The Freedom-Site: CHRC Abuse of Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act to cover-up the misdeeds of the CHRC

CHRC Abuse of Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act to cover-up the misdeeds of the CHRC

It’s all out war in the Marc Lemire Internet case. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like some mobster in a

U.S.

trial who keep invoking the Fifth Amendment, is trying to keep the veil of secrecy wrapped tight around its spying operations on Canadian Internet dissidents. It’s tool of choice is Section 37 of the

Canada

Evidence Act.

“A Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest. If an objection is made under subsection (1), the court, person or body shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.”

“Public interest” is a sweeping catch-all and can include the safety of any person. The mischievous effect of invoking these magic words – “Section 37” – is that the information cannot be revealed or the question even asked. The only route of appeal is to a Federal Court and that’s where the Marc Lemire Defence Team is now headed.

We know, according to Richard Warman’s testimony in Warman v. Jessica Beaumont that a page was downloaded from Stormfront using the sign-in name ”Jadewarr.” Warman testified that he was not “Jadewarr” but that the document was downloaded in his presence by the Commission. When Marc Lemire’s attorney Barbara Kulaszka asked CHRC investigator Dean Steacy whether he knew who “Jadewarr” was, Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna squelched as answer by invoking Sec. 37.

Similarly, when Miss Kulaszka asked Mr. Steacy whether he’d ever signed on to a political message board and made postings, Mr. Vigna used Sec. 37 to prevent an answer. We know that “Jadewarr” extensively discussed Sec. 13.1 complaints with people on Stormfront and has even tried to engage victim/Respondent Marc Lemire in conversations – perhaps to entrap him?

The Member (Judge) in this Tribunal lawyer Athanasios Hadjis of Montreal expressed serious reservations at Vigna’s wholesale use of Sec. 37 and all but invited the Defence to challenge Vigna in Federal Court: “Don't say it's privilege. It's not privilege, it's 37. It is a large tool that you have chosen to use, and I hope that one day the Federal Court has a chance to assess it.”

Amazingly, in the Warman v. Glenn Bahr and Western Canada for Us Tribunal, when Paul Fromm asked Sgt. Stephen Camp whether “Estate” was an Edmonton Police Officer, Sec. 37 was not invoked. Camp eventually admitted “Estate” who had posted inflammatory and racist comments on Stormfront was a police officer. [Subsequently, in Glenn Bahr’s preliminary hearing on Sec. 319 – “hate” – charges, Camp came clean and admitted he was “Estate”]

In the Bahr case, acting as his agent, I originally asked, about the identity of “Estate.” There was a bit of an argument. Camp refused to answer. Vigna them talked about "Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act" but did not invoke it. More discussion ensued over whether the question was relevant. After it was ruled relevant by Tribunal Charperson Julie Lloyd, Camp returned to testify on the following Monday. During Constable Camps testimony, he revealed that “Estate” was an Edmonton police officer, but refused to identify which officer it was.

MR. WARMAN: -- the last point I would make is that Sergeant Camp over the break has had an opportunity to speak with his colleagues and superiors at the Edmonton Police Service as well as others -- I won't go into -- he has had a chance to confirm that there are no further ongoing issues in relation to -- we won't be continuing with the Section 37 Canada Evidence Act objection. ( Warman v. Bahr and Western Canada for Us transcript, page 683)

Interestingly, Warman doesn't continue the objection!!! Objections under Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act can only be invoked and certified by “A Minister of the Crown in right of

Canada

or other official” Just what on earth is going on here? Does Richard Warman represent a Minister of the Crown or other official? If so why it this not revealed? During most of the testimony Richard Warman has done, he has testified he is doing this on his own initiative, and has no “special relationship” with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We are battling a secrecy obsessed Canadian Human Rights Commission bent on throttling dissent on the Internet and equally determined to keep Canadians in the dark about their spy operations. They have all the money and resources. We need your help in this ongoing battle.

