those they consider enemies of the state has been exposed and will likely be banned in future.

Warman's use of the HRC's as personal Star Courts will be great ammunition in the Steyn/MacLeans case.

Maybe the silver bullet to finally neuter these odious Commissions.

Posted by: Fred at January 22, 2008 12:25 PM

I was very careful in my letter to the CBC Ombudsman about this case to use disclaimers throughout: words like "alleged", "possible".

It IS of interest to me that the lefties here are all worked up about our concerns about Mr. Warman, even though they may still be allegations. Of course, they're allegations, at this point, because we believe in the rule of law--which is also why Kathy has been transparent about her wording.

Let's look at the lefty MSM: they're over any ALLEGATION--e.g., Mulroney-Schrieber--like a bad rash, if it has to do with their conservative political enemies.

It's quite OK to be exercised about allegations. Looking into them is fair game. Thank God we finally have the Internet to sniff out allegations which are baggage for the left-wing: for the past three decades, the left has gotten away with huge amounts of skulduggery because the MSM have protected them and kept allegations under the radar. It's time this changed and I'm glad it has.

Richard Warman has a lot to answer for.

Thanks, Kathy, for being open about this. It's UNLIKELY THE Warren KinsellaS OF THIS WORLD would be so principled.

Posted by: lookout at January 22, 2008 12:28 PM

Blazing,

Careful on the ACLU analogy....the aclu defended a right....not the nazi's helping the aclu.

facts are either correct or they arent, so the expert opinion is either correct or it isnt regardless of the unrelated odious views of the expert.

It would have been better, imho, to find an expert who couldnt be easily contrued as having pre-conceived hostile opinions of the accused.....but thats just me....facts are facts so it should all come out

Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2008 12:28 PM

"It is one thing to avow free speech quite another to work and ally with notorious racists."

Gray, you miss the whole point of free speech.

You aren't allying with notoroious racists when you uphold the value of free speech. For reverence, see Voltaire.

Think of it this way, notorious racists are always going on about "those people" violating their rights. They're always going on about "those people" taking over the world etc. etc. ad nauseum. The proper response to that is to point out that they're idiots, wrong, and offensive. The improper response is to proove them right by violating their rights.

You don't have to be correct to have rights, you just have to be a human being. That's what fundamental human rights mean.

I despise leftard a-holes like Jeff but I wouldn't assume for one second I have the right to crush his freedoms just because I think he's an idiot.

I would suggest that it isn't too much to ask for leftards to return the favour to the rest of society - even the marginal creeps that spout racist nonsense.

One day, the make-up of these kangaroo courts may be changed and it may be the leftards who are hauled in front of it for bashing Christians. I would expect our lot to defend your rights then.

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 12:29 PM

Kathy--You did the right thing. You acted like an adult. Bravo.

But don't beat yourself up over it. I'm finding this whole thing tremendously fun. For the first time light is being shone into one of the most repulsive parts of our government, and people like Warman are finally getting the attention they deserve, regardless of whether or not he actually posted these posts. He's still done some very vile things.

Hopefully this will catch on in the rest of the media, but in the meantime it's nice to know that the individuals on the HRCs are finally feeling the heat. Let's keep it up!

Posted by: SheilaG at January 22, 2008 12:31 PM

The topic was just opened for discussion and that's what people did. The truth can smack someone upside the head, and they won't believe it, so really, people believe whatever they want anyhow.

Posted by: Joanne at January 22, 2008 12:36 PM

After reading some of sda's posts and most notably the comment sections, there can be no doubt about it: you righties are some serious freakin' loons.

Posted by: BeingThere at January 22, 2008 12:36 PM

Jeff,

I often enjoy debating people who are not of like minds. I even have somewhat lefty friends.

The difference between them and you is that rational disgussion of topics is possible with them and impossible with you. So I moved on to more rational and intellegent people.

You are not just left, you're a frothing lunatic.

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 12:36 PM

Hmm.

If, indeed, a hateful passage was written and posted via a computer either belonging to or accessible to a person, and that person didn't write and post the passage, then should it come to his attention that a hateful, illegal passage was created on that computer, the person ought to notify police. Certainly if the person is supposedly a superhero of sorts going around finding people who say hateful things and taking their rights and money away, the person will definitely notify police.

Unless the person is the one responsible for the hateful passage, that is.

Of course, this depends upon whether there is actually a hateful message and whether it was posted via that person's computer.

Again: I wonder: If hate speech is so seriously prosecuted in Canada, even to the point that people suspected thereof are denied their constitutional right to a fair trial and so on, are the police investigating this alleged horrendous hate crime? If not, why the hell not?

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at January 22, 2008 12:41 PM

At the very least, Warman has been outed. He will be watched from now on. His world is now a fishbowl. That will not be pleasant for a man who has already received death threats. Clearly he is a villain. He has pleaded innocent as is the norm in any case. I will be surprised if he not guilty. We shall see.

We in Canada are are involved in the same 'culture war' that Bill O'reilly is championing in the US. It is the repressive, collectivist, socialist, multiculturalist, self loathing Left vs. the freedom-loving, capitalist, individualist, self-reliant, heroic right.

Warman, like Kinsella, like our own little shit troll Jeffie, are foot soldiers for the left.

Shaidle and Kate are officers on the right. In any war there are occasional casualties and wounded. This minor omission 'alleged' is a flesh wound and is no big deal.

Our fight must be rock steady. Keep it going Shaidle, you have lost no credibility, you have suffered a wound and it will heal. The real damage has been done to Warman.

Posted by: John West at January 22, 2008 12:44 PM

By Canadian Sentinel

It appears that it's his computer or one to which he had access. If, however, he can create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury that someone other than he did it, and specify a range of potential users of his computer or the same computer he used as "Lucy", then...

---------------------------------

If I lend my car out to someone and they speed through an intersection and are captured by photo radar,Im still acountable for the trafic violation.

Posted by: Shawn at January 22, 2008 12:58 PM

Wow. This is quite the comment thread. I'll be the first to admit that I don't see eye-to-eye with Kathy on a lot of things (gay marriage, religion, etc.), and I've even taken public pot shots at her over them in the past. All that being said, my measure of her from the many years of reading her writing is that she is an honest woman with a great deal of personal integrity. The fact that she is backing the "allegations" against Mr. Warman lends a great deal of credibility to them so far as I'm concerned.

That, and I respect a person who can admit when they make mistakes and learn from them. Would that we all could (me especially).

Posted by: Sean at January 22, 2008 1:00 PM

"It would have been better, imho, to find an expert who couldnt be easily contrued as having pre-conceived hostile opinions of the accused.....but thats just me....facts are facts so it should all come out"

Problem is we can't choose sides when it comes to the truth. Facts are facts no matter how odious we may consider the source. While any court is capable of bias we have to have faith that the facts alone will be weighed when a judgement is made.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 1:00 PM

"It is one thing to avow free speech quite another to work and ally with notorious racists."

Eh, no. Supporting a person's right to hold an opinion is different than supporting the opinion itself. I support the right of Mr. Scott Brockie to refuse to print gay and lesbian material as it is offensive to him.

On the flip side, should Mr. Brockie ever come into my little shop with a computer that needs fixing, I would refuse him service on the grounds that I found his actions offensive. I'm not saying that he's not entitled to his religious beliefs, but that I reserve the right to distance myself from him personally and professionally if he acts on those beliefs in a manner that is in conflict with my own beliefs.

Which is as it should be. Or would be in a world without HRCs.

