The nature of tyranny is not conservative. It is liberal by its very nature and therefore expands its tentacles exponentially. What first started out as liberal social conditioning, however objectionable the great majority have found this to be, the Human Rights Commissions have now expanded their objectives to include political conditioning too. It has gone from imposing arbitrary opinions on sex to regulating acceptable opinions on politics. The latter category, of course, has been recently highlighted with the rather foolish acceptance of complaints against two Canadian publishers, Ezra Levant (Western Standard) and Maclean’s Magazine and Mark Steyn.
The odious nature of the Human Rights Commissions which operate under Star Chamber rules of engagement, not the rules we are accustomed to in a real court, are already offensive enough when they operate within the confines of (a bad) law. But what are they going to be like when they operate outside of that law? It is no surprise to anyone, of course, that a tribunal whose very nature is embedded with enforcing politically correct orthodoxy under the guise of so-called “human rights” will not long stay encumbered by such frivolities as the rule of law. And so now in Canada we have – what would otherwise have been an unthinkable scenario years ago – a situation where a government appointed body could very well be operating outside of that law. Unlike past respondents in other cases, however, the CHRC was unfortunate to interrorgate an individual who would rather fight back than be railroaded and defrauded of due process. His vigilance was rewarded by uncovering alleged government theft of a telecommuniation service among other alleged serious breaches of the criminal code in the course of their investigation of him.
Before the uncomfortable facts were revealed at the March 25, 2008 tribunal hearing, the CHRC attempted to block the damning revelations of their spying activity. The Commission lawyers had previously invoked S. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act in order to avoid answering some embarrassing questions. Marc Lemire went to a real court and effectively forced the Commission to drop their bogus complaints. The answers to the questions they had been dodging were revealed at the tribunal hearing.
Since this hearing would likely be a significant moment in the fight to restore free speech and undermine the credibility of the whole HRC Establishment, I felt it was important that as many bloggers as possible should be present because the main stream media could not be relied upon to convey the whole truth. Eventually, the MSM did start to report on the matter but only, I believe, because of the presence of the bloggers and the fallout of their reporting. The only thing the MSM hates more than reporting the immoral machinations of the Left is being scooped and embarrassed by Joe Blogger who will do it for them. And so, off I went with Laptop and digital recorder in hand.
Bringing along the digital recorder has turned out to be a bonanza in getting the word out about the Hearing. My original hope was that I would be able to broadcast the audio of the event while the story was still hot. I knew that the government functionaries at the CHRT would not likely have the audio ready for public consumption and review in the ensuing days and even weeks. I was right, of course.
I recorded the whole hearing, and although the audio quality was not perfect, it was good enough for the blogosphere’s purposes. My intent was to broadcast some of the more juicy and memorable moments of the hearing in order to bring CHRC operations into the light of public scrutiny. Little did I know, as I made my way through the audio recordings, that I would begin to uncover some very disturbing facts concerning Dean Steacy’s testimony in relation to other testimony given at a previous CHRT Hearing. Some time before March 25, I stumbled across some seemingly unimportant details of testimony given by Richard Warman at the December 2006 Beaumont Hearing, which, for some inexplicable reason, I could not forget. As I listened to Dean Steacy’s testimony at the Warman v. Lemire Hearing on March 25, 2008, and compared them to Richard Warman’s testimony at the Warman v. Beaumont Hearing on December 12, 2006, I soon discovered there were questions that needed to be answered.
And so I now begin my presentation of the facts as I understand them and the questions I have about those facts:
A. Who Knew About WiFi Tapping?
Note: The actual times noted on the Stormfront documents are recorded in GMT-4 while Eastern Standard Time is GMT-5. Therefore, 2:25pm is 1:25pm EST and 3:29pm is really 2:29pm EST. This adjustment would not make any qualitative difference to the testimony below. All times listed here that were sourced from the Stormfront message board are GMT-4.
1. The last activity of the “jadewarr” account, with then IP address 70.48.181.203, was logged on to Stormfront.org on December 8, 2006 at 3:29pm. (Source)
2. Alain Monfette, director of the law enforcement support team for Bell, testified that the IP address and user account assigned between Dec.7 at 6:36pm and Dec.8 at 9:35pm belonged to Nelly Hechme. Ms. Hechme is a private Canadian citizen, unconnected to CHRC operations who lives a short distance away from CHRC offices. (Source)
3. On the second day of the Warman v. Beaumont hearing’s proceedings, Tuesday December 12, 2006, there is a discussion between Richard Warman (complainant), Giacomo Vigna (CHRC lawyer), and Athanasios Hadjis (Chairperson i.e. “the judge”) about some evidence submitted by the Commission against Jessica Beaumont, the respondent in the case :
240
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, I’m a
7 little confused here. Tab 17, I have A.
