A year ago, this August 7, 2008 letter from Paul Fromm (which better explains what I have written above) would probably have had no significant impact on a CHRT hearing, but today it is causing amazing reactions.
As a start, for the first time in its history, the CHRC is backing off a Section 13 that they have taken all the way to a scheduled hearing. The CHRC responded to the Paul Fromm letter with two letters of their own to the CHRT informing the tribunal that it (the CHRC) would no longer be prosecuting this case and that they would not be attending the August 18 hearing in Hamilton.
But the hearing chairman, Athanasios Hajis, is not going to let them off the hook so easily. In a reply letter Mr. Hajis told the CHRC that he expects them to appear at the hearing and he expects them to explain exactly why they are backing out at this last possible hour.
[see pdf’s at the link]
This is excellent news. I really think the victim here should file a law society complaint against Lucy. This behaviour is completely unacceptable and needs to be stopped and punitive damages applied.
The entrapment using false identities and the HRC might also warrant a complaint.
Where are all the lawyers who believe in Justice etc.
This piece of s… should be repugnant to any lawyer who believes in the rule of law.He is abusing the trust offered by his license.
I’d bet there were many who offered their services pro bono in order to protect the respect for their profession.
Now where did I set that drink?
Fox on the run. Finally the SOB exposed publicly.
lets get Lucy.
Can’t he be charged criminally for fraud? He should be in jail and disbarred.
Better title:
CHRC investigators agree with Stormfront member Paul Fromm over former employee W*man.
Why Lucy!..you are nothing but a common criminal, committing fraud..methinks the real courts are going to be involved in this case now..
What a scumbag.
Better title:
CHRC investigators agree with Stormfront member Paul Fromm over former employee W*man.- Brian Weston
..and what exactly has this to do with the law of this country? Is there and exception in the law for dirtbag lawyers? No? Then lets move on a**hole.
Free speech is free speech. I make decisions based on my own values, not based on the values of those who do or do not agree with me. It’s called independent thought, twerp.
One can only assume that you believe because Hamas supports Barack Obama that we should not? Paul Fromm supports Oewendyk, and Hamas supports Obama. Support from Paul Fromm means Oewendyk is a dirtbag not deserving of the benefits of the rule of law, so support from Hamas must mean Barack Obama is not fit for the presidency.
Lemmee take that first bit back, this is starting to work for me.
I’d like to know why he hasn’t been hauled before the Upper Canada Law Society? He deserves nothing less than total disbarment.
Better Better Title:
CHRC lawyers agree with Stormfront member Paul Fromm over Stormfront member and former employee W*man.
Remember – “Lucy” Warman was a member of Stormfront, too, as were other CHRC investigators. Got Jadewarr?
Lucy, you’ve got some ‘slainin’ to do.
Well, well, well…
So where’s the mainstream media?
Liberal fascists being caught red-handed acting like lawless fascists… damnit, but, you know, Robert Mugabe is getting off the hook, too, but we expect, in Canada, that those who violate others’ human rights are to be prosecuted very strongly…
What, does the MSM think this is just fine, therefore they won’t help the People expose and put out of commission (and bring to justice, for such hateful folks belong behind bars, to send a stern message that such fascism will NOT be tolerated) these criminal fascists who violate the law, the constitution and peoples’ rights just because they don’t like them and their opinions, etc…???
Fromm, Ouwendyk, Warman…
Two white supremacists and a guy who thinks anything – anything – is justified in pursuing them.
Lot of ugly personalities in this story.
Just when one thinks the CHRC fiasco can’t get any sleezier and corrupt, it does! (In that regard, it’s fun to review the many fitting, Dickensian names of the CHRC posse: Jennifer LYNCH, Ian FINE–as in take your money away–Hanna RYZK, Margot BLIGHT, and WARMAN–he sure is!–himself. I think I might have left a few out. Anyone else have some?)
The chickens are coming home to roost for Mr. Warman.
What a very pleasant thought 😉
maybe bloggers should set up a fund to press the matter with the upper canada law society and/or sue warman/CHRC for damages
we need to go on the offencive!!!!
