If you're not familiar with the Mark Lemire case, and Richard Warman lawsuit against Ezra Levant, then start here.
...
Judge for yourself.
Disclaimer: I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the evidence, by which I compiled this inforgraphic. However, the evidence in question, was submitted as a sworn affidavit, by a third-party expert witness.
wow, brock. you are not half as smart as i gave you credit for... you should write a book: how to libel yourself with bullshit evidence fabricated by racists, and pay for other people's retirement in doing so.
Ah, brave Mr. Doe, it appears that the affidavit in question relies upon material that Lucy Warman submitted himself. Of course, being the ace super spy, perhaps Lucy faked his own material to sucker those vile racists and the Court and the CHRC. But that would be perjury and a fraud upon the Court so I'm betting not.
Who said that it was impossible for Warman to have had the IP for four weeks?
Does it matter that Mike's "a third-party expert witness" is a neo-Nazi affiliated with the Aryan Nations?
Guess not. Your "expertise" is selective, perhaps!
Wow, John Doe. Do you have any proof that Freedomsite's logs are "bullshit evidence fabricated by racists"? Because you're basically accusing Marc Lemire of manufacturing evidence and perjuring himself in an affidavit before the CHRT. That's a very serious accusation. Probably libelous, if not true.
I don't see how explaining what a court document says to a layman is libel. Especially where Mike Brock has explicitly disclaims that he can't independently verify the Freedomsite log evidence.
But thugs like you that try to shut down folks honestly trying to get to the bottom of the Warman matter see libel everywhere when the evidence doesn't favor your side.
I am sure that any member of the legal profession in good standing, will vouch for the objectivity of our judiciary, that they will weigh evidence and make their judgements based on the truth as opposed to the drive by rantings of a few malcontents.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Lemire's clear association with white supremist Paul Fromm?
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Mr. Lemire's clear association with white supremist Paul Fromm?
I have none. I don't associate with racists. Nor do I go out of my way to defend them. I think whether or not evidence was planted in these investigations is a completely separate issue from the character or the beliefs of Mark Lemire.
Mike Brock wrote:
"I think whether or not evidence was planted in these investigations is a completely separate issue from the character or the beliefs of Mark Lemire."
Because you think Nazis are as trustworthy as normal people?
The CHRT accepted Bernard Klatt as an expert witness on more than one occasion. Warman could also have called his own expert witness, but he chose not to do so.
By the way, is it not a crime to harass and intimidate a witness? Or does that not apply in kangaroo court?
Warren K, just because someone (I assume you mean Klatt) has these weird affiliations (if this is in fact true), does not mean they will leave themselves open to losing their house. It would be an extraordinarily risky move, given Warman’s litigious nature.
If those logs are indeed missing, which seems to be the case, it could be Warman’s get out of jail card. The devil, it is said, takes care of his own.
Yea BCL I know what ya mean, "Normal" people would like never attempt a drive by "guilt by association" smear of say a Keith Martin or somethin underhanded like that no sir not ever, so there;)
Warren K: that depends.
Do you mean from a technical standpoint, or a political one?
"supremist Paul Fromm?" Was Fromm like the 5th Supreme or somethin? Did he fill in after Dianna Ross left? I dunno, I can't picture him in a sequined gown.
I don't associate with racists.
Yes, you do. With Kathy "Arabs are violent retards" Shaidle.
Don't lie, Mike.
With respect to the question about the lease on the dynamic IP address, the ISP's DHCP daemon configuration should provide additional information on the likelihood that the IP address was not bound to the network endpoint in question at the time in question. Typically, policy aspects of these configurations is usually quite static, over several years. They tend to be established and left alone. DHCP lease times is one such policy aspect in the configuration.
It would also be noted weather the physical network link was broadband, or dialup.
If the lease on the IP address covered the period in question, and the connection was broadband, then if a 3rd party spoofed, they must have done so by obtaining the MAC address of the NIC off the wire by sniffing, and using that in a customized TCP stack.
In the event that this did occur, then the ISP's dynamic routing tables would have changed, rendering the target's link inoperable (unreachable). So there are two questions: was that service braodband or dialup, and if broadband, did the target experience any interruption in service or difficulties in network routing at the time in question. If answer to (a) is broadband, and (b) no, then my opinion is that any doubt based on a spoofing theory is not a reasonable doubt.
