I hope you did a screenshot of both links.
Done. Other interested parties, I'm sure, have done likewise.
Have some popcorn, Scott.
What I want to see is who starts sending posts down the memory hole and issuing grovelling apologies first. I will keep an eye out, and you should too.
Also, don't forget, Mark Steyn reproduced all this stuff from Shaidle. He too has some deleting and S-Planin to do.
Steyn? You got a link to that?
Steyn:
http://www.steynonline.com/conte...t/view/902/128/
I think Ezra did something on this too, as did a number of MSM columnists.
Steyn's take (sorry for the long cut and paste):
Quite the prose stylist, eh? As I said previously, this isn't entrapment; it's manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.
Furthermore, when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.
For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.
At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, Agent Dean Steacy should be removed from all "hate" cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German Warman vacated. The mountain of phony-baloney "jurisprudence" based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.
In the end, Maclean's and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It's time to end it.
Here's Ezra (I've been conned by Nazis) Levant:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/qu...-
nicholson.html
Scott and BCL:
I do now--Steyn and Levant. Thanks for that.
More popcorn?
Have you sent off an email to Mr. K with these new links?
I should, eh? I've directed him to my post, but these links wouldn't hurt. Thank you both.
I'm breathlessly awaiting the first post from someone on the moron-o-sphere ( (c)Stageleft) claiming there's a left-wing Progressive Blogger conspiracy to censor free speech after they read this comment thread.
I don't think mis-calling a person a criminal publicly qualifies as a bona fide exercise of free speech, even for the absolutists.
You're giving some folks too much credit with even that presumption, Dawg, I predict.
Someone should ask Ezra whether he thinks the cops should not post as children in predator chat rooms. Is that "planting "evidence""? Or are we just offended at such tactics when Nazis are in jeopardy?
Then they should ask Ezra whether he believes everything nutjobs tell him?
Have you read the (sorta) retraction at SDA? Commenters rise nicely to the occasion, eh?
I don't think mis-calling a person a criminal publicly qualifies as a bona fide exercise of free speech, even for the absolutists.
As an absolutist, I agree, provided that it can be proven that this utterance or writing caused harm, either physical or to the reputation, of the person who was the object. I think in this case its pretty clear.
Remember, an absolutist thinks you can say anything so long as it causes no harm. After that, face the consequences.
Em:
Yeah, they aren't exactly getting Kate and Kathy out of hot water, are they?
Look, the only one who deserves flaming here is the fascist Warman.
This is the biggest creep in Canada. Rather than just hoping, I will be doing everything I'm able to spread the word on this criminal in anticipation of a federal investigation and conviction.
Someone should ask Ezra whether he thinks the cops should not post as children in predator chat rooms.
Not quite what FD was claiming Warman did, Greg. Their version, as yet unproven (and as I understand it), is that Warman posted offensive material and then complained to the CHRC about inter alia the presence of that material. It would be more like posting comments that indicated one was a child predator, and then citing the website as a "predator's chat room" based on the presence of the material you had posted.
No doubt, this is all going to get very interesting.
Dawg - Mike beat me to the response; yes, this is a proper exercise of free speech: if a government agency is involved, wittingly or unwittingly, in the false prosecution of its citizens, is this not a time to speak out? Obviously, one has to be careful of the facts, and if Warman's reputation has been damaged by untrue allegations those making the charge will have to keep him whole. That obligation is not founded (solely) on the damage to his reputation - if the allegation is true, he obviously deserves to have his reputation besmirched - but on doing so falsely.
Deaner, I've posted on this this morning, but quickly: Warman is accused of going aboard several Neo Nazi websites and making racist comments under an assumed identity to "entrap" the Nazis into responding with further racist comments.
1) He has denied it in the past.
2) The judge in the complaint said it was irrelevant to the complaint (suggesting that if Lemire, who made the allegation, wanted to, he could file a seperate complaint against Warman).