8 MR. VIGNA: The layout, when you look
9 at it, it might seem different, but if you look at the
10 contents it’s pretty much the same.
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
12 MR. VIGNA: Perhaps, Mr. Warman, you
13 can explain it.
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you
15 can explain it.
16 MR. WARMAN: Sure.
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do see that the
18 content is similar. It’s got the poem in it, but how
19 come the layout is different, as Mr. Vigna has
20 indicated?
21 MR. WARMAN: Sure. I will happily
22 explain.
23 The first one is a Commission
24 document. The second one is a document that was
25 printed off in my presence on Friday.
241
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, the second
2 document was available on the Internet and printed off?
3 MR. WARMAN: Yes, on Friday.
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: On Friday.
There are two versions of the document under discussion: the original CHRC version, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” *, which was later removed from the official record albeit with the approval of Jessica Beaumont’s representative, Paul Fromm; and the Warman version (the “second document” referred to above in Warman’s testimony), designated now as Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent” (secured through the Access to Information Act at the CHRT offices in Ottawa). The substantive text of both documents is the same. As the upper and lower right hand corner of the original document submitted by the Commission attests, Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” was printed by using the Commission’s “jadewarr” account on April 13, 2005.
*As a sidenote, it is worth noting that Steacy’s identity as “jadewarr” would have never been discovered if it were not for the CHRC’s incompetence in originally including Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” as evidence in the Beaumont trial, even though it was later removed. Marc Lemire was sharp enough to realize that if “Welcome Jadewarr” was a commission document as Warman testified above, then it only stood to reason that the person behind the handle was likely a CHRC employee.
3a. From the testimony he gave at the Beaumont hearing, Richard Warman testified that his submitted document, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, was printed on December 8, 2006:
240
23 The first one is a Commission
24 document. The second one is a document that was
25 printed off in my presence on Friday.
241
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now you have the
18 second document and this one has been, according to
19 you, printed out. Is there any indication that you
20 printed it out you said yesterday?
21 MR. WARMAN: Friday.
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: You said Friday.
23 MR. WARMAN: Yes. There is no date
24 on it, but I can testify that it was printed off on
25 Friday.
242
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does refer to a
2 radio broadcast at the top, Friday, December 8th.
3b. On page 240, line 25, Warman indicates that “the document was printed off in my presence” which seems to suggest that there were other people present when the document was printed off. Warman’s testimony at the Beaumont Hearing therefore matches Steacy’s testimony at the Lemire Hearing in Ottawa on March 25, 2008. Steacy testified that the Commission’s Lawyer, Giacomo Vigna, and Richard Warman visited him for the express purpose of printing off “certain postings” on Stormfront.org. After not being able to locate the document by searching the discussion board, Steacy confesses to logging on to his “jadewarr” account where he was then successful at locating the desired document and printing it off in the presence of Warman and Vigna (0:00-1:05):
3c. In the above audio clip, Steacy also seems to admit to using Nelly Hechme’s internet connection when Barbara Kulaska asks him to indicate the date on which this meeting with Warman and Vigna took place. In answering the question, Steacy indirectly refers to the Bell representative’s testimony to help him place the meeting date with Warman and Vigna: “The testimony is saying December 8. That sounds right” (1:40-1:53).
4. Dean Steacy refers to the document that was being printed off in the presence of Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna as being related to the Beaumont hearing (0:47-0:55).
5a. The document that Richard Warman submitted, Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”, was printed off on Friday December 8, 2006 at 2:25pm (see yellow highlight at bottom of Exhibit C).
5b. The last activity recorded for the “jadewarr” account on Stormfront.org occurred on Friday December 8, 2006 at 3:29pm: Exhibit D – “Jadewarr 3:29″ (see yellow highlight on right side of Exhibit D). The “last activity” recorded on the Stormfront discussion board means the last moment before an account’s session is terminated.