The hrc’s had quite the secret little scam going on there. The upper law society will have no choice but to disbar him. Every single person who works for the hrc is tainted with this. They will have to dismantle them, there is no other way. I bet they rue the day they cut a deal with the islamist to go after Ezra and macleans.
I’m trying to end-run the filter here, where my comment very similar to this was recently caught. So I’ve had to give someone’s name in other words! Here goes:
Just when one thinks that things at the CHRC couldn’t get any sleazier or corrupt, they do! (With this in mind, it’s fun to review the fitting Dickensian names of so many of the CHRC posse: Jennifer LYNCH, Ian FINE—as in take your money away—Hanna RYZK, Margot BLIGHT, and, of course, the MAN with the name the opposite of PEACE. I think I may have left some out. Anyone . . .?)
It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost for someone.
What a very pleasant thought 😉
But this isn’t new.
Lucy has been filing complaints with the HRCs for years, and getting money from them, despite his not being a victim, and not being ‘offended’ or ‘viewed with hatred’ due to his not being a member of a discriminated group. This blatant abuse of the Act itself was never questioned, most of all by the HRC itself – as well as the law society.
What is new is the arbitrariness of the HRC/T’s ‘judgments’ is becoming more obvious. The fact that they are withdrawing from these most recent cases, such as Macleans, Steyn, Levant – and this – is setting up a contradictory situation.
After all, their previous judgments found fault (understood as a ‘likely to offend’) despite having no direct complaints (the Boissoin case); and even with the lack of any individuals who felt ‘offended’. Their current refusal to find fault is setting up a contrary precedent.
And as was obvious in the HRC ‘judgment’ on the Levant case, the HRC is having trouble justifying its rulings. Its rhetoric is becoming more ambiguous, vapid – and without reference to any logic or facts – enabling it to come up with whatever conclusions it wants. Pure arbitrariness.
Or, you can examine another recent strategy: legally not finding fault but still finding fault (the Ontario HRC) which removes them from accountability.
In both cases, the new behaviour of the HRCs holds their earlier judgments up to criticism because there is no continuity of judgment.
And this means that ALL their judgments are totally and completely – arbitrary and subjective.
And, ET, your conclusion also means that all the victims of heinous CHRC abuse of due process should have grounds to sue the b*st*rds.
I’d love to see a class action suit here. The CHRC hasn’t a leg to stand on–except for its invalid enabling policies, like Section 13, which our politicians need to vote down. (Aye, there’s the rub: do enough of our parliamentarians have the integrity and balls to do so? I wish I could answer with an unequivocal yes.)
Here’s hoping . . .
P.S. I’ll bet Ezra’s typing fingers are itching during his week away.
After this new twist, I think his wife–a long suffering lady, for sure–will need to hide his laptop!
why is this pinhead still working for the government?
why hasn’t he been disbarred?
Brad, the answer to your questions is that the Canadian government resides in a place called Neverland. Most of the inhabitants are Peter Pans and Tinkerbells–people who have never grown up and who behave like spoiled brat-babies.
It didn’t used to be this way. The 60’s kids, followed 20 years later by their spawn, the Charter, changed everything.
Hate to rain on peoples parade but this is a bad sign. It means to me that there getting good advice from some smart people. Which I assume will tell them only to go after the real kooks till there day comes again. I say fire them all with compensation to their collective persecution of those who become victims. This has no place in any democracy. Its a malignant growth in the body politic. This turn around has the tone of insincerity all over it.
The way Mr. Ed has played it in his own neighborhood is to adopt the HRC’s as his personnel foundlings. Even sending lawyers to suckle them in there infantile idiocy. If he wants to preserve these gangrenous growths, I have no problem believing the CHRC is from The CPC as well.
Someone has told them to stay low & hunker down till the storm passes. It will mean we have to keep it raging. Next they will try to sound reasonable if the real government is involved trying to save this mutant of anti-justice. Bide time till you can exert powers a new generation will not see as abnormal. Its just too tempting to have an organization like this in the hands of any Party, for they will hound there enemies with these star chambers. Kick the bums out of this diseased organization& disband it fourth with.