Kathy, Kate, Ezra, MArk Steyn, all repeated the material that came up on Free Dominion.
Deaner:
I'm not sure I understand you. Libeling someone is a legitimate exercise of free speech, but should be punishable? Maybe I just ate too much popcorn, but this seems a little contradictory.
BCL:
If you want visitors from here, don't garble your homepage URL! I can't fix it from here either.
Sorry Dawg. Should be fixed.
FreeD's argument seems to be (or Lemire's arguement) that they can tie both a username Warman used and one he claims not to have used to this IP: 66.185.84.204.
To me it looks like a publicly accessible computer, but I'm not 100%.
Thanks, BCL. I didn't mean my comment to be as harsh as it looked, btw.
ON the IP--this story gets curiouser and curiouser. At the end, it looks like the techies will fight it out.
Dawg - no, one is a private matter, the other is public: if your false speech damages me, then you are liable to me - that's private between me and you (although the restitution may involve a public statement). You are free to exercise your right to speak - but does not mean that you can do so without consequence. Note that you are not "punished" for your speech by the state but by me (bwahahaha...). As a public matter, the state has no interest in preventing you from uttering that speech, particularly if it is on a matter of public importance, so long as there are mechanisms to ensure that I can recover against you. To ensure that those mechanisms exist, we fund a system where we can address those private issues in civil court.
I am not sure I would term it "legitimate" free speech - speech is either free or it is not free; trying to differentiate between 'legitimate' (and presumably 'illegitimate') free speech is a mug's game.
bcl - I misunderstood; I thought the comments alleged to be by Warman formed part of his complaint.
The IP, if you check Google, does appear to have been used in a suspiciously wide variety of circumstances--everything from dog-grooming to a rancorous post on girls' hockey, to a beauty pageant in Northern Ontario, to a site entirely in Thai, to another in Italian devoted to Linux.
BCL, I think you're onto something.
Check out Mike's explanation of how IP's work, and how Free Dominion has in his mind nothing here to justify their claim.
Scott,
Thanks for that. This is shaping up to be a war of the techies, all right. Reminds me a bit of the Amero case in that respect.
Viva Ernst Zundel!
From our friend Chris, at, of all places, Terry Glavin's house:
Stumbled acrtoss your site because it mentioned Zundel. Your short essay is really just another example of a poorly written smear piece. Zundel is a victim of organized Jewry [Zionism for the faint of heart]. Fortunately, the Jews [organized Jewry] spent more of their capital screwing Zundel than they should have, his incarceration is a major propaganda victory, just as Zundel said it would be.
Chris is banned. And I'm scratching my head. Glavin banned me a while back for taking exception to his (apparently perennial) mischaracterizations of the Left. He left up stupid personal attacks against me by the usual rabble, but deleted all of my responses. But he leaves this sort of thing up for all to see. Hmmm. Well, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, I guess.
Dr. Dawg,
1. I recall a couple of years back when we had an early morning airport run that the driver, who was surfing on his laptop, commented that there were a number of wireless networks on the street to choose from. Most people had no security, ourselves included. So clearly it is possible for someone to gain access to someone else's ISP account. I suppose if you have enemies someone might try to do just that.
2. Good grief re: the above. That's a lot worse than the sort of thing that I've complained about in the past. I can't fathom why someone would allow that in and ban you.
P.S. I went over there to comment but do not see that quote from Chris. It doesn't look like comments are moderated. Perhaps the blogger took it down as soon as he saw it.
Dawg, I'm surprised that you would be so quick to slam the door on this alleged entrapment. If even remotely true, it calls into question every complaint that Warman has won at the CHRC.
I've always been surprised that people (especially you) haven't been uncomfortable with the idea of a former employee of and investigator for the CHRC submitting (and winning) most of the cases that it has dealt with. At the very least, it suggests that Warman has provided the CHRC with opportunities to pursue its human rights goals in a way that it wouldn't have been able to if Warman weren't submitting complaints. Coinciding interests should raise eyebrows.