Posted by: Sean at January 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Warman is a distraction. The posts that led to this thread about what Warman might or might not have done were a valid use of free expression. However, if in that use of free expression libel was committed, so be it and let the consequences play out, or not.

For those on the right - denying that the wording of the original posts were too strong is simply not going to fly - a mistake was made, and admitted to by KS, so be it.

Equally, for those from the left spectrum - this Warman bunfight does not alter the material threat to ALL Canadian's rights to free expression posed by the HRC's overstepping of their mandates.

The right to free expression is a bipartisan issue, or should be. It's fine to disagree, even to do so disagreeably - and the right to want to continue to happily disagree should, oddly enough, unite both sides against the outrage of HRC's stepping into areas where they have no right to tread.

Any person, right or left that cannot recognize the threat from these cases should take a step back and reflect on the future outcome of the state interfering in what it decides is acceptable speech or not. Eventually this crocodile will want to eat you, or someone you read, or love, or respect.

Our choices are fairly simple - score meaningless points off one another as the main issue gets forgotten and the partisan one-upmanship fogs everything up. Or, get back to the winnable arguments and actually, for once, do something constructive and try to get the HRC's reined in to where they do not get to determine what we can say. or think, or write.


Posted by: dailybayonet at January 22, 2008 1:09 PM

"IP Addresses can be spoofed. They can change frequently. 66.185.84.204 could be assigned to one computer today and another computer tomorrow."

That's true, but somewhat irrelevant. A spoofed attack has a major weakness; the return address is spoofed. Thus it could not be used to post on a website as that requires two-way communication. Spoofing is generally used as a penetration aid or as a track-covering in a DOS attack. Perhaps you are thinking of using a proxy to hide your IP? Once again, that wouldn't result in what is being claimed. And from experience, and from the statements of the ISP, these kinds of addresses are very stable, unlike dial up connections.

Frankly, given the evidence, the only real possibility other than the one asserted by Freedominon is that the logs have been faked. That's why one should say "alleged" until it is looked at by the courts or the HRC.

Posted by: the rat at January 22, 2008 1:10 PM

Warman STILL acts like an orifice..... alegedly.

Posted by: eastern paul at January 22, 2008 1:11 PM

mordechai and kathy:

The letter posted by Warren Kinsella on his blog site, states: (this is a direct copy from his site)

"Dear Mr. [Winged Monkey]:

Thank you for your note.

We have done our own investigation into this matter. Considering the sources of the allegations and taken into account that Mr. Warman has specifically, under oath, denied that he authored the posting, we deem the allegation to be without basis. It is the targeted vilification of an honourable man that should be drawing your concern.

Len Rudner
Regional Director, Ontario
Canadian Jewish Congress
4600 Bathurst Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2R 3V2
Tel: 416-XXX-XXXX
Fax: 416-XXX-XXXX "

Note that there is no addressee. There is no date. Note that it refers to one posting but not which one.

On Feb 1/07, from the files of the Lemire Transcript Vol 4, p 769 and 770, in the case of Warman vs Lemire before the CHR Tribunal, Mr. Warman 'slithered' to an admission that he had made two posts to Freedomsite message board, dates of Nov 15, 2003.

I use the term 'slithered' because at first, Mr. Warman tried to deny his association with that email, by making use of the Chairperson's sloppy and uninformed questioning.

The chair asked him a 'double-question'; that is, there were actually TWO questions but were asked as one. Mr. Warman replied only to one - which exonerated him from association with 'Lucy'.

The chair asked him if he had 'ever signed up a user account at the message board'.
Mr. Warman replied 'no', but added that he didn't need to sign up. "I could access everything that I needed to as a guest".

That's ambiguous and plays into the Chair's ignorance, for the Chair immediately replied:
"As a guest, so only to view. But you did not sign up in order to add material to it?"
Warman: "No, I did not".

Warman was able to slither out of association with his email posts as Lucy, by the Chair's false assumption that in order to post or 'add material to it', you have to first SIGN UP. And Warman went along with that, by his ambiguity in his response that he "could ACCESS (my emphasis) everything that I needed to as a guest".

However, Lemire's lawyer, Kulaszka caught him. She asked him:
"Do you recognize this user account called Lucy?"

Warman replied: "Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an e-mail address that I used".
He made two log-ins that day, and 'Lucy' was also used on Nov. 11 and 23/03.

So, he DID post to Freedomsite message board.

Now, what posting (singular) does Mr. Rudner's letter refer to? Mr. Warman acknowledged two posts on Nov 15/03 as 'Lucy'.

And, in line with the ease of deviation shown in the above interrogation before the CHR Tribunal, what were the questions asked of Mr. Warman, in the investigation referred to by Mr. Rudner?

There is, as yet, no proof that links Mr. Warman as 'Lucy' (and he acknowledges that e-mail address) and 90sAreover, other than the same IS data base.

My point is that the letter Mr. Kinsella posts on his site as a rebuttal, is empty of specifics and therefore, isn't valid as a rebuttal. Dates, names and specifics of 'posting' have to be added.


Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 1:15 PM

Well, I figure it is about time I threw in my opinion.

1. To "BeingThere". Loons are birds. We are mouth breathing knuckle draggers. Get it right, u f$%^ing leftard!

2. To Kathy. You might have made a small mistake, but you are truly a voice of reason in this pseudo commie utopia created by turdeau and his ilk.

3. To JD. Why don't you just do us all a favor and stop coming here. This is a right of center blog.....why do act so shocked when we post right wing stuff? You are the shining example of everything a leftard moonbat idiot should be!

Posted by: kingstonlad at January 22, 2008 1:18 PM

Y'all know, there's a certain irony here.

We're actually giving this guy, Warman, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

This is more than he allows his "human rights" commission victims.

Justice, therefore, would be to take this case not to a real court, but rather to a kangaroo court like the CHRC, which doesn't care about evidence or any other rights, but rather considers complaints that someone allegedly said something hateful about some identifiable group member or members which is "likely to expose said group to hate or whatever".

By the standards of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and apparently by Mr. Warman's standards (he hauls people he doesn't like before that kangaroo court), Mr. Warman is guilty and must therfore pay Ms. Cools should she file a complaint, and also pay whomever else may launch a complaint against him, thousands of dollars.

Yep, folks... that's the way it is.

In Canada.

I did not make this up.

Choose your Canada.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at January 22, 2008 1:19 PM

Warwick, you said, "Gray, you miss the whole point of free speech." I have to disagree in way. Gray seems to miss the point of EVERY post I have seen him "comment" on, not just free speech (which he clearly does not get). Gray seems to struggle to understand very simple concepts. But, he is a leftie, so that is to be expected. The average leftie operates on an emotional level, not an intellectual one, as Gray seems to demonstrate.

But, at least, he does not show the same childish potty-mouth idiocy that Jeffie-Poo does. Gray may even find Jeffie-Poo embarrassing. I sometimes wonder if Jeffie-Poo is not a right-winger who is out to make lefties look like fools (which he so regularly does).

Posted by: terrence at January 22, 2008 1:22 PM

I'm glad to see Kathy taking these steps to apologize and admit it was reckless to post allegations as if they were facts. It's the right thing to do.

I've been the victim of false accusations, and it's a horrible position to be in. I had to take someone to court, and while I won, I still lost. Years after the initial allegations, there's no feeling of vindication. I don't think I'll ever be able to wash the "dirt" off.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Warman should be investigated, along with the HRC. It's important to do it ethically, not only because of legal concerns, but because it's fair.