The Canadian Human Rights Act forbids anyone from threatening, intimidating or discriminating against somebody who gives evidence or helps an investigation.
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/investigation-en.asp
"Don't lie, Mike." Sigh...Yawn...is that Liberal I smell fuming?
"Yawn...is that Liberal I smell fuming?"
No, it's your blazing cat fur, dear. Might I recommend Summer's Eve?
Warren K,
Accusing (publicly) the "expert" of essentially committing a criminal act of concocting evidence in a court of law as well as perjury???
Interesting.
Also,
if a Nazi proclaimed the earth was round would you then assume the earth was flat? How far does your proclivity towards the personal attack in place of logic and reason go? Just wondering.
BCL, much leftist philosophy is based on a misreading of human nature. As an ex-customer of British Rail, I should know…
Your opinion that a neo-Nazi is incapable of ANY rational thought is one such. For a start, the way the word Nazi is overused by the left (and the right, when they accuse Ms McGovern of being one), it could apply to at least half the population.
Secondly, no one is 100% bad. To suggest that Klatt cannot possibly tell the truth flies in the face of both these self evident facts.
Warren K said:
Does it matter that Mike's "a third-party expert witness" is a neo-Nazi affiliated with the Aryan Nations?
I don't know Warren. What are you saying exactly? Your sentence makes little sense to me. Who is a "neo-Nazi affiliated with the Aryan Nations"? Mike? Lemire? Someone else?
And what are you implying about that "third-party expert witness"? That he or she perjured himself and/or manufactured evidence because he's a neo-Nazi? Got proof?
If Mark is lying about this, it would be libel, if. Why then haven't Canada's most litigious duo targeted him?
Their silence is telling. Never mind the character assassinations like below.
If it was bullshit like John Doe says why no law suit?
Well Richard "thanks for the new car" Warman , could have proven himself innocent he choses not to. Why we can only guess,
1 Why doesn't Warman just come out and say he didn't do it?
2 Why doesn't he demand the records be made public?
3 Why doesn't he sue Mark Lemire for this slander?
It's what a truly innocent person would do especially one with the legal savvy of Warman.
Unless what Mark Lemire says is the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. Then the name calling makes sense.
The nice liberals in Canada have killed 3.5 million via abortion I wonder how that compares to the terrible Aryan Nations.
Kinsella, Kinsella, Warren Kinsella, hmmmmm
"It is my view Mr. J.C. Guité...should be assigned to carry out this review on a full-time basis," Kinsella wrote.
Source
Maybe the CBC are Nazi's too, LOL.
If Mark was guilty of a real hate crime was he tried in a real court or a "cherry pick the charter" human rights commission. Was he guilty of breaking a hate law? For what? quoting the passages in the bible like Hugh Owens? in front of a pay Richard Warman the money, commission?, or in a real court where we do have real hate laws.
Course I'm one of those people who thinks white males should get jobs they are best qualified for. I don't have a chief of staff advocating to put me in charge of sponsorships like Guite. And it is curious that money stolen would end up in liberal pockets sounds like there's more that doesn't meet the eye.
Well with Mr Kinsella I wonder if he posted under this IP here 207.35.190.72? I'm guessing not unless he was at work late. Funny he comes in under Pollara I'll never look at their polling info the same.
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=2933
A few weeks after I posted that I was bumped back to this at SDA. Then I checked and sure enough the same IP.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007565.html
Did Mike have to pull any posts about Kate's dogs?
Now what are the odds John Doe and Warren K post in rapid succesion to one another? Honestly W & R - the labeling of those that disagree with you as "Neo-Nazis" and "Racist" is getting boring and is the same that was used to try and halt or derail MP K. Martin's Motion.
If you look at suggestions on other BLOGS, there sure seems to be a lot of alteration of Wikipedia entries lately. Warmans was altered 2 times this Month so far, Kisella's once and surprise - an ENTRY for Bernard KLATT was created without his consent. I think KLATT will get a home in Florida out of it from whomever did it.
The plot thickens & Someone is getting scared. And John Doe - if you are sure of your facts - please ask the RCMP to investigate and save the taxpayers and individual bloggers lots of time in court for libel and defamation - just hoping they will all go away.