QUESTIONS:
1. When Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna visited Dean Steacy to print off a Stormfront posting on December 8 (see Steacy’s testimony A.3c. above), did they know that the internet connection being used to access the “jadewarr” Stormfront account was owned by a private citizen?
2. How long was the duration of “jadewarr’s” visit to Stormfront on that day? Did the login actually begin before 2:25pm and end on 3:29pm?
3. Is the document that was printed off by Dean Steacy in the presence of Giacomo Vigna and Richard Warman on Friday December 8 in fact the same document (i.e. Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent”) which was referred to by Richard Warman as being printed off in his presence on the same day, Friday December 8?
4. If it is not the same document, then why does Dean Steacy refer to the document that was being printed off as being ultimately related to the Beaumont hearing (0:47-0:55)?
5. If it is not the same document, then where is this other Beaumont document that was printed off but never submitted into evidence at the Tribunal?
6. If it is not the same document and Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent” was not printed off in Dean Steacy’s presence, what document were Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna seeking when they sought Dean Steacy’s assistance in 3b. above?
7. If Richard Warman did not print off Exhibit C – “Jadewarr Absent” in the presence of Dean Steacy and Giacomo Vigna, why did he testify that the document was “printed off in my presence on Friday”? Why does he not just say “I printed off the document”? Why was it necessary to stress such a passive (instead of active) action in respect of the document being printed off, if the parties to the action were not significant to his testimony?
B. Richard Warman’s Beaumont Testimony
1. At the second day of the Beaumont hearing, Paul Fromm asked Richard Warman if he knew who logged in under the “jadewarr” account on Stormfront.org in printing off Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome”, which was printed off on April 13, 2005.
273
10 MR. FROMM: Can you explain what that
11 is, “Welcome, Jadewarr?
12 MR. WARMAN: It appears to be a name
13 that was logged in under.
14 MR. FROMM: By whom?
15 MR. WARMAN: I’m sorry, I don’t know.
While it is true that Richard Warman may not have known which Commission employee logged in under the name, Steacy testified in the audio clip below that Warman was at least aware that “jadewarr” was a “Commission account” (0:34-0:36).
274
15 MR. FROMM: The other one, the one
16 that was given to us yesterday, which is much less
17 clear and says to Der Totenkopf, but at the top it says
18 “Welcome, Jadewarr…” you say that was printed off in
19 your presence?
20 MR. WARMAN: No, it was not.
21 MR. FROMM: It was not. Then what’s
22 the origin of it?
23 MR. WARMAN: I don’t know.
24 THE CHAIRPERSON: You don’t know now
25 but you mentioned earlier that it was from the
275
1 Commission. That’s what I heard you say.
2 MR. WARMAN: It originates in the
3 broadest sense with the Commission.
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: So the Commission
5 had produced this photocopy?
6 MR. WARMAN: Yes, but in terms of its
7 specific origins, I have no idea.
2. Dean Steacy testified that Richard Warman knew that he was, in fact, ‘jadewarr’ before the Beaumont hearing:
(The sound you hear between Kulaszka’s question and Steacy’s response is the sound of a door opening in the background.)
QUESTIONS:
1. UNDER OATH, how can Richard Warman state that he had “no idea” of the specific origin of Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” at the Beaumont Hearing when, according to Steacy’s testimony above, Warman knew that Dean Steacy was, in fact, “jadewarr” before the Beaumont hearing (B.2) and that “jadewarr” was a Commission account (A.1)?
2. How can Richard Warman state that he had “no idea” of the specific origins of Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” on December 12, 2006 at the Beaumont Hearing when Dean Steacy testified that Giacomo Vigna and Richard Warman were both in his presence (0:00-1:05; STAR Busted 2.0 audio clip) as he logged on to his “jadewarr” Stormfront account on December 8, 2006 (1:40-2:05; STAR Busted 2.0 audio clip)?
What is the meaning of “having no idea” of something? Is it not associated with having no knowledge whatsoever of the specific subject matter at hand? Is it not a broad and general denial of a proposition as if to disavow all and any knowledge of the subject matter under discussion?
C. Dean Steacy’s Testimony about the Beaumont Hearing:
Re: STAR-Busted 2.0 audio clip above
1. Steacy testified that three other CHRC employees knew about the “jadewarr” account: his assistant, John Chamberlain (his manager), and Sandy Kozak. (1:05-1:38). Yet in his testimony earlier, he mentioned that Giacomo Vigna (and Warman) came to visit him about printing off a document for the Beaumont hearing. Steacy admitted to logging on to his “jadewarr” account in the presence of both Vigna and Warman (0:00-1:05).