Posted by: Jimbo at January 22, 2008 1:28 PM

banished - for free questions thru libieral mouths.


http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/personality/?personality=Erickson%2C+Krista&program=Canada+Now+Manitoba

Posted by: cal2 at January 22, 2008 1:30 PM

There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Warman should be investigated, along with the HRC. It's important to do it ethically, not only because of legal concerns, but because it's fair. -Jimbo

Good point, Jimbo.

That would be more than Warman and the CHRC would do for us. They wouldn't be ethical nor fair.

The record is clear.

After all, what do we call people who find others guilty without valid evidence, without a fair trial? This is what happens with the CHRC, and Warman is reported to haul people before it. Plus, he used to work there.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at January 22, 2008 1:35 PM

Jimbo,

In general, I agree that we should play fair. It's what sets us above the leftards.

However, there are times when fighting fair means you lose. There are times when it's appropriate to take off the gloves. Defending one's fundamental human rights is one of those times.

The complete destruction of Warman's and all (federal and provincial) HRC's ability to continue violating Canadian values and human rights is paramount. The means is secondary.

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 1:41 PM

ET I wanna have your children, well done!

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 1:41 PM

Blazingcatfur,

I'm quite sure that's the first time ET has heard that line... lol.

ET,

I'm kidding!

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 1:43 PM

I need to say..I have to say something..rather than try and be intelligent and perhaps expose some different thought approach to this whole affair..I checked the "gasp" other threads on other sites and was reminded of something..allegedly..my grandfather said/or not.." I didn't think a bunch of Nancy Drews could do a circle jerk"

Posted by: Anon--Amous at January 22, 2008 1:53 PM

warwick- yes, I've never heard that line. Blazing catfur - I'm a 'she', and I have my own children, thank you very much.

Continuin on with the rights of free speech, check out Ezra Levant's comments on his website, on the law students who've filed the case against Macleans/Mark Steyn. The students have posted a website only comment on the Globe and Mail's website and Ezra is commenting on the weakness of their arguments. So are a lot of people in the comments section, who are in support of free speech.

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 1:56 PM

maybe Warman can go to the UK and investigate racism there . . seems to be a lot of it.

Via Cjunk

3w.youtube.com/watch?v=qOBSFkTmo1Y&eurl=http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/tuesday-morning-racist.html

Posted by: Fred at January 22, 2008 2:02 PM

Re: "The complete destruction of Warman's and all (federal and provincial) HRC's ability to continue violating Canadian values and human rights is paramount. The means is secondary."

Respectfully, I disagree (duly noted you said "secondary" not unimportant). I see that it's the means (ie: the HRC's, and the process) that we are going after. In fact, that's part of their argument; that the end (fighting discrimination, bigotry, racism, etc) justifies the means (trampling Canadians right to free speech).

I agree that we sometimes need to "take the gloves off". It's an important fight.

Posted by: Jimbo at January 22, 2008 2:16 PM


By the way, apparently, Ezra Levant won't be on Fox's O'Reilly show tonight; but will be on CNN's Glenn Beck. Glenn is a great, feisty, open person, a conservative...

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 2:25 PM

This line keeps being quoted: "IP Addresses can be spoofed. They can change frequently. 66.185.84.204 could be assigned to one computer today and another computer tomorrow."

Ok. Let's assume there is a chance that this happened.

Two different computers got the same IP addy on different days.

And, somehow, Both posters chose to go to the same site to make racist remarks.

They just happened, completely by coincidence, to make racist remarks on the same site, months apart, on the day when that wandering IP addy happened to be set to their computer.

Does that make the slightest bit of sense to anyone? jeffy and little warren aside.

Posted by: otter at January 22, 2008 2:27 PM

The mind boggles... at how an admission by Kathy that, as a guest blogger, she should have used the words "allegedly" in a post turns into a thread of "barrack block" lawyers trying to figure out if the alledged subject of the alledged post has the computer savy to send racist trash over the internet. Truly a case of a rotten apple turning into a sour orange.

btw, Kathy, full marks on the disclosure.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at January 22, 2008 2:36 PM

Kathy: People threaten others -- hint at bad outcomes -- in an attempt to throw them off and make them panic. But in this case, as in so many others, the threat is a temporary measure, a noisy, airborne, frightening red herring...

...and there it goes. The larger story in the long run will not be about your (now fully-corrected) post.

Your correction is appropriate and straightforward, with full acknowledgment and contrition. It goes above and beyond; you've done the right thing, legally.

In the meantime, for as long as symptomatic nerves and unease make the larger context hard to see, take (read) the following Rx as often as required:

http://www.freedominion.com/images/transcript.gif

Mercy! Now there's the real issue.

BOO! :>)

Posted by: EBD at January 22, 2008 2:40 PM

I've rarely dreaded returning home and firing up my computer so much as I have today.

But I am back as promised.

I wish to clarify (sigh) that the reason I edited the original post this morning has nothing to do with Warren Kinsella or Richard Warman (or even Kate, for those of you who've wondered) asking me to do so.

I don't read Kinsella's blog, so whatever he has or hasn't been saying there has, believe it or not, completely passed me by in the last 48 hours.

I added the word "alleged" this morning because SDA is NOT my web site. A concerned party made the suggestion to add that word for that reason. That suggestion seemed very sound and reasonable to me at the time.

Posts at my own site remain unchanged .

People on all sides are now free -- again, no sarcasm intended -- to interpret, misinterpret, misrepresent, whatever, my updated SDA post to their heart's content.

These allegations didn't originate on Kate's site. Thank you Connie from FreeDominion for stepping up to the plate today to defend your evidence here.

All I ask is that, again, readers focus their comments on me, by name, and not on Kate.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 22, 2008 2:42 PM

Well...sorta. But...

http://www.stageleft.info/2008/01/22/five-feet-of-fury/

Posted by: balbulican at January 22, 2008 2:43 PM

Bravo Kathy.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Be not afraid of Warman. He and the HRC know they are in deep trouble. The HRC bureaucrats know they face an existentialist threat.

Just summarizing: not only does HRC punish people whose speech "may expose" people to contempt [hurt their feelings], but the "plaintiff" need not be a member of the group whose feelings "may" be hurt.
AND, this plaintiff, whose personal feelings haven't been hurt wins 50% of the awards, and pockets the money personally? Doesn't forward it to those whose feelings "may" possibly be hurt?

This is truly mind-bending stuff even for confirmed cynics.
If we persist with this "hurt feelings" nonsense at the very least we might limit the process to people whose feelings are allegedly hurt. In other words, stop granting "intervenor" status to 3rd parties.

I'm looking forward to my next trip stateside. Frankly I was getting a bit tired of the "Did you know that it is illegal to purchase private medical insurance in Canada?"

Kathy: A while back you laughed at me for being "timid" when I advised against simply ignoring a letter from the HRC. I'm guessing you think me a bit less timid today, eh?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at January 22, 2008 2:58 PM

Re: http://www.freedominion.com/images/transcript.gif
posted by EBD. There you go again, derailing a discussion by getting to the point.

Well so much for "the targeted vilification of an honourable man".

"Mr. Warman has specifically, under oath, denied that he authored the posting"

We know what his word is worth. The balance of the evidence does not look good for Mr Warman. I await his response. Did he perjure himself?

Posted by: Jimbo at January 22, 2008 3:09 PM

If we could take the luxury of supposing Richard Warman DID post those comments about Senator Cools, what would be his tactic?

I would submit he would "deny, deny, deny". One could put one in his position. First of all there is no proof whose fingers hit the keyboard. I have often thought of this, should any zealot drag me up in front of a tribunal.