I agree that we should wait for the techies. But this will always be inconclusive. Of course maybe some guy with his laptop stole Warman's signal. Then maybe that same guy happened to go to a white supremacist site and post alot of nasty things. And then some other guy drove by, stole the signal, and did the exact same thing. And on and on.
Mark:
The link works and the comment is clearly there. It's the fifth one down. The thread, however, is many months old.
Aaron:
At this point I'm simply watching the drama unfold.
Well Aaron, At the very least, if/when all these sites get shut down from libelling Mr. Warman, YOUR site would be a definite possibility that it should see a marked increase in traffic from the loony-tunes looking for a new blog home. They'll feel right at home at The Politic.
Aaron,
Crapola. This is a bunch of rehashing of old charges based on allegations Neo Nazis made years ago.
And if you're wondering how this will turn out, it isn't techie vs. techie, its techie vs. whatever piece a junk the Nazis could get to run their website and testify for them. Their talent pool doesn't go very deep.
Even given the changeability of IP's, it does seem a bit odd... two extremist posts on the same website from the same IP under two pseudonyms, one of which Warman has admitted to. You aren't a *teensy* bit suspicious that he's behind the other one too?
Not at all? Really? Or are you just gloating over the possible downfall of some political enemies? Perhaps for levelling a good-faith, possibly true, but possibly unprovable, accusation?
Not very nice of you.
P.S. Hi Dawg, some of your recent posts on the Levant affair have been pretty good BTW.
"Not at all? Really? Or are you just gloating over the possible downfall of some political enemies? Perhaps for levelling a good-faith, possibly true, but possibly unprovable, accusation?"
As opposed the the naked ferocity and glee that has been surrounding this whole affair from the right?
Pariah,
Also from the same IP were people arguing about Jr. hockey (in Oshawa), people arguing about dog grooming, and stuff in foreign tongues. That IP address was cheap and easy, and really got around. Given that the people who have had it assigned to them are some subset of Roger's subscribers, and we are legion, it would not surprise me if a couple turned out to be Nazi sympathizers.
thanks Dawg-clearly I'm now too old to multi-task effectively...can't believe I missed it on the first read 
Pariah,
Thank you, and welcome back to the 'sphere.
On the instant matter, I have to confess agnosticism. I was concerned when the charges first surfaced on various conservative blogs, because they appeared to have such conviction. They were stating this stuff as plain fact. Could there be some truth to them? Maybe an investigation...
Then, when the CJC took the opposite tack (although they are invested in Warman, in a sense, they wouldn't defend him mindlessly), I thought, well, not so fast. Maybe it's all bogus. Consider the source--a neo-Nazi working with Free Dominion, a site that Warman has personally gone after.
I'm simply not tech-savvy enough to have an informed opinion on the IP matter. But if there was in fact doubt about the charges, a lot of people were making themselves vulnerable in the extreme by calling Richard Warman a fraudster in public, on the say-so of his extremist enemies. Their dislike of the man made them reckless, and there are real consequences for such recklessness.
I'm trying not to enjoy this, but with little success, I will admit. However, I am not in any way prejudging the outcome of this affair. (One of the problems is that there is not a single disinterested party involved.) I'm fascinated; it's great theatre. I'm waiting for the dénouement, and I have no idea whatsoever how this will come out. What I hope will eventuate is really irrelevant, and would in any case be no surprise to anyone.
I'm getting out some more popcorn myself, Dawg. We now have Mr Mike Brock over at Stageleft proclaiming how any libel case will be a failure and Mr Warman is dead to rights, and how Warren Kinsella in so many words isn't a very good lawyer... blah blah blah..
I've left a comment over there. I think Brock is confusing criminal with civil libel. There is no good faith defence in the latter case.
A couple of things:
1) Would you agree Dawg that if it is shown that Warman did in fact post the odious remarks about Sen. Cools he deserves a legal paddling?
2) Do you accept that Warman has admitted under oath that he has posted from that IP?