	Date& Page	Question Asked	Specified Public Interest claimed	Ruling from Member Hadjis
1	May 9/07 Page: 4426	MS KULASZKA: What kind of Investigations would you do, for instance, to verify the identity of a respondent?	MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, it's a privilege in terms of the investigation techniques that are used. We cannot jeopardize these techniques in terms of the future and – THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, but are you invoking a specific privilege?	THE CHAIRPERSON: So you are invoking 37? MR. DUFRESNE: For this point, yes. THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't say it's privilege. It's not privilege, it's 37. It is a large tool that you have chosen to use, and I hope that one day the Federal Court has a chance to assess it. Section 37. …PAGE 4429: I am asking for some discretion to be utilized by the single party that has this tool in this room. Go ahead.
2	May 10 2007 Page 4716	MS KULASZKA: Do any investigators post on “Stormfront.org"?	MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I would object based on section 37. It's investigation techniques. MS KULASZKA: I am not asking for specific e-mails, or what their names are, nothing that would threaten the Commission.	THE CHAIRPERSON: He has invoked section 37, Ms Kulaszka -- investigative techniques; public security.
3	May 10/07 Page: 4729	(reads the Warman transcript from Beaumont case. No question asked; Vigna objects immediately. Witness is excused and Vigna continues to invoke Section 37.	MR. VIGNA: The questions being asked regarding Jadewarr are the ones that I am objecting to, in relation to who is Jadewarr and what purpose -- Anything related to Jadewarr I am invoking section 37 on, as investigation techniques.	THE CHAIRPERSON: I will let the witness come back in. The topic is not off limits. The topic is on limits. I will let you ask any question you want, Ms Kulaszka. You have heard what Mr. Vigna has said, and we will see how he will choose to invoke section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act along the way.
4	May 10 2007 Page 4752	MS KULASZKA: Is there any kind of oral agreement? [Between CHRC and Police] MR. STEACY: Yes. MS KULASZKA: What is that?	MR. VIGNA: Jeopardizing the investigations and the operations of the Commission, as well as potential criminal investigations.	THE CHAIRPERSON: That is the answer. They have invoked section 37. You will have it on the transcript, Ms Kulaszka.
5	May 10 2007 Page 4759	MS KULASZKA: Have you been refused information? [From Police] MR. STEACY: Yes. MS KULASZKA: What kind of information?	MR. VIGNA: Objection, Mr. Chair. Section 37. What kind of information is being obtained or refused, I think it would be part of the investigative privilege. THE CHAIRPERSON: Say that again? MR. VIGNA: Section 37. Public interest. The information that would be disclosed or not disclosed, I think, would be all part of the same privilege, the public interest privilege, that this type of information does not need to be put in the public domain.	THE CHAIRPERSON: It is noted for the record.
6	May 10 2007 Page 4828	MS KULASZKA: Getting back to Jadewarr, do Commission employees sign up accounts on Stormfront under pseudonyms such as "Jadewarr"?	MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I invoke the same thing as I did this morning on this specific question, section 37, and I base myself on the public interest and the jeopardizing of investigation techniques. THE CHAIRPERSON: You have to give me a specified public interest under the Act. MR. VIGNA: Jeopardizing investigation techniques. THE CHAIRPERSON: Jeopardizing...? MR. VIGNA: Investigation techniques and Commission operations.	THE CHAIRPERSON: So you have invoked section 37, Mr. Vigna, saying that the disclosure of that information -- that the information cannot be disclosed on the ground of the specified public interest of jeopardizing investigation techniques by the Commission. Is that what you are saying? MR. VIGNA: Exactly, and Commission operations.
7	May 10 2007 Page 4830	MS KULASZKA: My second question was: Do you know who Jadewarr is?	MR. VIGNA: The same objection as the previous one. I object o -- THE CHAIRPERSON: I won't make you repeat it. You are making the same objection.	All right. The first question was, "Does the Commission engage in pseudonyms," on which section 37 has been invoked. "Do you know who Jadewarr is?" Section 37 has been invoked. Go ahead.
8	May 10 2007 Page 4833	MS KULASZKA: To your knowledge, is Jadewarr a Commission employee?	MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, it is the same exact question, rephrased slightly differently, and I have the same objection. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is similar, yes. MR. VIGNA: Similar rationale, public interest, investigation techniques, Commission operations.	THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We are going down the same path. Ms Kulaszka, if you want to make a complete record on this point, go ahead, but we will be getting the same objection each time from Mr. Vigna.
9	May 10 2007 Page 4834	MS KULASZKA: As part of your duties, have you ever signed up with a message board and made postings?	MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I object again, based on section 37, on the grounds of public interest and jeopardizing investigations, as well as Commission operations.	MR. FROMM: Sir, the question was to past activities, nothing that is ongoing. It was: Did you, in the past, ever do this. THE CHAIRPERSON: Your point is well taken, sir, but I don't know if I can do anything.