If I was caught in a real hot spot, I would simply say "prove it".
Just the same as anyone's telephone being used, to make an obscene call. Unlikely, but no proof as to who picked up that phone- unless one had a recording.

If Warman did post those comments, he is in a "boiling pit of sewage" of his own making. He cannot at this stage admit to it.

Would any of us?

Posted by: Peter(Lock City) at January 22, 2008 3:11 PM

[quote]However, there are times when fighting fair means you lose. There are times when it's appropriate to take off the gloves. Defending one's fundamental human rights is one of those times.[/quote]

That is totally wrong! Fighting "Hard & Fair" beats unfair every time. You don't want your argument marginalized. I can credit my Sunday school classes with saving my ass multiple times in the corporate world. I am not particularly religious but I know what doesn’t work.

1. Someone posted a message that incites racial hatred, regardless of intent, and that is a crime. The number of impressionable minds (that may think its a valid opinion) reading that message far outnumbers the low hanging fruit. The RCMP MUST investigate! This is not trivial.

2. A person was "targeted" in that message. That is a separate serious crime.

Kshaide: If a Lawyer or Law firm, other than your own attorney, contacted you it "may" be wise to consider posting those "Name's". You don't want to be caught up in a cover-up, nor do intelligent lawyers! I said consider!

Keep Trucken!

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at January 22, 2008 3:18 PM

http://ezralevant.com/

Ezra Levant will be on Glenn Beck's show tonight!!!

Posted by: Joanne at January 22, 2008 3:21 PM

Phillip G. Shaw,

I'd say you have the right to your opinion but you don't seem to want to return the favour.

1) if someone wants to hate, that's their business. You have the right to call them what they are for saying it.

2) unless there is a threat, I have the right to hate you or anyone else I please. You can't make people love you. You can't even make them respect you.

Free speech does have limits but they must be minimal.

Saying "I hate [fill in group here]" should never be illegal. Saying "I admonish you all to go out with your baseball bats and bash all those in [fill in group here] to death" should be.

One is an opinion to which everyone has a right, and one is a call to action. No call to action, no threat, no crime. The difference is paramount.

Consider the penchant for lefties to bash christians at every opportunity. Should this be illegal? If not, why does one group have the right to have their delicate sensibilites protected while another does not?

Free speech isn't conditional on you liking what you hear.

Furthermore, when was the last time you heard of a muslim being hauled to court for yelling "death to the jews" or "death to infidels"? That s**t hasn't happened. Why the double standard.

It seems racist in itself that a white racist is charged for the same thing an Arab muslim is not.

Posted by: Warwick at January 22, 2008 3:47 PM

Kathy just said:

"I added the word "alleged" this morning because SDA is NOT my web site....Posts at my own site remain unchanged ."

Yes! Kathy, you rock! I was about comment that the issue was your "rudeness" to Kate, not bloodying the nose of the odious Warman.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

THIS is why we love you.

Posted by: Tenebris at January 22, 2008 4:00 PM

Again, I suggest that people go to the Globe and Mail website and read the comments of people on the 'argument' of the four Muslim law students who have filed the HRC complaint against Macleans. Their argument is specious and empty.

But, what is heartening is that over 95% of the comments (there are over 200) are against the students, are against the HRCs, are in favour of freedom of speech, including the freedom to offend and be offended. Comments include those from Tarek Fatah, who chastizes the students for their bias and ignorance.

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 4:13 PM

My point is only that anyone whose "expert opinion" (as was stated in the affadavit) is that because the IP address is the same, the person posting must also be the same, ought not to be giving expert opinions about networking; because that argument can be destroyed (at least for courtroom purposes) in about 5 seconds flat by anyone who has a basic understanding of DHCP and network address translation.

Posted by: john g at January 22, 2008 4:17 PM

Thanks Connie for posting. And thanks WLMR for the URL to hear the audio with Mark Fournier.

I would like to add further comments to the issue of the IP addressing. It seems to me that only one poster, "the rat" has understood how IP spoofing really works. For reasons that s/he has stated and many more, IP spoofing is simply a non-starter in this case. That is not what happened.


"My point is only that anyone whose "expert opinion" (as was stated in the affadavit) is that because the IP address is the same, the person posting must also be the same, ought not to be giving expert opinions about networking; because that argument can be destroyed (at least for courtroom purposes) in about 5 seconds flat by anyone who has a basic understanding of DHCP and network address translation."

The issue of static/dynamic IP address is another matter. Many posters have pointed out the possibility of dynamic IP addressing and the very real possibility that an IP address can be assigned to one computer today and a different one tomorrow by the ISP. While this is true, there are additional details that need to be mentioned even in the case of dynamic IP addressing.

The IP address in question was 66.185.84.204 . Each of the four components of the "dotted quad" have a range of from 0 to 255. If a personal computer is connected to the router of an ISP and the network connection is broken, the router (in dynamic IP addressing) may assign the IP address to another computer or it may also assign it to the same computer if that same computer wishes to establish another connection. The key is that the router is tied to the subnet described by the first 3 components (Class A,B,C) of the "dotted quad" (66.185.84) and the router assigns only the 4th component to the end user. In this case, the router assigned "204" as the 4th component (Class D) of the "dotted quad". To be assigned an IP address having the same Class A,B,C as Mr. Warman's computer would mean that the other computer in question was close physically to Mr. Warman's computer. That closeness would be a radius greater than his own neighbourhood but would probably not be more than a few miles.

Please consider the Browser/OS combination:
http://www.cdlib.org/inside/assess/cdlweb_stats/2002-12/browser.html

Both computers were using Windows 98. The above website says that the browser of choice (Mozilla) coupled with the OS of choice (Windows 98) in 2002 (less than a year from the time in question of the posts) is used by users 3.3% of the time.

So let us review the evidence again.

We are being asked to consider the possibility that a computer within a radius of about a few miles from Mr. Warman's computer, that was configured the same as Mr. Warman's which happened to be the same as only 3.3% of Internet browsers, that a user using this computer accessed a rather obscure Web site that is not of interest to general users within a time period of only a few months from when Mr. Warman accessed that site was actually the same as Mr. Warman's.

It was on the strength of this that yesterday I submitted my complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada. I did not detail my argument this way but I will if they contact me for further information. I simply asked them to investigate.

I suppose that the strength of this argument was sufficient for the CHRT ruling. I agrre with John g that it is not sufficient to withstand the stronger demands of evidence in a criminal trial, it seems that it is sufficient to get a warrant to subpeona the records of Rogers. The logs of Rogers will be detailed enough to ascertain to whom the IP address was assigned to on the day in question.

I agree with others that the comments in question do not constitute "criminal hate speech". However, if these comments were made as part of a larger conspiracy to have Web sites shut down or to gain financial compensation through civil proceedings, does that not constitute a crime? If so, the logs from Rogers will be needed.

Does anyone know if police authorities are involved in this capacity?

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 4:39 PM

Thanks Connie for posting. And thanks WLMR for the URL to hear the audio with Mark Fournier.

I would like to add further comments to the issue of the IP addressing. It seems to me that only one poster, "the rat" has understood how IP spoofing really works. For reasons that s/he has stated and many more, IP spoofing is simply a non-starter in this case. That is not what happened.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 4:41 PM

I think there is a lesson for all to study here. There are good reasons why it is appropriate to distinguish in one's rhetoric between what is alleged and what is known, such reasons including veracity and methodology. On the one hand, I have on occasion made the mistake of not doing so in the past. On the other hand, in the HRCs update I sent to my mailing list on Sunday, I mentioned the developing story we are discussing here as follows: "It is alleged that at least two CHRC staff or ex-staff have been actually planting so-called hate speech at web sites, and then complaining about said sites to the HRCs. In one case the alleged planted agitprop concerns a respected Canadian senator [...]".

