Welcome to the official website of Canadian human rights lawyer Richard Warman.

Latest:

20 July 2022
Rebel News wins/loses another anti-SLAPP libel motion
– Stunning Pyrrhic Victory!

Rebel News goes after Jessica Yaniv/Simpson from BC who can only be described as having her own issues. Yaniv/Simpson sues them for libel and Rebel brings an anti-SLAPP motion to have the action dismissed (relevant excerpts below).

Rebel is successful in having the action dismissed, but the judge makes pointed remarks about Rebel News including:

“Of particular concern in that regard is the fact that much of the name-calling directed at Ms. Simpson echoed, and tended to reinforce, pernicious stereotypes about transgender people generally.”

There are plenty of other options to choose from with Justice Milman describing Rebel as engaging in “Vitriol and gratuitous insults”, that “Many will find the views that [Rebel] expresses, here and elsewhere, to be highly offensive”, “dubious quality of the expression”, and that Rebel’s actions were “not intended to enhance the public discourse” etc.

Justice Milman then rejects Rebel’s request for solicitor-client costs which would normally be awarded in a successful anti-SLAPP motion and says Rebel can bear it’s own costs based on their actions. That will likely have cost Rebel tens of thousands of dollars.

Ultimately I think yin and yang are in balance here.

—
Simpson v Rebel News Network Ltd., 2022 BCSC 1160

[90] In assessing the value of the impugned expression at issue in this case, I accept that at least part of the motivation behind Rebel News’ reporting was to warn the public about what the reporters believed to be the threat that Ms. Simpson’s conduct poses to society. Rebel News says that it strives to present an alternative point of view. Many will find the views that it expresses, here and elsewhere, to be highly offensive. It is, however, precisely in such cases that the law’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression will be most sorely tested.

[91] Nevertheless, the expression in issue here was deeply problematic in various ways, both in terms of its quality and the apparent motivation behind it.

[92] First, it was, by any measure, heavily laden with vitriol and gratuitous insults. Although I have accepted that Rebel News has a viable defence of “fair comment”, on the basis that the views expressed were ones that could honestly be held on the facts presented, it does not follow that the underlying inferences were always reasonably drawn. Of particular concern in that regard is the fact that much of the name-calling directed at Ms. Simpson echoed, and tended to reinforce, pernicious stereotypes about transgender people generally.

[93] Further, the reporters’ conduct in confronting Ms. Simpson at her home or hotel and asking the same inflammatory questions over and over again, appears to have been intended primarily to provoke a scene and so provide entertainment at Ms. Simpson’s expense, rather than to elicit information to enrich the public discourse.

[94] Had Ms. Simpson been able to show real damage to her reputation flowing from the impugned reporting, the dubious quality of the expression in issue here could easily have tipped the scales in favour of allowing the action to proceed.

…

[97] I have found several of the hallmarks of a classic SLAPP suit to be present in this case, including:

a) a weak claim on the merits;

b) a history of threatening litigation and commencing legal proceedings with a view to stifling criticism; and

c) scant evidence of actual harm flowing from the impugned expression.

[98] On other hand, this is not a case in which a well-funded plaintiff has brought disproportionate resources to bear against an impecunious defendant. If anything, the imbalance in this case tilts in the opposite direction.

[99] In addition, although I have found that Ms. Simpson has failed to meet the burden upon her under s. 4(2)(a) of the PPPA, it does not follow, given my earlier observations, that she had nothing to complain about in how she was treated.

[100] In summary, I have concluded that an award of full indemnity costs would not be appropriate in the unusual circumstances of this case. Instead, my order will be that the parties are to bear their own costs.

Match, meet kerosene!

14 September 2021
Advance Book Review: Joe Mulhall – Drums in the Distance

Joe Mulhall of the UK’s Hope Not Hate has a new book out called Drums in the Distance – Journeys Into the Global Far Right. Short review: It rocks so go buy it and read it!

Drums in the Distance is a worldwide walkabout into the work of Joe and his colleagues at Hope Not Hate infiltrating and exposing the principal haters and their organizations. Starting with an historical view of modern British right-wing extremism (soup to nuts or ‘British National Party to Brexit’ as Joe puts it), he then considers the various anti-Muslim movements (including the effect of Islamist extremist groups and DAESH), before moving on to Europe’s far-right and their xenophobic responses to migrants.