JMO
There’s reason for commenters here to be careful on one specific matter, for Kate’s sake. (I’m not referring to any of the above comments, this is intendedly pre-emptive). They key word in section 69.2 of the bankruptcy act is “filing” — “On the filing of a consumer proposal…no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy…until the administrator has been discharged.”
That’s clear enough, but note that in Fromm’s words Buttercup’s claim was made when Ouwendyk was seeking a Consumer Proposal. Now, it may be that “seeking” and “filing” mean the same thing, but maybe “seeking” means “intending” or “giving notice of intention to file.”
I’m wondering if it’s possible that the law might possibly provide an exemption allowing an individual suing someone who’s filed for bankruptcy to submit a claim against a Consumer Proposal before the case is heard as some sort of creditor-in-trust situation where the release of the money will depend on the outcome of the trial. There has to be some reason that Buttercup’s claim as creditor was *successfully* added under the Consumer Proposal; if he had no legal right to make the claim, you’d think his application would have been rejected.
All that aside, what I find bizarre and outrageous is the notion that an individual could, through legal filings, become a creditor to someone else who is being sued/complained about BEFORE *any* judgements have been delivered, whether in Small Claims court or by an HRC Tribunal. If one could get money before a trial and a verdict, simply by suing someone or taking them in front of an HRC, you’d think there’d be a whole lot of that going on, as some sort of calculated gambit for a no-credit loan.
The HRT is now not going ahead with Buttercup’s complaint. He will not be receiving an award. And his libel case in Small Claims court was stayed, but even if it was an ongoing case it boggles the mind to think that he would have any claim to Ouwendyk’s assets *before* any judgement against O has been rendered.
Here’s the real kicker to me, here’s what puts the whole disgusting display over-the-top: according to Fromm, Buttercup stropped Ouwendyk’s Consumer Proposal, and THEN filed a Section 13 complaint against him. If that’s true, then the most improbable-sounding accusations made by the HRCs’ harshest critics are going to be shown as being entirely reasonable and matter-of-fact.
“So where’s the mainstream media?”
CS, I agree with the point of your comment, however the answer to your query has already been answered many times over.The MSM repeatedly demonstrates it has morphed political correctness into a moral code.
I’d rather like to understand where the f*ck the Harper Tories are through this travesty of democracy.Embarrassingly,it was a Lib MP that first stood beside Lavant.
I would expect the utterly self-interested LPC to ignore such a mess.
I expect a conservative PM to stand up and fight to protect my freedoms.It seems now he is simply too preoccuppied with taunting a completely impotent opposition leader.
The warthog is heading for the gutter.
CHRC lawyers agree with Stormfront member Paul Fromm over Stormfront member and former employee W*man.
I yield.
Lucy would have filed what is known as a “provisional” claim under the BIA in the case of the consumer proposal. This is a claim filed in anticipation of a liability, the amount of which can not be immediately known, due to circumstances. It is the decision of the trustee as to whether he accepts the provisional claim.
Typically, the provisional creditor would be required to prove his provisional claim (ie, render a Proof of Claim of the exact liability), prior to the distribution of funds from the estate of the proponent. This exists in order to prevent the less than forthright from using the BIA as an escape clause.
The proponent, or any other creditor, can pressure the trustee to have the provisional claim proved, or request that it be denied as a claim against the estate, prior to any distribution.
Lawsuits proceed in bankruptcies and proposals all the time – they can get quite complicated, but generally, an order of a court is not captured by an insolvency event. BTW, bankruptcy filings and proposals are public documents – copies are filed with the Registrar/court or can be available from the trustee…
Thanks, Skip, that’s useful information. It obviates, to a certain extent, what Fromm was — only arguably — suggesting regarding the, er, inadmissability of such a claim.
But..but this is a nobody who was calling Warman what he is. He was right, he got sued, he claimed bankruptcy. shut down the blog. He still got sued, while under bankruptcy protection?? Warman wants $12,000+!!! I really really don’t get it, its just not right.
“the chickens coming home to roost”…. surely you meant to say “what a pheasant thought”…?