So you can prove RW had the IP on Oct 15 and again in Nov. So what - you need proof that he had the IP on Sept 5 ( actually you need to prove that he had the IP and that there were no room mates, partner or house guest that could have posted from that IP - but to keep it simple lets focus on IP )
Levant sez both of the following:
A: RW posted X
B: RW is a racist because he posted X
"A" is a statement of fact. It is not an opinion or comment and so the defense of fair comment is not available. Justification would be a defense however the truth of that fact must be proved on a balance of probabilities. Case law establishes that in defamation actions the more serious the defamation the higher the probability needed- but for the sake of simplicity lets keep it at the lowest 51% for RW posting 49% against.
If RW was one of only two people who could have the IP that will not get you over the threshold - it's still only 50-50. You might try to increase the odds by adding factors x,y,z to RW but that will not help unless you can show x,y,z are not also associated with person 2. ( e.g. you can only increase the probability that RW made the post because he is anglo-german if you can show person 2 is not anglo-german). If you don't even know who person 2 is you obviously can't show a lack of x,y,z and are hooped. If you don't know who 341 people are you're really really hooped ( and that's if you can even show that all the assumptions used to arrive at the 341 figure are correct).
Fair comment would be a defense to "B" IF the person making the comment had a reasonable and honest belief about the underlying fact ( because he posted X) and was not reckless in his/her belief. Case law also establishes that lawyers ( and particularly defamation lawyers) are held to a higher standard in determining what is reasonable and what is reckless.
Here is where Kinsella's comment comes into play. For a layman - if the underlying fact was stated by an independent expert who's evidence had been accepted by courts and tribunals then his belief would be reasonable; if the fact was stated by an independent expert who's evidence had been rejected or, perhaps by a partisan witness who's evidence was accepted then his belief is closer to reckless but still probably on the side of reasonable; if the fact was stated by a partisan who's evidence was rejected (as is the case with Klatt) then his belief has probably crossed the line into reckless and the defense will fail. If he's a lawyer then he should know better and he's probably really hooped.
The pool of 341 people is not the key. There were only 341 people on the planet who could have made that post. But, the site was getting about 3 visitors a DAY. We already know that one of those people has a history of signing up at websites he is investigating and posting racist comments. What are the chances that, out of those 341 random people, you could find even one more person who knew about the site?
THREE VISITORS PER DAY.
If I took a random sample of 341 Canadians, the chances of me getting two people who had EVER registered on Free Dominion would be astronomically small...and we get over 1000 times more visitors per day.
Now narrow it down to a specific two month period and the chances grow even slimmer.
In civil court, the burden of proof is 'the balance of probabilities', but when you add the fact that Warman removed the obviously hateful Cools post from the investigation against Lemire, and that he tried to block the Rogers subpeona, the evidence is fast approaching 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
NBob,
The Anne Cools post was posted from that same IP. And Connie is not quite correct, there is theoretically more than 341 people who could have done it. There are 341 possible computer endpoints (households, if you will). There's often multiple people in a household.
But as Connie also says, the site got about three visitors today.
What are the chances, that someone from the same IP address, one month earlier, would be on the same site as Warman, and also be within that pool of 341 out of how-many Canadian households.
Is it definitive proof? No. Nobody has a video tape of Warman actually typing the post and clicking "submit".
But lawsuits are not about definitive proof. They have a much lower burden, referred to as the balance of probabilities; if it is more probable that Richard Warman posted said post than the possibility he didn't, then Richard's case against Ezra Levant will not be successful.
If ever there was a moral reason in Canada to hook someone up to a polygraph, who do you suppose that luc(k)y person should be?
I have been reviewing the comments and being a forensic computer consultant for Microsoft, I would say the chance that the Anne Cools post was not posted by Richard Warman is close to impossible.
The technical evidence is one thing. With spoofing, hacking, IP proxy, etc, anything is possible in the computer world. But the fact Richard Warman fought tooth and nail to not al low the subpoena of Rogers Cable, and tried to suppress all testimony on the post, then after a subpoena was granted by the court, Warman suddenly retracted the Anne Cools post from being complained about, sinks Richard Warman.
Technical evidence is one thing. But why would Warman not fully support the Rogers Cable subpoena. It would have CLEARED him of any wrong doing. But instead he moved heaven and earth to get the court to not allow it. WHY?
What more can be said about the actions of a guilty individual?
The conversation about IP addresses and the possibility that a nazi somehow got the same address and posted on some obscure message board within weeks of Warman having the same IP, using the same version of Windows and the same version of Internet Explorer and so astronomically small, I can see why Warman could not find a single computer professional in all of Canada to testify on his behalf that it was not possible.