To be clear, I'm not dumping on anyone for what has happened, indeed, not all the facts are yet fully known. Rather, my point is that I would have hoped that (especially after the disastrous rush to judgment in the Duke Lacrosse case) people would be more aware of the good reasons for separating allegations and opinions from claims of fact. Perhaps this situation will help the learning experience along, not just for anyone in particular, but for everyone, including both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 4:44 PM

brent weston - thanks so very much for your clear and thorough explanation. Your data base does indeed suggest that the law society should investigate Mr. Warman's actions with regard to his blog postings.

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 4:47 PM

On the IP addresses can be spoofed line. Sure. It's just highly improbable that this is what happened. Someone would have to want to get Warman in trouble to do this, and know, in September, what IP address he was using, when he (according to his own testimony) only registered an account in November.

Moreover, with that level of technical sophistication they'd only make posts over a month away from when he actually created his ID in November? Seems improbable.

More likely (though still presumably improbable), someone could have edited the log files at Freedomsite to make that IP look to be guilty of making the racist post about Senator Cools. I consider this unlikely, though I can't judge how unlikely. Again, it's an odd thing to do.

As for the idea that the address remained the same for over a month, that's certainly possible for Rogers subscribers (especially from that era). I know mine remained the same for over a year, despite repeatedly powering down the modem for extended periods.

Mr. Warman apparently argued that he did just that; unless he also (via command line tools or his router) released his lease on the IP address, this would be unlikely to have resulted in a changed IP address being assigned when he powered back up.

As Connie Fournier says, however, the fact that Windows 98 and MSIE 6 were being used is extremely interesting. According to W3schools.com, about 12.1% of their users were Windows 98 users in September 2003; about 10.9% in November 2003.

Windows 98 was an uncommon OS at the time, though possibly more common than 10% as visitors to the W3schools site tend to be browsing enthusiasts slightly more likely to have newer technology.

The figures for IE6 for around that time are about 70%; it was the most common browser. Nothing unusual there, though I suspect a lot of Windows 98 users were sticking with the less demanding IE5 at the time, making IE6/Win98 a slightly odd combination.

If we knew the browser resolution and colour depth (also available in most logs), we'd have another interesting datum to further narrow things down.

As for the poorly secured wireless access point argument, I tend to discount that, given that the September computer was running Windows 98. It would be unusual to find a machine that old running semi-current wireless technology. By no means impossible, and true, it could have been a business-class notebook (4-5 years old though?) that was so-equipped. (Any newer and a business-class machine would almost certainly have been running Windows 2000 or XP).

I'm afraid I don't think much of the expert witness, Mr. Klatt, and neither did the Tribunal. They appear to have concluded he was biased, and, having read his affidavit, I'm somewhat underwhelmed. He does not come across as technically sophisticated, and I think he overstates some conclusions. On the other hand, if he did the basic investigative work, that's a mark in his favour.

I don't think I could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that, assuming no tampering with the logs took place, someone using Mr. Warman's computer made both postings, but on the balance of the evidence, I think it quite likely. Perhaps even extremely likely.

Kathy Shaidle is correct to be cautious; as I've written above (and as others have noted) there are other possibilities, and without Rogers saying "Yes, this was Mr Warman's IP address at the time of the first posting in September" we cannot conclude anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Regards,
-Holmwood.

Posted by: Holmwood at January 22, 2008 4:51 PM

Thanks and you are welcome, ET.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 4:59 PM

Brent Weston says some good things in his post above, beating me to it while I was busy writing. Fortunately to some degree our posts are complementary.

@Brent, you seem to have one error: you state that he was using Mozilla. In fact, the user agent string cited was: "Browser = Mozilla 4.0 compatible MSIE 6.0", meaning a Mozilla compatible browser that was in fact Internet Explorer 6.

This does change the statistics from around 2% of computers in use to around 10%.

Regards,
Holmwood

Posted by: Holmwood at January 22, 2008 4:59 PM

Don't know if anyone has linked THIS . Here we go again . Not cartoons this time but a short film by Geert Wilders regarding the ROP .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at January 22, 2008 5:21 PM

If someone is claiming that his IP address had been "spoofed", then he is only advancing a part of the necessary explanation.

It is also necessary to spoof the HTTP headers - which is trivial - those parts which provide the environment details necessary for the server to fulfill the HTTP GET/POST/PUT request - trivial if you are running a program other than an off-the-shelf browser which can issue HTTP requests, and can be programmed to provide identical request headers.

For a spoofer to pull that off, the spoofer would have to have the request header information from one of the earlier, authentic requests. That implies collaboration between the server owner and the spoofer. Normally, request header information for other users is not available publicly. An IP address can be guessed, for spoofing purposes, but the probability of getting both the IP address correct, AND THE HTTP HEADERS correct is Sagan-esque. I believe I have greater odds in the lottery.

Interesting indeed that he missed that part of his explanation.

I am wondering if it is his assertion that NOT ONLY was his IP address "spoofed", but also the HTTP headers? If and if, then why was this part of the explanation missed?

It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that a server owner colluded with a 3rd party to pull off such a stunt. Examination of the request time stamps could also tell us how much time elapsed betweent the authentic requests and the allegedly spoofed requests. Within that period of time, the colluders would have to extract the information from the server logs, and program the non-browser or source-modified browser, as well as the spoofing TCP/IP stack, and have it work perfectly.

I am finding it very difficult to buy the "explanation".

Posted by: shaken at January 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Freedom of speech can be a real drag some times.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28689_Netherlands_Merchant_Puts_Anne_Frank_in_a_Kaffiyeh#comments

Posted by: Shawn at January 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Thanks, Holmwood, for the correction. Although this changes the intensity of the argument slightly, I do not think it changes the essence of the argument that there is sufficient reason to subpeona the logs of Rogers should this get that far.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 5:32 PM

This is interesting. Free Dominion has a story up ("Richard Warman, international man of mystery"), containing links to a post on Stormfront (a disgusting racist site). Click at your own risk.

Apparently Mr. Warman has admitted under oath to creating the Stormfront account "pogue mahone".

Interestingly, he did so (according to the information under his posting alias) in September 2003.

I wonder what IP address he was using then? If that information is available, it could be pretty conclusive one way or the other.

For me, I've no further desire to plumb the sewers. This is a very bad business all around.

Posted by: Holmwood at January 22, 2008 5:37 PM

*
jeffy bugboy davidson says... you were a lot more pleasant a few months
ago when you left me daily messages at my blog."

in direct contrast to mean-drunk jeffy bugboy himself...

"ps. in 2008, try & be a little more clever than jeffy bug boy...
happy new year prick."

Posted by Jeff Davidson to halls of macadamia at 1:22 AM, January 01, 2008

*

Posted by: neo at January 22, 2008 5:46 PM

Jeffwie...your mom's calling,seems you missed one house on your paper route this morning.And change your diaper will you cause you sure are full of shit.

Posted by: h.ryan. at January 22, 2008 5:46 PM

Being there...why do you left wing surrender monkeys come here anyway,should you not be on a float at some gay pride parade?

Posted by: h.ryan. at January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

It's only libel or slander when you say something that you know is false.
So relax. We are allowed to comment on this interesting development without being hauled in by the thought police.

Posted by: sf at January 22, 2008 5:51 PM

"I wonder what IP address he was using then?"