The US is looked at with visits with American militia border patrols and infiltration of KKK groups. The cornerstone rise (and fall?) of Trumpism rounds out the US coverage up to the attempted insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6th – and that timeliness makes it seem like the book was being worked on up to yesterday.

The effects of the rise of Hindu Nationalism in India and Bolsanaro in Brazil within the context of a global pandemic and the increasing risks from climate change raise issues not just about political dominos but also how the far-right seeks to capitalize on a world turned upside down.

One of the things that Mulhall’s travels brought to mind was reading the 1990 seminal work Among the Thugs by Bill Buford about his time with Britain’s violent soccer hooligans that also raises questions about how best to accurately portray and expose otherwise closed groups. In his conclusion, Mulhall openly admits that his work has sometimes been imperfect, but that the unbearable human cost that far-right dominance would bring has kept him going and a fire in the belly.

If you want a great collection of stories about the struggle (including victories and losses) against international far-right extremism that entertain, educate, and inspire – Joe Mulhall’s Drums in the Distance is the book you should buy today.

Here’s how you can buy Joe’s book from your local independent bookstore.

full disclosure – I’ve had pints with Joe Mulhall and hope to do so again in the future – this is for Joe:

Sonic Youth – Youth Against Fascism

26 August 2021
– far-right round-up

1. Graphic designer for neo-Nazis ‘Dark Foreigner’ revealed as Ottawa resident Patrick MacDonald (aka Patrick Gordon MacDonald). Kudos for their hard work to journalists Ben Makuch and Mack Lamoureux of VICE. Research contributed to by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.

2. Court boots Sovereign Citizen guru Christopher James Pritchard from playing pretend lawyer. BC Supreme Court tells Pritchard if he wants to be the Lionel F. Hutz of the OPCA movement, he needs to go to law school first.

3. The US government launches a strategy for countering domestic terrorism.

4. The Canadian government formally lists 2 new neo-Nazi groups and 1 individual as terrorist entities. Those listed are the Three Percenters, Aryan Strikeforce, and Siege author/neo-Nazi terrorist inspiration James Mason of the US.

5. Patrik Mathews, member of the neo-Nazi terrorist group The Base pleads guilty to weapons charges in the US. Sentencing indicated as set for 21 October 2021 so MTF. Kudos (yet again) to Ryan Thorpe of the Winnipeg Free Press for his work on this story.

4 August 2021
CUPW libel action against B’nai Brith Canada can continue

In a judgment that reinforces the ‘ask many questions before shooting’ principle, 3 judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal have unanimously refused B’nai Brith’s request to throw out a libel action by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) as a SLAPP suit and awarded CUPW $15,000 in legal costs.

According to the judgment, the controversy started in 2018 over allegations by B’nai Brith that CUPW was associated with terrorism as a result of their work with the Palestinian postal service union. B’nai Brith apparently found one person in a leadership role within the Palestinian union whose Facebook page “praised individuals involved in terrorist attacks against Israel” along with pro-Palestinian material on the union’s website.

The Court of Appeal found that while the actions of CUPW were a matter of public interest, the postings attacked CUPW directly, would easily meet the test of diminishing CUPW’s reputation, and that there were “serious flaws” in B’nai Brith’s legal defences to the libel action. The flaws included a limited factual basis and failure to conduct adequate due diligence before issuing the 2 press releases containing the allegations.

This is the 2nd time in recent years that the venerable B’nai Brith has lost motions to strike out libel actions against the organization as SLAPP suits before the Ontario Court of Appeal with the other being a lawsuit by Green Party of Canada justice critic Dimitri Lascaris.

1 August 2021
Kevin J Johnston guilty of contempt of court (again and again)

Mohamad Fakih does the world a favour (again) by demonstrating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance (again). Fakih’s dedication to both defending his hard-won reputation against haters like Kevin J Johnston through his successful $2.5 million libel action and upholding the rule of law means Johnston openly defying the injunction to stop defaming Fakih ends inevitably in only one place – Johnston is again guilty of contempt of court.

I have the greatest of respect not only for Mohamad Fakih, but also his esteemed and indefatigable lawyers Jonathan Lisus and Niklas Holmberg of the law firm Lax, O’Sullivan, Lisus, Gottlieb.