Why did Dean Steacy not include Giacomo Vigna in the list of CHRC employees who knew the identity of “jadewarr” in the list he provided later in his testimony?
2. In his testimony at the March 25 hearing, Dean Steacy stated that he was unaware that Vigna and Warman’s visit on December 8, 2006 (and the document that was printed off in their presence) related to the Beaumont case (0:47-0:55).
Why was Dean Steacy giving out CHRC investigative evidence if it was not related to the Beaumont case? Does he normally give out his “jadewarr” postings to members of the public without asking what it relates to? What was the nature of the working relationship between Richard Warman, Giacomo Vigna and Dean Steacy that would permit such access to CHRC internal documents and security where such documents were thought to be unrelated to the case at hand?
3. Dean Steacy testified that “everybody that knew what the account…knew what the password was.” (1:10-1:13). Earlier, Dean Steacy had testified that Richard Warman knew that he was “jadewarr” (See B. – 2. above).
Did the “everyone” who knew “jadewarr’s” password also include Richard Warman?
4. While Dean Steacy was testifying about Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna’s visit, he indicated that they could not initially find the document but that when “we” (0:36-0:39) logged on, they were able to locate the document in question.
Why did Dean Steacy describe the logging on as “we”? Did Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna help him to logon to the “jadewarr” account?
Full audio segment related to the above questions:
PART 2
INDEX PAGE
[...] The Blogosphere Cross-Examination: Part 1 {MUST [...]
Near the bottom of the page, “Jadewarr Absent” (Exhibit C) says “Current Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)” So, while they may have used the Jadewarr account to search for the “Jadewarr Absent” post, it probably wasn’t printed it out by Jadewarr.
Not necessarily. They could not find the thread originally so they might have logged in under Jadewarr, found it, logged out, and then printed it. That is certainly possible. Remember, Steacy said that both Warman and Vigna came over to printout certain Stormfront postings and he all but admitted that it was for the Beaumont hearing. Whether that was the exact same document submitted by Warman at the Beaumont hearing or not is not THAT important. The key here is that they were there to get assistance from Steacy who logged in to the account IN THEIR PRESENCE. It is not certain, but the time line also suggests that Steacy was using the Hechme account to do it – in fact he rather implied it (see A – 3c.)
Good job, this is a total kangaroo court, a scary and dangerous joke.
I bet American, European and Australian bloggers can mock Warman right into a straight jacket. Everyone in Canada must hear about this Warman and the HRC injustice!
{EDITED OUT}
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe likes
human rights commissions
that violate human rights
while claiming to protect them
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
real freedom of speech
an American concept
which is NOT for Canada
.
Why Does Canada Allow This?
http://www.richardwarman.com/
http://haltterrorism.com
.
John,
I’m with you so far. Please continue with your analysis.
Gary K.
So, are you suggesting that it might have been possible for them to access the Hechme service from the offices of the CHRC? THat seems far fetched. Or am I missing something?
[...] Read the build-up to these questions here. [...]
[...] UNDER OATH, how can Richard Warman state that he had “no idea” of the specific origin of Exhibit B – “Jadewarr Welcome” at the Beaumont Hearing when, according to Steacy’s testimony above, Warman knew that Dean Steacy was, in fact, “jadewarr” before the Beaumont hearing? Read the build-up to these questions here. [...]
>>So, are you suggesting that it might have been possible for them to access the Hechme service from the offices of the CHRC? THat seems far fetched. Or am I missing something?
Read and click on all of the links on A. 2. and A. 3c.
It is possible, although it has not been definitively proven.
Well, I made that comment knowing nothing about wireless but my own experiences where i’ve had trouble picking up signals in the same building.
Maybe across an open field it’s possible, though it looks closer to two blocks than one to me.
Anyway, John, good work. You certainly have left us with a lot of important questions.
Thank you for some remarkable investigative work, John. I was beginning to get concerned that Barbara Hall stepped into the fray and with her outrageous comments shifted the spot-light away from Richard Warman. Keep up the great work.
Don
Great work John. BTW were there any worried looks when you spread out your laptop and recording gear at the Tribunal that day? Or were they just that smug?