3) At this point, where the techies are still out on the question, do you think it likely that the same IP which Warman has admitted using at least once, would have posted racist filth twice. (There are a lot of IPs)
That all said the question is not whether the CJC - which has already given Warman an award as I recall - or the liar Kinsella suports the man. The question is whether or not Warman is going to sue for defamation.
Of course, if he does sue he will be open to full discovery and will have to produce and allow to be produced his full IP records.
I note that according to FD, when those records were required to be produced in an CHRC complaint the complaint was suddenly and mysteriously amended to drop the claim regarding this particular sock puppet.
Popcorn all round but at this point, unless and until Warman serves a writ, I regard the allegation as probable. But, as the great BC libel lawyer Peter Butler once remarked - and the liar Kinsella often proves - writs are cheap.
Jay:
I don't even want to speculate about what should be done if Warman indeed authored the post in question. Let's get there first.
I do agree that, should he issue a writ, the examination for discovery will put a lot of pertinent information on the table. He's a lawyer, and I think he knows better than to bluff if there's something harmful to his case that might be likely to turn up.
Warman has admitted that he posted as "Lucy" under that IP address. We have only a neo-nazi's word that the earlier post has the same IP address. Even if that proves correct, Mike of Rational Reasons has provided a number of scenarios that could account for it. I'm not a techie; he is; you'll have to take that stuff up with him. There's a conversation going on over at Stageleft between him and Mike Brock on the technical issues involved.
But there's a prior question. You talk about believing an allegation is probable. But the issue in the past 24 hours has been publishing allegations as facts. That's foolhardy, and may have consequences, as I've said before.
Most of us following this melodrama are, I suspect, as agnostic on the issue of Warman's alleged act as I am. I have no idea how this movie will end, but the popcorn's tasty, isn't it?
Yummy.
BCL: Rogers' IP addresses do get around as you say, but it seems to be more like serial monogamy than outright promiscuity. That is, if an IP is assigned to a given computer one month, it's likely to be still assigned the next month.
For example someone's with Lucy's IP hit the site www.lindesfarnegospels.org in October 2004, then again in November. The same IP hit a computer-science page at Univ. of Alberta eight times between 17 Nov 2003 and 3 Mar 2004. Lucy herself (Warman) hit the Stormfront site on three occasions in the same month (11, 15 and 23 Nov 2003), all under the same IP (according to Klatt, at least).
In other words, the closer two posts (with same IP, different users) are together, the more likely they are to be the same user. The time elapsed between 90sAreOver's post and Lucy's first post is about two months, whereas the dog-groomer's post and other posts with same IP are more distant in time. This seems to improve the odds of 90sAreOver and Lucy posting from the same computer.
There seems to be something weird about the way these Rogers IP work. Look at the dates for Lucy and the person who accessed the UAlta page (I assume Warman has no particular interest in computer science):
2003
11 Nov - Lucy
15 Nov - Lucy
17 Nov - computer science guy
18 Nov - c.s.g.
21 Nov - c.s.g.
23 Nov - Lucy
9 Dec - c.s.g.
11 Dec - c.s.g.
2004
3 Mar - c.s.g. (3 times)
If we stick with the "serial monogamy" hypothesis, it looks like Lucy held IP 66.185.84.204 from 11-15 November, lost it to Computer Science Guy around 18-21 November, then somehow regained it by 23 November. Assuming Rogers assigns IPs to people Warman from a pool of several hundred or several thousand, it's pretty friggin' unlikely that he would have gotten 66.185.84.204 again purely by chance. So - to make my semi-relevant point - it looks like more than one user can hold the same Rogers IP at the same time.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what further technical details turn up. As for Warman, he may not be as lawsuit-happy as alleged. For one thing, if he is in fact responsible for the attack on Senator Cools, he's probably smart enough not to set himself up for an Oscar Wilde moment. (Wilde sued the father of his male lover for a scurrilous note; the suit collapsed in a fiasco and led to Wilde's imprisonment for criminal sodomy.) The attack on Cools is pretty obviously actionable as libel; whereas Lucy's posts are at worst violations of the Section 13.