To all three of them, I say a hearty:

16 July 2021

Marc Lemire libel action against Hamilton activist Craig Burley dismissed as SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation)
– Massive loss for Lemire

Marc Lemire, whom the Federal Court found to be the last known leader of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front, has lost his libel action against Hamilton activist Craig Burley with Justice Sheard of the Ontario Superior Court dismissing it today as a SLAPP suit and stating that Lemire’s counsel admitted Lemire is “trying to erase his past.” I presume it will be on the legal information site CANLII.org shortly, but below are the most relevant tidbits.

My guess is this will a) eat any financial settlement Marc Lemire agreed with the City of Hamilton to get him to leave and b) possibly bankrupt him given I would estimate Burley’s legal costs that Lemire will have to pay will easily exceed $50,000 in addition to whatever he has to pay his own lawyers.

Craig Burley’s lawyers (Nicole Biros-Bolton, Wade Poziomka, and Nick Papageorge of Hamilton law firm Ross McBride) were excellent and put a lot of work into the case. I was pleased to provide an affidavit in support. The top-flight reporting of Mack Lamoureux of VICE and Samantha Craggs of the CBC feature prominently in the decision regarding the employment and subsequent un-employment of Marc Lemire by the City of Hamilton.

Marc Lemire is now facing a massive costs award and has to live with the findings by Justice Sheard that Lemire’s own actions are responsible for creating his reputation. Marc Lemire now joins UK Holocaust denier David Irving in the “worst-ever decision to launch a libel action” category.

Excerpts:

– 62 – “On cross-examination, Mr. Lemire acknowledged that…
iii) his last involvement with the Heritage Front might have been in 2005 when he was 30 years of age”
[- thus, not “as a teenager” as he incessantly claims]

paras 67-78 – Justice Sheard discusses the evidence before the court in the case

para 75 “In oral submissions, Mr. Lemire’s counsel candidly submitted that Mr. Lemire is trying to erase his past…”

para 110 “With respect to Mr. Lemire’s racist attitudes and activities, there is ample evidence to support that assertion.”

para 127 “On the record before me, including admissions made by Mr. Lemire, there is an abundance of evidence connecting Mr. Lemire with organizations, persons and website that expressed views that could be described as racist, anti-immigration, homophobic, and liable to promote violence.”

para 134 “I have considered the record, reference in some detail throughout these reasons, and conclude that Mr. Lemire has failed to show that Mr. Burley’s defence of fair comment is not legally tenable or supported by evidence that is reasonably capable of belief, on the basis that Mr. Burley’s comments were motivated by malice or ill-will.”

para 139 – finds that Burley’s defence of justification may be successful

para 153 “From the evidence on this motion, it is reasonable for the court to infer that the views expressed in articles posted on websites hosted by Mr. Lemire have or are likely to have caused harm to Mr. Lemire’s own reputation.”

para 155 “Mr. Lemire seeks an order that all publications related to his history be removed, de-indexed, and prevented from ever again being published. It is reasonable to infer, which I do, that this relief is being sought in recognition of the fact that Mr. Lemire’s public presence on the internet as a whole, and not simply postings made by Mr. Burley, is causing him harm. As stated in oral submissions, Mr. Lemire seeks to “erase” his past.”

para 157 “At best, Mr. Burley’s tweets over the course of approximately four months are merely a drop in the bucket of what has been said about Mr. Lemire for decades.”

para 166 “There is an important public interest in allowing and encouraging citizens to speak out when it appears that their local government has failed to act in a manner that is in keeping with the City’s stated values and ethics. In this case, the importance of those values was publicly recognized by the City in its public announcement concerning the end of Mr. Lemire’s employment with the City. In his message to the City’s citizens, the City’s mayor also acknowledged the role of each citizen in ensuring that the City adheres to those values.”

para 167 “I conclude that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Lemire has failed to satisfy the court that the harm that is likely to be or have been suffered by him as a result of Mr. Burley’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting his proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. Rather, I conclude that the public interest in protecting the expressions of Mr. Burley, a known activist and critic of the City, and a member in a vulnerable community not infrequently targeted by discrimination, outweighs the public interest in permitting Mr. Lemire’s proceeding to continue.”

Disposition
para 168 “For the reasons set out above, the motion is granted and the within proceeding is dismissed.”