It isn’t right, Kelly. I feel exactly the same way you do –I don’t get it either. Alas, according to Skip’s information, which is undoubtedly sound — Skip’s shown, over time, that he’s got the lights on, as it were — the way the law works is that Buttercup can *legally* make such a claim.
I know. We’ll have to work, as a group, on the political environment that allows such….activity at the edges. Reasonably speaking, though, it would have been tough for legislators to account for all conceivable possibilities in this new dominion.
I hear ya’, though.
but seriously…enough of the drollery….what we have here is Lucy with stage fright…he must wake up puking thinking on how horribly wrong his hustle/racket has gone in so short a time…then we have the Anesthiositist covering his ass by persisting in being the honest broker..(SEE!..it’s not ME!!…it’s THEM!!!…i’m doing my job…I’M INNOCENT!!!!)
the whole ball of wax is melting…their sleeve of care coming unravelled and no Fine Linchpinning tricoteuse of their devise able to knit it back up……dear sweet Jesus how they must be scrambling ducking and covering and emailing and covening and shredding among themselves as we head into the Gotterdammerung of the CHRC.
my heartrejoices(pumping pure piss) goes out to these stalwart Gramscians.
if i may quote Pynchon…please pardon the necessary license….
“no hallowed skein of stars
can ward , i trow
he whose suit’s been challenged by
Ezra Levantero.”
This seems like the appropriate time to quote our own blog-comment Poet Laureate, J. Begley:
Let us not forget “Mr.” Lemire
for having the guts and the faith in common law
to pursue the justification,
for utterance,
of his misguided beliefs.
He obviously kept faith
with the fundamental English precepts
that make us truly free
longer than I ever did.
Myself, I would have rolled over and licked my nuts,
having seen, for two decades,
how our Liberal overlords steamroller
over any opposition
to their aimless, situational amorality.
I’d shake his hand,
if I could.
(With gloves on, of course.)
— J. Begley
Kelly said: “But..but this is a nobody who was calling Warman what he is. He was right, he got sued, he claimed bankruptcy. shut down the blog. He still got sued, while under bankruptcy protection?? Warman wants $12,000+!!! I really really don’t get it, its just not right.”
When you file an insolvency event under the BIA, you are afforded protection from unsecured creditor’s (a creditor holding no security, ie mortgage or lien) action by a S69 stay of proceedings. In this case timing was everything. The hearing had not been held, the timing of the events leading to the hearing bring up the question as to whether the tribunal award would be a legitimate claim in the pre- or post- insolvency timeline or not.
The appearance is given that this complainant and the commission apparently want to avoid being examined in a court setting at all cost. Certainly, the filing of a provisional claim by this complainant in a proposal for possible future awards, which may in fact not be granted, even if the proponent is found “guilty” at the tribunal, and the withdrawal of the charge by the commission, point to the potential of an apparent collusion between the commission and the complainant.
The events, timeline, and subsequent actions of the Commission to walk away from the hearing, appear to suggest that the “fix was in” as the case worked its way through the system. If it can be shown this was the case, this would be a culpable miscarriage of justice.
Whether or not the defendant was able to pay an tribunal award should be immaterial to the finding of the tribunal as to culpability for violating S13. Indeed, the tribunal can take that into account in its restitution order – it has other avenues and mechanisms.
The Commission’s withdrawal on the stated basis of the impecuniary position of the defendant therefore becomes highly suspect. Certainly, it would be appropriate for the Justice minister to order an inquiry by the appropriate agency to determine if the actions of the Commission are legal, ethical, and within the spirit of the legislation. Malfeasance, if found, can be taken up by the RCMP.
for a guy like me with some pretty heavy self esteem issues it sure is nice to finally ,finally get a little r e s p e c t !
so katiekins, how goes the legal battle?
if sumbuddy from the moontoid leftbat gang was to pound your fcukin face in, what would you do if the cops then laughed about it all?
jes’ wundrin’.
Ah, jerk – you know you left a trail right to your front door, right? The world is a small place my friend – you’ll get a crick in your neck looking over your shoulder…