Dawg: Based on the letter that Kinsella posted, I don't think the CJC made any technical investigation whatsoever. More likely they blew off the allegations based on their source. Why shouldn't they? It's not their job to investigate CHRC complainants.
Whether Klatt is a neo-Nazi or not (some people defended Zundel on sincere civil-liberties grounds), the issue here is his technical competence. In any case, it's unlikely he would deliberately get his frien
Hi, IP:
Haloscan imposes a character limit. Please re-post the truncated last part of your message.
Like I saved it.
The truncated sentence should read something like: "In any case, it's unlikely he would deliberately get his friends in trouble and destroy his own reputation by manufacturing fake evidence."
I won't bother with the rest.
I'm no computer techie here. That being the case, my weighing in on such a matter is like a lay person weighing in on forensic medical evidence. But: I'd like to know whether it is possible to determine, where someone has a wireless network that has no security (if that's applicable here), whether a user was someone inside the home with the network or someone on the street hacking into the network (whether secured or not).
It seems to me that this guy is high profile, with a clear known identity, and therefore a clear target for someone trying to hack into his network.
MarkyMark, I'm a bit above layman so I'll make an ass of myself... The short answer is "maybe". It would depend of if the wifi network was configured to keep logs or not, if it was logging MAC addresses etc.
Haloscan's comment length restrictions are quite frustrating. It's one reason I moved to Movable Type years ago. Their comment registration and moderation procedures are quite robust.
Dawg, if you want to move to a MT site, I'd be happy to set something up for you, like I did for Political Staples. Drop me an e-mail sometime.
I'll do that, James. I remember the magic you worked for me once before.
Another fascinating aspect of this whole "Did he or did he not post a racist comment at FD" accusation/allegation fandango is, of course, the specific target of the comment.
Senator Cools? Not known to be a friend of progressives, is she? So if one were to 'facilitate' documentation that Warman was planting evidence or at the very least, inciting racist comments by doing that same thing, himself, then Cools would be the rather obvious choice.
This is all very convoluted. I think that I may need to rest my synapses now.
The problem with thinking og 90sAreOver as a counter-provocateur (someone impersonating Warman impersonating a racist) is that all this happened in the fall of 2003. Four years is a long time to wait for your black operation to bear fruit.
I'd say that, if not Warman or another agent provocateur, then a genuine racist. But it's true that Cools is one of the more socially conservative members of the Senate. Hmm, maybe a radical-progressive provocateur would enjoy taking a shot at her while going about his/her dirty work.
IP, the wonderful thing about this is that Warman himself has, so far, not said a word nor filed a writ.
The problem he faces is that, by his own admission, he doesn't know much about computers. And he knows that, for example, the speculation as to a racist wardriver parking out front of his house to diss Sen. Cools from his IP would collapse if he did not, at the relavent date, have a wireless modem or router in place.
Discovery is a mighty tool. If Warman sues someone for something he opens himself up to a complete examination. What he did for the CHRC, what he did on his own hook, a list of all his online aliases...
My gentleman's bet is that Warman is suing no one. Too risky.
Schneier on Security keeps his wireless home network open.
He explains why here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
arc..._wireles_1.html
Schneieir has the skills to know if he gets hacked, would a good computer expert be able to make the same determination for someone like Warman who is not techie?
Just because it would be technically feasible to spoof Warman’s IP and other details, does not mean anyone would be so dumb as to try it with someone of his track record of litigation. The truth will (mostly) always out and if that truth does not sustain the allegation, it’s not exactly in Warman’s nature to exercise restraint. This will surely have passed through the minds of Klatt and Co.
Lord Denning, the eminent British Law Lord, said “innocence begs the chance to speak”. In this case, we won’t have to wait long from Warman.