Richard Warman sank himself by refusing to cross-examine the computer expert and by not calling his own expert to refute the finding.
Warman made the post, and the fact he is too scared to sue lemure is proof positive he has no case to stand on.
Mike -
You're correct that the burden of proof is a balance of probabilities however, as I attempted to explain (not very well) when you are using probabilities as evidence to reach THE balance of probabilities courts require a higher standard than "more likely than not" in assessing that evidence in fraud, defamation etc.
Conjecture, speculation, coincidence, unproven assumptions, half truths, etc. may satisfy holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers but will get you nowhere in a court of law. In this case a court is only going to be satisfied if someone from Rogers, who has actual knowledge, says " if a person has IP X on dates 1,2,3, the probability that he had IP X on September 5 is y ( where y = much more than 50%).
I would be surprised if that happens because the uwaterloo keeps track of its visitors by IP/Hits/Users ( via cookies) and between August 22, 2003 and Feb 5, 2004 ( which covers the period Warman posted ) it looks like 35 users visited the site from 66.185.84.204. That works out to avg. 7 different people each month.
http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/webreports/etd/etd-2003-4.htm
( what's a "user"- http://www.mach5.com/support/analyzer/manual/html/General/AboutSessions.htm - if you check you'll see a visitor ID cookie has been set )
Connie -
Speaking of conjecture,coincidence, half truths etc. your post would make the 9/11 truthers proud.
1 -As you are know Warman submitted " hundreds" of messages- the tribunal ordered him to narrow his complaint so he removed the Cools message AND about 100 others. If those messages were removed the day after a subpoena was granted to Rogers it's just coincidence ( unless you think he wrote all the removed messages)
2- At any rate I can't find a decision to grant the subpoena to Rogers - only a request to issue one from Bell - can you point me to it ?
3- Warman could not try to block a subpoena only the commission has power to do that under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act - can you point me to Warman's attempt ?
4- If Warman objected to the Cools issue being raised ( are you sure it wasn't the commision ? again, can you point to the transcript ? ) it was a proper objection because it was no longer before the tribunal - any attempt to raise it would be a collateral attack which no tribunal or court would allow.
Lucy Lover -
If defamatory comments were made about Warman before the tribunal or affidavits filed before the tribunal he is immune and can't be sued.
Nbob posted:
1 -As you are know Warman submitted " hundreds" of messages- the tribunal ordered him to narrow his complaint so he removed the Cools message AND about 100 others. If those messages were removed the day after a subpoena was granted to Rogers it's just coincidence ( unless you think he wrote all the removed messages)
Wrong. On August 16, 2006, the tribunal ordered Warman and the CHRC to CLARIFY whether all 133 pages of messages constituted a hate message OR only particular messages did. On October 6, 2006, the CHRC and Warman told Lemire that they would argue that ALL messages on Freedomsite violated Section 13(1). On December 6, 2006 the Tribunal said that's fine.
Connie is correct. Warman and the CHRC VOLUNTARILY removed the Cools post and others from their claim before the hearing. See the discussion being on page 1412 of the Warman v. Lemire Transcript from February 7, 2007.
2- At any rate I can't find a decision to grant the subpoena to Rogers - only a request to issue one from Bell - can you point me to it ?
Connie is correct. See the Tribunal's ruling starting on page Lemire Transcript.
3- Warman could not try to block a subpoena only the commission has power to do that under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act - can you point me to Warman's attempt ?
Connie is correct. Again, see page 1412 of the Lemire Transcript:
"Mr. Warman has now made a motion to quash the subpoena, and requesting that the respondent be prevented from leading any evidence through a Roger representative, Mr. Klatt, or any other witness, I presume, in regard to [the Cools] posting."
4- If Warman objected to the Cools issue being raised ( are you sure it wasn't the commision ? again, can you point to the transcript ? ) it was a proper objection because it was no longer before the tribunal - any attempt to raise it would be a collateral attack which no tribunal or court would allow.
Once again, Connie is correct and you are wrong. The tribunal ruled against Warman and allowed testimony regarding the Cools post. Again, see the discussion starting on page 1412 of the Lemire Transcript.
1) The idea that the website in question recieved only 3 visits a day comes from the same source as all the evidence used against Warman--B. Klatt, the Nazi and obviously biased against Warman.
2) The idea that Warman "fought tooth and nail" against revealing certain documents etc. comes from LeMire, another Nazi and obviously biased against Warman.