Excellent work. That was exactly the part of the testimony I mentioned at SmallDeadAnimals and wanted to see the transcripts to make sure I had the facts right. It would appear the audio does indeed confirm things exactly as I remembered them.
Thanks Guys.
>>BTW were there any worried looks when you spread out your laptop and recording gear at the Tribunal that day? Or were they just that smug?
+ Well, there were a few of us with laptops. Nobody seemed to care much. The Tribunal official assisting the “judge” asked me to take off my ball cap. I did but then I regretted it since should have told her that I would not as I didn’t consider it a real court.
I plan to put up Part 2 in the next couple of days. This thing is wild. Absolutely wild. I never really appreciated the great gift we have in proper courts and procedure as I do now. They are the safeguard of justice itself.
[...] to my recent investigation into the sham tribunal hearings of the CHRT where I asked some very pertinen…, I will be following up with part 2 of this exercise by the end of the [...]
Have I got this right? Just three of them in the room – Warman, Vigna & Steacy – the stated purpose of the visit being for Warman to get a copy of the evidence already submitted by the CHRT without “Welcome Jadewarr!” written on the top of it. So Warman was already familiar enough with Jadewarr to want to try & conceal the account from the tribunal. Yet Steacy is blind & cannot use his computer without assistance. So who physically logged on & searched?
Mick,
See section C. “Dean Steacy’s Testimony about the Beaumont Hearing” above. Point 4.
cinyc, I may be wrong, but if they were using the-cloak.com (as they have admitted to doing) I don’t think they would have shown up as either a member or guest. So, it could have been printed out by Jadewarr.
Pachecho,
thanks, I thought the physically capable ‘we’ is either Vigna or Warman, the pair who initiated the visit to Steacy’s office. Warman has already admitted being the agent directly responsible for the creation of the new evidence that Vigna submitted.
Private citizen & complainant Warman gets CHRC Lawyer Vigna to substitute evidence already put before the CHRT tribunal, because the original is headed by “Welcome Jadewarr!” with a second copy without that telling username. And yet both pretended before the tribunal that neither of them knew what Jadewarr was or meant before, during or after? They knew not what it was or why they cleaned it from the original evidence, nor presumably that they even had. All they knew was it took a lot of walking around between offices to do it.
I think the guest/member count thing is just a simple thing; the pages were probably bookmarked on Steacy’s machine. Jadewarr’s logon was remembered persistently by cookie. They logged in automatically before they could logout & print. Unless the forum was rebuilt in the intervening period the thread number / url would be the same. It could be retrieved directly by url on any machine from the evidence Warman already had, unless all the forum is protected by password. Then if there’s not a quirk in the logout routine & the last page requested before logout is still displayed, they’d have to doctor the html to get a ‘clean’ page. They don’t disclose the url on the second print out of the evidence, do they… something you’d think would be necessary at any level of proof. It seems a lower standard of proof.
I have been following this whole sordid drama closely from the other side of the world & hope you all bring this corrupt body to account once & for all.
Thanks for the work,
I had trolls show up at my blog using something like that and just started deleting them it was amazing that one person could post from Holland, and Australia within minutes.
Pinning them down to the truth is like trying to grab a snake in the water.
[...] concerning the testimonies given at the Beaumont and Lemire Tribunal hearings. Part 1, The Blogosphere Cross-Examination, uncovered some disturbing testimony given by Dean Steacy about Warman’s knowledge of [...]
[...] of you know, I have been able to break two stories (here and here) which show some very disturbing tactics of the CHRT, the CHRC and other various [...]
Bravo John Pacheco for speaking out on civil liberties in Canada! The various Human Rights Commissions should be shelved, IMHO. Your work on the Catholic-Legate is admirable also. I need to point out, however, that one of your young members, known on YouTube as channel: gnrhead — well, he is putting out teaching videos, stating the Catholic-Legate organization is his authorization to do so, and he has only been a Catholic, according to his own testimony for about a year. Sadly, as many do on YouTube, he resorts to pejorative language in his videos to make his points (see Sedevacantism series), as well as responding in kind to comments left by viewers. While very well-meaning I am sure, and with great promise as an apologist, he needs a little grooming on the niceties of discourse. Right now he just descends to the common level of other self-proclaimed YouTube religious teachers.
[...] we learn that they will not be laying charges (despite the overwhelming evidence to suggest that the CHRC engaged in illegal practices) because it would involve “going after technical data from a website based in the United [...]