However, if the truth belongs to either a) a serial litigant or b) anyone else, ain’t no secret where my money will be.
How many people had wireless routers back in 2003? My guess, not too many, and not same people, on the whole, who were still running Windows 98.
IP, I've had one since early 2000 (though your point about windows 98 might be spot on - I was running it under os9).
IP, you make an entirely valid point and one which, should Warman decide to bring an action will be dealt with in Discovery.
I love the idea of a racist wardriver cruising Warman's open hot spot and posting this nastiness to exactly the site Warman was purportedly infiltrating. Happens all the time.
What we are seeing here is a general clutching at straws in the face of apparently despicable behaviour by the poster boy of thought crime in Canada.
And, I note, Warman himself has so far not said a word. Denning was right.
Yeah, c'mon Richard. SPEAK UP! WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
The other shoe hasn't dropped.
I can sense the anticipation...
Seems that some folks think that if a writ doesn't get issued within a day or 2, the guy's chickening out.
Personally, I don't know why some folks are literally daring the fellow to sue them. Be careful what you wish for is the old saying.
Scott, you are absolutely right. It can take weeks, even months, to prepare and issue a writ. Especially if you need to fashion it to minimize your own exposure.
But it is interesting that Warman has made no public statement stating that he stands by his testimony that he has never posted anything under the sock puppet name "90sareover".
Of course the last time he made a similar statement, under oath, that he never posted anything under the sock-puppet name "Lucy" it turned out he was not actually, well, telling the truth. And it is going to take him a while to sync up his story with Stacy of the CHRC who seems to be intent on confirming that Warman (and he) saw sock-puppetry as a legitimate and useful investigative tool.
After all, when you are prosecuting thought crime you have to find out what people think and that's tough.
It's also very interesting Jay, that the right-wing blogs would take to defending 2 characters (and that's almost too complimentary) such as those 2 and basically risk getting all taken off-line over it. I think in the end, the bunch who are doing this will realize they crossed the line.
Which bunch would that be, though, Scott - the ones who posted material under false names (and then lied about it under oath), or the ones who repeated possibly unreliable information? By the way - could you get back to us on which of these is more "over the line" than the other?
Scott, odious as I find the views of the people Warman has gone after, so far as can be seen they have yet to lie under oath as Warman has.
There is an inherent danger when you are sure you are right - you tend to think the ends justify the means.
Warman, Stacey and the entire apparatus of the CHRC are in the business of prosecuting thought crimes. This, in my view, is a profoundly anti-democratic and very likely dangerous end. But their means, posting hate messages on American sites to gull Canadians into revealing their thoughts and then prosecuting them, is totalitarian.
That this has been allowed to happen and has been countenanced by the CHRC - implicitly or explicitly - underscores the need for a full judicial investigation of that body.
Hey Scott, stop scaring us. There’s a good fellow.
I'm not trying to scare anyone.. but I shake my head at the false bravado some of you right-wing blogging folks show. We'll see if that same bravado is there if/when the folks in question get served with papers.
And I shake mine at the apparent willingness of various censors and censors' gunsels to threaten legal action.
I suppose when you have nothing substantive to say to contradict the allegations being made a little libel chill can't hurt....What's the term, ah, yes, I remember: SLAPP suit.
Interesting to see if Warman goes to law on this. Because if he does then the entire "investigative"/provocation process used by the CHRC will be open to Discovery. And now that the CHRC has lost its right to claim public interest immunity for its investigators the legal fur will fly.
I suspect the sweat is far colder on the other side. You guys lose either way. Assuming Denning is right, if we don’t hear from Warman we can draw our own conclusions, and the credibility of the most energetic enforcer of the
censorious left will be compromised beyond repair. If we do, well stones will be lifted and I can’t imagine that either he or his ex-colleagues at the CHRC will be ecstatic at the prospect of the light shining on their methods, activities and biases (especially the, er, novel attitudes voiced by Dean Steacy).
Popcorn anyone?
Commenting by HaloScan