3) I've read the transcripts, and the reason Klatt's evidence was rejected was because it was crap. He neglected to even inform anyone that there was a difference between dynamic and static IPs; he admitted ignorance on how Rogers works its IP assignments; he tried to deny that he knew Zundel; he couldn't explain why Warman's alleged IP address kept changing. Who else do you think Ezra is going to get as a techy to testify to this stuff?? Klatt! Nobody else is going to be willing to make a fool of themselves to argue such a weak case! It'll be Ezra side by side with the Nazis.
bigcitylib-
1) Let me see if I have your argument correct: Klatt is a Nazi. All Nazis are liars. Therefore, Klatt is lying about Freedomsite's traffic statistics - something that is verifiable from logs that, from what I understand, have been made available in full to the CHRC.
Are you explicitly claiming Klatt's a Nazi and perjured himself under oath?
By the way, I don't know exactly where the website statistics came from other than Connie's post. So perhaps you should be more careful attributing them to Klatt.
2) Let me see if I have your argument correct: Lemire is a Nazi. All Nazis are liars. Therefore, Lemire is lying about the idea that Warman fought tooth and nail to stop testimony regarding the Cools post.
Again, are you explicitly claiming that Lemire's a Nazi who perjured himself?
It's clear from page 1412 of the Warman v. Lemire transcripts (February 7, 2007)(available on richardwarman.com) that Warman did indeed fight to quash the Rogers subpoena and any testimony by Bernard Klatt or others regarding the Cools post. The Tribunal denied Warman's motion, allowed Klatt to testify about the Cools post, and likely entered a Rogers affidavit into evidence.
3) How do you know that Klatt's evidence has been "rejected" when the Tribunal hasn't even ruled on the merits in the Lemire case? Do you work for the Tribunal?
To 1) and 2). Basically, yeah, Klatt is not a credible witness.
To 3) as far as I can tell this evidence has been presented twice. Once in about '06 in one of Warman's complaints re Lemire, and now (early 08). The HRC in 2006 rejected Klatt's evidence. They also said it was irrelevant.
Yes, we have not doubt that the HRC rejected evidence. They also no doubt accept evidence that a court would not. That is the point, in case you haven't noticed.
You will learn, very shortly, the difference between what a kangeroo court like the HRC does, and what a real court does...
bigcitylib-
As far as I know based on the Tribunal's own documents, there's only one CHRC case against Lemire. All of the decisions in the CHRT's case(s) against Lemire should be available here. Please point out in which 2006 decision the Tribunal rejected Klatt's evidence. Hint: You can't. So please provide me with a link to this alleged 2006 rejection of Klatt's evidence.
From Toronto Mayor's Committee v. Zundel, 2002 CanLII 23557 :
"During cross-examination, Mr. Klatt was frequently argumentative, evasive and unable to answer elementary questions in his field. Most troubling to the Tribunal was the extent to which this witness responded as an advocate for the Respondent and not as an objective, independent expert. Mr. Klatt's responses are replete with references to what "we are arguing", and similar allusions to his shared common cause with the Respondent."
HIs evidence was also rejected in Schnell v, Machiavelli and Assoc. Empirize Inc. , 2002 CanLII 1887 and
Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations v. bcwhitepride.com, 2007 CHRT 20
Nbob-
That's a different case on a different matter. You know that. As of right now, Klatt's testimony has not been rejected in the Lemire case, and he was accepted as an expert witness. Please stop trying to throw sand in our eyes.
On a separate point, all of your February 27 questions to Connie are pretty much answered starting on Page 1412 of the Warman v. Lemire transcript and the October and December 2006 CHRT decisions at the link I provided. Connie is correct.
In particular, you're dead wrong about what the Tribunal ordered Warman and the CHRC to do. In August 2006, it ordered Warman and the CHRC to EITHER state which portions of the "hundreds" (actually over 1,000) of messages it was relying on for its Section 13(1) charge OR state that it was relying on all of them. In October 2006, Warman and the CHRC went one step further - they told Lemire that they would rely on EVERY message on Freedomsite for their Section 13(1) case. The Tribunal EXPLICITLY said that was okay in their December 2006 ruling. Then, right before the hearing, Warman and the CHRC changed their tactics, relying only on some messages, which didn't include the Cools post.
I have revisited the technical side of these issues in a number of posts that are best accessed beginning here.