Costs
para 169 “Pursuant to s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act, Mr. Burley is entitled to the costs of the motion and of the proceeding on a full indemnity basis unless the court determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.”

para 170 – if parties aren’t able to agree on costs, they can schedule a date to make oral submissions

12 July 2021
I confirm that I have now filed professional misconduct complaints with the Law Society of Alberta against lawyers John Carpay and Jay Cameron of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and a request for investigation with the Law Society of Manitoba in relation to Allison Pejovic.

The concerns raised involve admissions by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms reported in a CBC story today that this registered charity hired private investigators to spy on Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench where the JCCF are appearing before him acting on behalf of a number of churches opposing provincial health control measures relating to Covid.

23 June 2021

Section 13 is coming back baby! Like Snow White, the part of the Canadian Human Rights Act that prohibits people from spreading hate propaganda on the internet is set to awaken from its brief slumber that started in 2014 (or at least it will be if the newly released “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act” gets passed).

Here are my brief thoughts:

1. It’s basically the same thing as the old s. 13 but explicitly doesn’t apply to social media companies. Legislation dealing with them has been rumoured to be imminent for some time so it will be interesting to see what that looks like. The proposed amendments specifically exclude potential legal liability for social media companies (does not apply to “online communication service provider” where that definition clearly covers them) – see s. 13(3-4 and 7-8).

2. The Bill provides the Commission with the ability to protect anonymity of a complainant – s. 40(8).

3. Provides explicit power to dismiss a complaint as vexatious if there is no indication of hate speech in the material complained of (note the power to dismiss a vexatious complaint always existed whether relating to online hate under s. 13 or otherwise) – see s. 41(1.1).

4. Most of the remedies the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can grant if a complaint relating to online hate is upheld remain the same (a permanent injunction and possible damages if someone is specifically targeted by the online hate). The only change is the potential penalty clause has been increased from $10,000 to $50,000 – see s. 53.1(c). It’s worth noting that the previous penalties under $10,000 would cost more to enforce in the Courts than could be collected.

5. The Tribunal can now order costs against a party for an abuse of process in relation to the Tribunal inquiry – see s. 53(2). This appears to include both complainant and respondent which would have been welcome for many of my complaints where I had to sit through endless respondent and intervenor nonsense.

This sick beat is for all the haters out there:

14 June 2021
James Sears’ appeal of conviction and sentence rejected

The appeal by James Sears and Leroy St Germaine of their conviction for the wilful promotion of hatred against women and Jews has been upheld by Justice Peter Cavanagh of the Ontario Superior Court. Also upheld was Sears’ 1-year sentence and he has been ordered to report to Toronto South Detention Centre this afternoon at 4:30 PM.

Sears has launched a request for bail pending an appeal that will be heard this afternoon by the Ontario Court of Appeal at 2:30 PM so we’ll see what happens with that.

Never one to miss an opportunity to advance his anti-Jewish hate, Sears at the close of the hearing attempted to ask the judge about a personal matter but the Crown prosecutor and judge shut that down in short order.

Below is a non-verbatim summary of the Zoom hearing this morning where Justice Cavanagh rejected the appeals by James Sears and Leroy St Germaine.
—
R v James Sears appeal of conviction and sentence

Monday, 14 June 2021
Justice Cavanagh’s decision:

ground of appeal – were reasons by trial judge insufficient?
– trial judge’s analysis was as stated – expert reports provided historical background – judge relied on the evidence contained in YWN themselves and independently considered them

ample evidence to support trial judge’s findings that the defendants wilfully promoted hatred against women and Jews – the 22 issues of YWN provide the evidence in support

ground of appeal – incompetence of counsel?
Sears’ objections relate to tactical decisions by his former defence lawyer Dean Embry with which Sears agreed
no evidence to displace presumption of competence of counsel
Sears didn’t object to representation (exs cross-examinations and closing submissions) until after the verdict

ground of appeal – sentencing?
appeal ct must defer to trial ct decision without evidence of error in principle or failure to consider relevant factor – that doesn’t exist here

Crown – Michael Bernstein – given appeal of conviction and sentencing, Sears should be ordered into custody
it’s our understanding that he was initially in custody in TO South Detention Centre and he should report back there
Sears has already filed an advance “anticipatory appeal” along with an “anticipatory request for bail pending appeal” – to be heard by Ontario Court of Appeal at 14h30 today
Crown position is that he should report for jail

Sears says he has a personal family matter that requires time to make arrangements
I’m not a flight risk – I’d like a couple of weeks if possible