I wonder what MAC address Rogers logged to go with that IP? 'Cuz that would be really interesting.

Posted by: Sean at January 22, 2008 6:01 PM

This is going to be the fight of their life, because if Warman goes down, so do the rest of them. The potential for people, past and present, hauled before the hrc's to sue the government is not going to be far behind if large scale corruption is uncovered. It is out there now, the hrc's are corrupt, a tool of the left to hush dissenters. I got a gut feeling all hell is going to break lose on this.

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:16 PM

*
"sean said... I wonder what MAC address Rogers logged to go with that IP?
'Cuz that would be really interesting."

sean nails this... you can conceivably get an ip addy reassigned... but the
mac address is unique and hardwired into each ethernet card.

*

Posted by: neo at January 22, 2008 6:27 PM

sean nails this... you can conceivably get an ip addy reassigned... but the
mac address is unique and hardwired into each ethernet card.

This isn't true at all. Virtually all onboard network cards have programmable MAC addresses, one of which is randomly generated the first time the system BIOS is initialized. It is usually quite trivial to obtain the relevant utility for your particular chipset and manually program a new MAC address.


Posted by: Mike Brock at January 22, 2008 6:29 PM

Now its a puzzle to the computer literate people on this blog.....that should ensure a solid answer will eventually be found....the politics dont matter just figuring out the puzzle.

Thanks to all those who are contributing. Very interesting reading, in a really geeky way. Also the best way to proof the evidence and theory is to expose it to the "many minds" on the internet.

Would the Mac address capture if it was, however unlikely, a wireless capture (soembody war driving)

In other words, would the Mac address show from the router or the guy sitting in his car with a laptop outside? If the laptop then if I understand it correctly that would be the way to rule out a third party using an unsecure wireless connection.

Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2008 6:36 PM

This reminds me of the Dr. Charles Smith coroner case. Very well respected doctor, who had innocent people sent to jail, on his say, without anyone else investigating. No one in a position of power doubted his word, or reports. Turns out he was on a sicko power trip. We all know where he is going to end up.

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:37 PM

If he was using a router, would it not be a 192. address? I could be wrong but are not all routers 192. Is there a way of getting past the 192 and getting to the assigned ip from the outside in?

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:39 PM

It's only libel or slander when you say something that you know is false.
So relax. We are allowed to comment on this interesting development without being hauled in by the thought police.

Posted by: sf at January 22, 2008 5:51 PM

Wrong. Truth is a defence but belief -even an honest belief- is not a defence to civil defamation (Libel or slander) though it is a defence to criminal libel.

This is from an actual case

Defamation consists of a false statement which tends to lower, diminish, or injure a person's reputation.[FN7] A person with a good reputation will be more seriously damaged than others without one. A person in public life who is widely known will be entitled to substantial damages if his character is defamed.

Terry Gain LLB

Posted by: Terry Gain at January 22, 2008 6:40 PM

Looks like stormy weather on the horizon for Mr. Warman.

As for a certain Liberal-hack defender of his, he'll just have to change the topic again.

As Holmwood mentioned above:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=94172&sid=8dbf6d6874e7ba851bd98a1ac6dba52c

Amazing. One could have gone to certain sites and
have come away with the conclusion that the CHRC should investigate, based on certain comments. Only to find out much later that....

Wow.

Posted by: EBD at January 22, 2008 6:40 PM

..yeah, but Terry, I don't think Warman has a good reputation.

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:42 PM

Um, actually, SF's comment at 17:51 above doesn't agree with what the Criminal Code of Canada says. I've placed some extracts from sections 298 through 315 that should be of general interest to bloggers here:

sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2008/01/defamatory-libel.html

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 6:43 PM

...and what about Dion, he is a widely known person, and there aren't many, even in his own party that don't call him names, and consider him a twit.

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:44 PM

Hitler was a vegetarian and had respect for animals as we all should (I think proud18 has expressed similar sentiments and WCFU has something in their site about this too).Richard Warman- aka:pogue mahone


Does anyone know if he used this same line when he was running for the Green party?

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 6:53 PM

The fact that Alexan Kulbashian's section 13 complaint against Richard Warman was thrown out despite the fact that the investigator agreed that Warman had violated the Human Rights Act just goes to show the depth of the rot. (...)

What's ironic is that Kulbashian's complaint against (Warman) was thrown out because the CHRC said it was "frivolous and vexatious". (Even though they said he had violated the Human Rights Act)

Yet, Warman himself has been allowed to file some 23 complaints, and that is not considered frivolous or vexatious.


http://tinyurl.com/2ydnsg

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 7:08 PM

From CHRT Transcripts -- allegedly -- file number T1087/6805, PDF downloadable:

Ms Warsame: "At the top of that document under where it says 'Live International Radio' there is a -- is there a sentence starting with 'Welcome'?"

Warman: "Yes."

Ms. Warsame: "Can you tell us the meaning of that name after 'Welcome'?

Warman: "That states: 'Welcome pogue mahone', and the reason for that is because that was one of the pseudonyms that I used to log onto Stormfront, and monitoring the website. Basically I picked that title because it was the name of an Irish Celtic music band that went by the name of The Pogue Mahones, and then eventually they shortened their name to The Pogues."

Connie Fournier notes that someone using the pseudonym "pogue mahone" made 93 posts on Stormfront, including this one:

"There's a reason it's called 'White' Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement..."

Posted by: EBD at January 22, 2008 7:09 PM

Thanks, Vitruvius: we needed that.

Posted by: GDW at January 22, 2008 7:17 PM

Connie Fournier said:


This is a perfect example of the kind of politics of personal destruction that is the specialty of the left.
The basis for our article was a technical report based on objective findings regarding IP addresses and log files. The evidence was submitted by someone who has been accepted by the CHRT as an expert witness on several occasions, and the report was in the public transcripts.
Anyone who thinks that Free Dominion is a white supremacist site has never been there, they are idiots, or they are lying through their teeth. Free Dominion is one of the most pro-Isreal sites in Canada and the white supremacists ridicule us on their sites for that reason.
What is happening here is that the issue is deliberately being clouded. Warman and company have no evidence to refute what we have presented or they would have produced it before now. This has been in the public record since 2006.
So, now we are being called racists. Predictable.
I guess the question to all of you who AREN'T sockpuppets is "How badly do you want to be free?".
Are you willing to stick your head up and allow people to throw muck at you because you know that it isn't true and you know that your friends will stand behind you?
Or will you stand up and fight with people whose opinions you abhor because you know that if the leftists win this battle we are all doomed?
Nobody said that standing up for the truth would be easy, so if you choose to throw us to the wolves to save yourselves, I won't blame you one bit.
But, I'm not going to bow to them.

Take my word for whatever it is worth to you:

I'm one of Free Dominion's founding members, and neither Connie or Mark have a racist or bigoted bone in their bodies- they run one of the cleanest sites I've ever belonged to- online since 1981.

When members go over the line, they are reprimanded, and the more egregious are banned.

This is nothing more or less than standard operating procedure for the Left- spin, smear, and obfuscate.

It was anticipated.

Posted by: backhoe at January 22, 2008 7:17 PM

You're welcome, GDW. While I am not a lawyer, it would seem to me that what has been going on here at SDA is largely allowed at least under the spirit of sections 301, 312, and 315 of the Criminal Code.

On the other hand, there are statutes other than the CC that apply, such as civil law, and as we now know only too well, things like the "Human Rights" acts. And then of course, there's always precedent, under which the stark words of the statutes are interpreted.

sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2008/01/defamatory-libel.html

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 7:26 PM

So this Warman guy denied using the name "lucie" but later admitted to the nom-de-plume of "lucy" [or was it "Lucy"]. He is now denying that he is "90sAREover". He seems to have a record of diversion and avoidance, or is it a preferance for obsfucation [when it suits him]. Is it the type font he doesn't admit to, or what? Perhaps he has multiple personalities. He seems like a nutcake to me. How many questions need to be asked before he finally concedes the truth in this matter? It looks like the process to the truth is underway.

Posted by: David at January 22, 2008 7:28 PM

"90sAREover" was using a Hotmail address. Any chance of Microsoft shedding light on his/her actual identity?

Posted by: Chris B at January 22, 2008 7:39 PM

"90sAREover" was using a Hotmail address. Any chance of Microsoft shedding light on his/her actual identity?

What , you think this is China or something ? ..... hold on ....

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at January 22, 2008 7:52 PM

Kathy Shaidle, thank you for stepping up and being honest and responsible. These are traits that we don't see in some circles.

Kathy and Kate, keep up the good work!!!

Posted by: carlosroberto at January 22, 2008 7:53 PM

If he was using a router, would it not be a 192. address? I could be wrong but are not all routers 192. Is there a way of getting past the 192 and getting to the assigned ip from the outside in?

No, that's the internal address. The external one is the one that websites record and that is what would be recorded, if a router is present. If there is not router it would be the computer's address. Read up on a Network Address Translation (NAT)

Posted by: the rat at January 22, 2008 7:59 PM

David- how do you come up with the conclusion that Warman was using the email name of 'lucie'? The data I've seen, from the Feb1/07 CHRT hearing (case T1073/5405) only mentions 'Lucy'. Warman acknowledges that he used that email address.

No, we don't know whether or not he did or did not use, or whether or not he denies or admits to using the email address of 90sAreover. All we know is that this second address is the same IP/ISP as 'Lucy'. That's all.

Mr. Warman apparently used another email name, poguemahone, to post to another blog, Stormfront (see comments above). "From CHRT Transcripts -- allegedly -- file number T1087/6805, PDF downloadable".

Posted by: ET at January 22, 2008 8:00 PM

This is good. I know we are not government appointed, but I think we have as much right as an hrc to put Warman on trial in the court of public opinion.

Let the fact finding begin. I can tell by reading the blogs, there are some brilliant minds that post. Let the fact finding mission began! Let's blow the hrc's out of the water, do it for Canada!

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 8:13 PM

What methods did Warman use to get isp addresses? Could not Warman's victims use the same tactics as he is trying?

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 8:18 PM


"Apparently Mr. Warman has admitted under oath to creating the Stormfront account "pogue mahone"."

Wini/Google 'pogue mahone,it's a punk rock group.

I think W.K. is poking sticks thru the bars and laughing his arse off.Funny how when there is a smell of feces in the political air that W.K. is somewhere around?

Posted by: Dexter at January 22, 2008 8:40 PM

http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=66.185.84.204

on ARin:WHOIS database. I ran the ip. I don't know if this information is useful or not. Not sure if it is the address of Rogers or the owner of the internet modem. I know they keep records of their modems and where they are.Is it possible to link an ip to a mac address? Would Rogers have arecord of every ip that was assigned to a modem?


OrgName: Rogers Cable Communications Inc.
OrgID: RCC-104
Address: One Mount Pleasant
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M4Y-2Y5
Country: CA

NetRange: 66.185.80.0 - 66.185.95.255
CIDR: 66.185.80.0/20
NetName: ROGERS-CAB-104
NetHandle: NET-66-185-80-0-1
Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS2.YM.RNC.NET.CABLE.ROGERS.COM
NameServer: NS2.WLFDLE.RNC.NET.CABLE.ROGERS.COM
NameServer: NS3.YM.RNC.NET.CABLE.ROGERS.COM
NameServer: NS3.WLFDLE.RNC.NET.CABLE.ROGERS.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2001-11-01
Updated: 2006-12-05

OrgTechHandle: IPMAN-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP MANAGE
OrgTechPhone: +1-416-935-4729
OrgTechEmail: ipmanage@rogers.wave.ca

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-01-21 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Other WHOIS Servers: AfriNIC APNIC LACNIC RIPE InterNIC
Request Bulk Copies of ARIN WHOIS Data


Could someone please explain to me what this means?

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 8:48 PM

The point remains, Evron, that if someone posted agent provocateur agitprop at a web site and then went and complained about that site to the HRCs, then we have a public commons ethics problem on our hands. That's what's being debated here, not the use of aliases per se.

PS to HP: The whois data is not technically interesting.

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 8:56 PM

Please focus on Connie.s latest post....all this crap about matching IPs is moot to the fact Warman broke the law by posting hate messaging on aneo nazi site ...this is confirmed in affidavit...and a complaint was launched agaisnt him for spreading hate messaging with the CHRC...the CHRC investigator found that this was a fact...that Warman broke the hate laws several times...he recommended the complaint go through...but the CHTC dropped the complaint.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 8:59 PM

If there isn't a law for using an alias on the internet to fraudulently obtain funds from the hrc victims, there should be.

Posted by: Honey Pot at January 22, 2008 9:01 PM

googled richard warman
human rights gestpo 2nd from top

Bwahahaha...snort, giggle

Posted by: orvict at January 22, 2008 9:04 PM

Please don't bold your whole comments, Redux. While I'm not critiquing your opinion, it remains the case that just because you think that what you have to say is so important, it doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to suffer from having our eyeballs blown out.

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 9:07 PM

ET,
I have read much about this in the recent days, and cannot recall where I saw the "lucie" spelling, and that actually may have been an error, or not. However, in a strict sens, if he was asked if he used an alias of "xxxxy" and it was actually "xxxY" and the question was too tightly put, I suppose a denial might not be a lie. I think you can see what I mean. BTW: is it "90sAreover" or "90sAREover"?

Posted by: David at January 22, 2008 9:23 PM

Yes, I checked out his blog, Irwin, but now I'm invoking Kate's Take your extended flamewars to private email rule (below) and will not be engaging the man further other than on substantive issues.

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 9:24 PM

*
"mike brock says... Virtually all onboard network cards have programmable MAC addresses"


uh, mike... 99 percent of the people out there don't know what a mac address is... never
mind that they can now be changed. i didn't and i'm a techie guy myself.

just to be clear... you not actually saying you think someone actually spoofed warman's
ip and his mac address
, are you?

'cos we're getting into alien abduction territory here.

*

Posted by: neo at January 22, 2008 9:30 PM

allegedly?...Giggle snort

Posted by: orvict at January 22, 2008 9:33 PM

Vitruvious : isn't there enough hubris to go around without taking it to a purely petty level?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 9:57 PM

It was just an honest comment on psychotypography,
Redux. You had asked about the matter here before
at SDA. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it.
I did say "please" ;-)

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 22, 2008 10:06 PM

"Thanks, Holmwood, for the correction. Although this changes the intensity of the argument slightly, I do not think it changes the essence of the argument that there is sufficient reason to subpeona the logs of Rogers should this get that far."

@Brent. I can't competently speak about the reasons to subpoena the logs (I wish I could). You are correct, my correction does not materially change your argument. I don't even think it affects the intensity.

I just didn't want you filing documents or SDA quoting you on something that was obviously an error.

And I felt your post was better than mine at laying out the probabilities, so thanks.

I'd certainly love to see Rogers divulge who had that IP address in September '03.