Bernstein – to Cavanagh J – your jurisdiction ends today and you don’t have ability to do this
defence lawyer Ian McQuaig – I agree – but suggests Cavanagh J can delay before endorsing his decision
Bernstein – I’ve never seen that
McQuaig – only in trial context, haven’t seen in appeal
Bernstein – Justice Cavanagh has issued his decision and must order Sears into custody
it would have been customary that Sears surrender into custody last night or this morning before the judgment was rendered – that can be at 16h00 today after Ontario Court of Appeal hearing for bail pending appeal
Sears knew in February that the Court would be rendering its decision today – it’s unbelievable that Sears claims need to make alternate family arrangements given he was able to file an advance bail pending appeal application

Justice Cavanagh – These are arguments that can be made to the OCA at the hearing this afternoon. I’m going to make the surrender order for 16h30 today at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
I don’t agree that I have the ability to delay my decision.

Sears asks to pose final question – up until 2 weeks ago, I thought I was going to win the appeal
is it true in 15 Sep 2013 that you held a fundraiser at your home to fundraise b/c your wife was working on a film about Nazi looting of artwork in WWII?
Bernstein – the hearing is over and that question is inappropriate
Justice Cavanagh – I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about these matters.
10h34 – hearing ends

4 February 2021

Liz Moore and Bernie Farber have been successful in their motions to dismiss a vexatious lawsuit brought by Elisa Hategan with Moore awarded $200,000 in damages in her counterclaim against Hategan for libel and invasion of privacy.

Hategan and Moore were both young, female members of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front in Toronto in the late 80s/early 90s – with both eventually leaving the group and going on to engage in public speaking about the dangers of radicalization.

Hategan alleged that Moore had lifted parts of her life story to bolster her neo-Nazi street cred but Justice Ferguson of the Superior Court of Ontario threw out all of Hategan’s claim against both Farber and Moore agreeing there was no evidence to support it and that the lawsuit was vexatious. Justice Ferguson further awarded Moore general ($100k), aggravated ($50k), and punitive damages ($50k) as well as a permanent injunction to bring an end to what she found was Hategan’s malicious, years-long campaign of defamatory attacks against Moore.

Missing Words indeed.

27 January 2021

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio is an FBI informant.

5 January 2021

Aidan Macnab of Law Times with a solid article on the troubling end to the Law Society of Ontario investigation into my misconduct complaint against Toronto lawyer David FAED. The Law Society deems a fireside chat with a Bencher sufficient to solve the problem where David Faed as a lawyer knowingly and repeatedly advertised in a neo-Nazi tabloid that promoted hatred of women and Jews. The tabloid content was so bad those responsible were convicted for criminal hate propaganda.

When I first saw David Faed’s ad in the neo-Nazi tabloid Your Ward News in 2015, I thought there must be some mistake so I contacted and spoke with him. Faed made it clear that he had talked with neo-Nazi James Sears who ran the paper, found him quite intelligent, and thought the hate propaganda content of the paper was satiric.

Faed told me he had no intention of stopping advertising and that he would fight any attempt to make him stop. When I said to Faed I felt I had an obligation to inform the Law Society, he told me I could do whatever I wanted.

The Law Society’s response has been a concern from start to finish.

The Law Times article notes that Sears is appealing his criminal conviction arguing incompetence of his trial counsel Dean Embry who refused to call Holocaust denial testimony in defence.

Sears has caused collateral damage to any lawyer who comes near him…

28 November 2020

18 October 2020

BC anti-Jewish hatemonger guilty again. This time for breach of probation. Slow learner. Bravo to Harry Abrams for his dedication on the file.

More importantly, here are the Ting Tings with their song Estranged:

10 September 2020
The Motherland Hears, the Motherland Knows – the song by Dimitri Shostakovich that Colonel Yuri Gagarin wrote he sang on re-entry after the first spaceflight in 1961. The video includes awesome footage of Gagarin’s launch in the spacecraft Vostok 1.

9 September 2020

Ipperwash Provincial Park returned to Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.

“The Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation would like to acknowledge the formal return of a portion the lands we call Aazhoodena (Stony Point). As a Nation, we have always known about the significance of Aazhoodena and the lands there were reclaimed in 1995. The return of the former Provincial Park lands is an important legal indicator for our Ancestors and our future generations that we’re home again and the land is legally ours. The return of this portion of the lands is but a small portion of what was lost and although the process is not perfect, it gives hope that in the future we may see the full return of Aazhoodena. It is also important that we honour the memory of Dudley George today, who made the supreme sacrifice in respect of the Ancestors and all of those who have dedicated their lives to the return of our lands.”

Chief Jason Henry
Chief of Chippewas of Kettle & Stony Point First Nation

Official announcement here.

20 July 2020

Thanks to CBC for introducing me to the music and life of Jessye Norman

7 July 2020
Glenn Bogue update – The Bogue theatre of the absurd just keeps getting absurder. With the Strokes providing “The End Has No End” as soundtrack.

24 June 2020
As noted by Borek Lizec, the Czech Ambassador to Canada, this month marks the 78th anniversary of the Nazi extermination of the Czech village #Lidice in retaliation for the successful assassination of the Gestapo’s Reinhard Heydrich, in Czechoslovakia.

Here is George Orwell’s BBC broadcast dealing with the Lidice massacre from “The War Commentaries” dated 13 June 1942:

“We will end our review with a comparatively small item of news, which is nevertheless worth reporting, because it shows more clearly than whole books could do, what Fascism means. Following on the assassination of Heydrich, the Gestapo chief in Czechoslovakia, the Germans, up till three days ago, had already shot over two hundred hostages. These figures are from their own wireless statements. Then, two days ago, they followed up these announcements of shooting by announcing over the air the action they had taken against a Czech village whose inhabitants were accused of having assisted Heydrich’s assassins.

‘Since the inhabitants of this village,’ states the German wireless, ‘have [flagrantly] violated the laws which have been issued, by their activity and by the support given to the murderers of Heydrich, the male adults have been shot, the women have been sent to concentration camp, and the children have been handed over to appropriate educational authorities. The buildings of the locality have been levelled to the ground, and the name of the community has been obliterated.’

Notice that these are the words of the Germans themselves, broadcast to the whole world in at least two languages. The Czech village, named Lidice, was a village of about 1200 inhabitants. We may assume, therefore, that the Germans have killed about 300 men, sent about 300 women to the concentration camp, and about 600 children to what they call ‘appropriate educational authorities’, which in practice means labour camps, and all upon the mere suspicion of having helped the assassins of a man who is himself known all over Europe as a bloodstained murderer. But more significant than the act, is the impudence with which it is broadcast to the world, almost as if it was something to be proud of. And most significant of all is the fact that more than three years after their seizure of Czechoslovakia, the Germans are compelled to commit these barbarities in order to hold down a people whom they pretend to be benefiting by their wise and disinterested rule.”

21 June 2020

Thanks to Jude Rogers for this interview Nadine Shah: ‘I’m sick of celebrities in their huge gardens telling us to breathe’

Super cool

17 June 2020

In a time of members of the public raising their voices in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, count on anti-Jewish conspiracy theories being part of the far-right backlash. This piece by Emily Tankin titled The right is trying to link George Soros and George Floyd protests. Don’t let it. does an excellent job deconstructing the poison pill of “everything in the world is Soros’ fault”.

31 May 2020

In honour of barrister and French/British secret agent Major Francis Suttill during this year as the 75th anniversary of his death at Sachsenhausen and VE Day.

23 April 2020
Ottawa Police Service tribute to RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson

3 April 2020

Hot off the presses! Netolitzky and Warman in the Alberta Law Review on How do Detaxers/Freemen make out at the Supreme Court of Canada?

ENJOY THE SILENCE: PSEUDOLAW AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
DONALD J.NETOLITZKY AND RICHARD WARMAN
Pseudolaw is a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law, employed by groups including the Detaxer and Freemen-on-the-Land movements. While pseudolaw is universally rejected by Canadian courts, no Supreme Court of Canada decision addresses these concepts.

This study reviews 51 unsuccessful Supreme Court leave applications that potentially involve pseudolaw to determine what pseudolaw issues were raised, whether those issues were comprehensible, and therefore if by its silence the Supreme Court has implicitly rejected these concepts.Some pseudolaw-related leave applications were not comprehensible to a legally trained reader; however, the remainder clearly imply that the Supreme Court of Canada has been exposed to the cornerstone concepts of modern pseudolaw, including “Strawman” Theory, and has rejected these ideas as not having national significance.

13 March 2020

That seems about right