It would clear Mr. Warman or damn him.

That said, if it turns out that Stormfront.org has forensically verifiable proof that Mr. Warman registered "pogue mahone" using the same IP address as was used to make the "anne cools" post then it tightens the noose, even without Rogers.

Personally, I don't want to go there. My Dad came to this country (legally!) from Africa, and I'm disgusted by what I see on that site. That said, I think bigots and racists have a right to spout their ignorant garbage and the best disinfectant is sunlight, rather than the lash of the state.

Regards,
-Holmwood

Posted by: Holmwood at January 22, 2008 11:37 PM

Well spoken, Holmwood.

Posted by: irwin daisy at January 22, 2008 11:53 PM

Kathy, don't apologize and don't back down. You're not wrong. The evidence (to anybody remotely tech savvy, anyway) is overwhelming, and the only thing you should be doing is showing these left-wingers your middle finger.

Show some confidence. Stand strong and never, ever apologize. They take to it like piranhas to blood. They take your quotes out of context to make it seem as though you're not even strongly behind your own case. They use your apology as a "right-winger close to the case rescinding her own position" as evidence to a false claim that even the conservatives don't really believe their own side of this.

Don't apologize. Fight.

Posted by: Christian Lewis at January 23, 2008 4:19 AM

Couple of quick things at the bottom of the thread.

1) Rogers may have purged the IP lease information.
2) Warman has a perfect right, indeed, if he is to retain whatever reputation he has, need to sue FD.
3) If he sues he opens himself to through Discovery
4) If he sues it will be a civil matter and thus a balance of probabilities
5) Warman has admitted he has posted as a sock puppet from the IP in question

Bottom line: paper may well fly here. If it does we all need to be ready to toss dollars into the defence fund and, most importantly, go with the most plausible, probable, explanation as to how two rounds of racist crap came from the same IP.

Sure, it is possible that drive by Anne Cools haters popped by Warman's house and hacked his (possibly wireless) modem and posted this filth. And it is possible that a flock of flying pigs will be picking up a snowball in Hell next Tuesday.

In civil court a "balance of probabilities" replaces the rather more exacting standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which Warman knows. As does the liar Kinsella.

Butter the popcorn by all means but don't be surprised if there is no actual show.

Posted by: Jay Currie at January 23, 2008 4:52 AM

I agree Jay, I note that a lawyer friend (in fact 2) doubted that a potential libel action by Warman would have much hope of surviving discovery.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 23, 2008 6:53 AM

"It was just an honest comment on psychotypography,
Redux. You had asked about the matter here before
at SDA. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it.
I did say "please" ;-)"

Sorry Vitruvius I'm not a practioner of psychotypography...I really was not tyring out my MI6 black ops mind control typo tech with y'all ;-)

The bloody HTML tabs got away on me and instead of highlighting a sentence the whole post was bolded...there seems to be a tick between the submit text and the way the server's program deals with them...second time this happened

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 23, 2008 8:12 AM

Kathy, I am usually careful to use words like "supposed", "alleged", "maybe" and etc. because I'm un-trusting and averse to lawsuits, not because of any punctilious respect for the law. Mr. Warman has, by his actions with the CHRC, amply demonstrated he has no respect for my rights. I see no reason I should have any for his. The law has become something to be feared and avoided at all costs, in the face of such an indiscriminate destroyer of lives we must all become word weasels or parish.

I observe that the fear you are feeling right now, that being the possibility that you have -accidentally- opened a friend to disaster through legal action, is the kind of feeling that comes only from living in an un-free country. The fear is caused by the sudden realization that some capricious, malicious, or even entirely disinterested government organization can ruin your life over an internet posting where you forgot to say the word "alleged".

I was brought up, in Canada, to believe that the law was there to protect good people and punish those who do bad things on purpose. This appears to have been a snow job, propaganda from the Ministry of Love to keep the kiddies in line.

Mr. Warman's Canada is not the place I grew up in. It is not the Canada I want. It is not even the kind of Canada I'm willing to put up with.

Conservative MPs and wannabes take note, MY vote goes to the guy who gets this monkey off my back.

Posted by: The Phantom at January 23, 2008 8:34 AM

Perish! D'oh!

Posted by: The Phantom at January 23, 2008 8:41 AM

Great piece from Ezra Levant today:

http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/odds-and-ends-1.html

"Essentially they are pleading for Steyn and I as special cases. Is it because I'm a Jew and Steyn sounds like he might be, too? Is it because we're being sued by Muslim fanatics? Or is it because the CJC is taking some political heat for their support of these illiberal, anti-intellectual commissions, and the CJC's alliance with Richard Warman, the serial human rights complainant and foul-mouthed, anti-Black, misogynist bigot?"

"Offensive and anti-Semitic free speech didn't kill the Jews during the Holocaust. Murderous men did, and they only did when real rights and freedoms were destroyed -- the right to property; the right to life; the right to equality before the law; mobility rights; freedom of religion; freedom of association. Violent acts killed the Jews, not 'feelings' of 'contempt'. How revolting that the official Jews now propose limiting real rights and freedoms in the vain hope that will stop people from feeling 'hatred' for them. I'm no anti-Semite, but if I'm anything to go by, the CJC, and the other supporters of these unconstitutional laws are the ones engendering feelings of contempt."

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 23, 2008 9:06 AM

"This isn't true at all. Virtually all onboard network cards have programmable MAC addresses, one of which is randomly generated the first time the system BIOS is initialized. It is usually quite trivial to obtain the relevant utility for your particular chipset and manually program a new MAC address."

Uh huh. And what are the odds that different computers over a month apart would log the SAME "randomly" generated MAC address with the SAME operating system, SAME browser, and on the SAME site posting the SAME type of hateful comments?

Dude. Gimme some credit here, wouldya?

Posted by: Sean McCormick at January 23, 2008 11:15 PM

Gets better than that Sean.

The netblock in question is only 16 class C's and was assigned to Rogers in 2001. That means that it's only possible for 4047 computers to have an IP address in that range.

Cheers,
lance

Posted by: lance at January 24, 2008 12:05 PM

The "expert technology witness" is Bernard Klatt. Where is the independent verification that "90sAREover"'s IP address is the number Klatt claims it to be? How do we know he didn't just make up an IP address that was close to a known Warman IP? We don't. You are relying entirely on Klatt's word. Now, what's wrong with that you ask? Read on - Klatt is not a neutral party, he has a very good reason to falsify an IP address in order to smear Warman

Hate-literature incidents cited
Canadian Press
27 July 1996
Winnipeg Free Press

PENTICTON, B.C. - A former employee of an Internet provider who lets racist groups spout their views through his service says his ex-boss gave him white supremacist literature.

Tyrone Mills, who worked for Fairview Technology Centre in 1994, says Bernard Klatt gave him literature from the White Aryan Resistance and invited him to an Aryan Nations compound at Hayden Lake, Idaho. ''I said no, I had no interest at all, and that was that,'' said Mills, who worked for Klatt for seven months. ''Another time he asked me, in 1995, to manage his (business) while he was down in Hayden Lake.''

He said Klatt voiced racist views at work and once asked him to take the literature to a friend.

Klatt denied Mills's charges.

The small Internet service in the Okanagan Valley provides access to at least 12 white supremacy and hate groups.

But it could be going off-line. The local cable TV company has cut off Fairview's cable access and ordered Klatt to get his server computer out of its offices.

Klatt said he has no personal contacts with any white supremacist groups and does not espouse their views.

Posted by: Roger at January 25, 2008 2:46 AM
Site
Meter