|
That's an investigation? Appoint a conciliator because some militant homosexual's agenda festers the notion that pedophilia should be classified as a sexual orientation? Will the Commission stop at nothing to glean world wide web jurisdiction? I wonder why they continue to insist that I own Machiavelli and to ignore the exception? Does the Commission have a blind eye and a deaf ear turned towards me? Commission lawyers seemingly do not abide by their own act. Machiavelli the Company is exempt because Section (3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act clearly states that: “(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.” BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION – MACHIAVELLI INC. IS EXEMPT. There is no hate. There is contempt for both hetero and homosexual pedophiles. Of course all pedophiles are not homosexual. Both hetero and homosexual pedophiles should be shot with a ball of their own shit so they will permanently stink and therefore be readily identifiable. Branislav says they are making an example of me. Branislav says he escaped from a totalitarian regime where communist commission commissars ruled supreme and this reminds him of home. What are the differences between Commissars, Commissionaires and Commissioners? The Commission wants to hear from me by Aug 1,2000. Do I need a lawyer? When do you need a lawyer? You need a lawyer when you're guilty and are looking to avoid prosecution through some technicality. You need lawyer when you're guilty and are looking to mitigate punishment through plea-bargaining Oliver Circa 1969, in Oliver, small town British Columbia, the prosecuting attorney calls his first witness, an elderly grandmother, to the stand. As he approaches her he asks, Mrs. Jones, do you know me? Why yes, I know you Mr. Tailor, she responds, I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize that you will never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you!!!! The lawyer is stunned into silence. The courtroom crowd cannot control their collective giggle. Not knowing what else to do, he points across the room and asks, Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney? Why yes I do, she replies, I've also known Mr. Young since he was young. I used to baby-sit for his parents and he, too, has been a real disappointment to me. He's lazy and bigoted. He has a drinking problem. The man can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the Province. Not to mention, he cheated on his wife with three different women. Yes, I know Him!!!!! Now both defense and prosecuting attorneys are surprised and shocked into silence. At this point, Judge Doberman almost fails to bring the courtroom to silence and calls both lawyers Tailor and Young to the bench. In a very quiet and menacing voice he says, which ever one of you bastards asks her if she knows me, will be jailed for contempt!!! As a Machiavellian lawyerslayer I am going to represent myself. Step one, reply to the “investigation” report. Letter to Andrea Chase C/O the C.H.R.Commission via e-mail to chase@chrc-ccdp.ca July 17, 2000 Ms. Chase Confirming I am in receipt of your investigation report re your files W48126 & W50230. Comments re: Page 3 of 6 paragraph 16 During the initial phone contact Andrea Chase informed me that a complaint had been filed regarding “your website” and would like further information for the investigation. Not realizing that she was talking and asking questions about the citizens research site I incorrectly assumed that she was talking about our heterosexuals.com where we reprinted the text of the Gay and Lesbian Surrey School Teachers Mandate / Agenda. This is how and why the content of paragraph 16 became a matter of conversation. To be fair she was not aware at that time that we had multiple domains and it is therefore forgivable that she did not feel the need to identify the site by name at the beginning of the conversation. To be further fair, as anyone can tell by visiting the guest book at the heterosexuals site, where we have received both negative and positive comments, it was natural for me to think the web site in question was the heterosexuals site and not the citizens site because we are of the opinion that pedophiles like vampires can not tolerate the light of day and or truth, ergo would never complain and draw unnecessary attention to themselves. Upon the investigator (A. Chase) identifying the site in question I am sure the investigator will recall my disbelief that it was the citizens site that had drawn such critique. Therefore, my initial response to the allegations and subsequent questions as laid out in paragraph 16 is out of context and has nothing to do with any defense or position regarding the citizens site. Comments continued: Page 4 of 6 Paragraph 19 Besides being openly gay with a “me thinks thou does protest too much” attitude about pedophilia mr. schnell is also an expert on the surfing / skimming and reading practices of the general internet users ?????????? mr. schnell confirms that only after one reading of the whole of any article posted he can actually make an intelligent interpretation. In my opinion and in the overwhelming opinion of those canvassed in our “straw poll”, the site in question clearly states that not all homosexuals are pedophiles. mr. Schnell writes and states that his opinion is that the site in question comes close to stating that not all homosexuals are pedophiles. What is close? How close? Is information provided in any article more valid because it is printed on page 9 as opposed to page 4? mr. schnell's allegation that the citizens research site is likely to evoke prejudice, hatred and contempt against people based on their sexual orientation is hollow and based on his unnatural view, limited reading and dulled comprehension skills. Had mr. schnell alleged that the citizens research site is likely to evoke awareness and subsequent prejudice, hatred and contempt for those practicing pedophilia then there would be substance to his claim. We look forward to mark schnell or any other pedophile to initiate and file such a claim. Page 6 of 6 paragraph 28 The recommendation to appoint a conciliator to attempt to bring about a settlement of the complaint comes close to justifying the time, effort and tax dollars spent on this “tempest in a tea cup”. I renew my commitment not to change, or delete the site so that no “evidence” is lost or contaminated in the belief that sooner or later someone at the Canadian Human Rights Commission will send a letter of apology for creating an inquisition where clearly there was / is no need other than to justify the Commission's very existence. In layman's terms making a “make work project”. John Micka October 2, 2000 9:05 am E-mail from Andrea Chase to mark schnell re: your files W48126 & W50230 Dear mr. schnell At the September Commission meeting, the Commission members decided to forward your two complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is an independent body responsible for adjudicating complaints referred to it by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission refers a complaint to the Tribunal when it believes further inquiry into a complaint is warranted. Shortly you will receive a letter confirming the decision of the Commission members, as well, you will be contacted by our Legal Services Department. Sincerely, Andrea Chase, Investigator Investigations Directorate October 2, 2000 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LETTERHEAD Mr. John Micka c/o Mr. Ken Fast Manager, Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. Dear Mr. Micka I am writing to inform you of the decision taken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the complaint (W48126) of mark schnell against Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. and in the complaint (W50230) of mark schnell against you. Before rendering their decision, the members of the Commission reviewed the report disclosed to you previously and any submission(s) filed in response to the report. After examining this information, the Commission decided, pursuant section 49(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint as it is satisfied that, having regard to all circumstances, an inquiry is warranted. The Commission has also decided to request that the Chairperson of the Tribunal consolidate the complaints (W48126) and (W50230) as it is satisfied that they involve substantially the same issues of fact and law. Further information will be provided to you by the Tribunal regarding the conduct of proceedings. Yours sincerely, Signed Lucie Veillette Secretary to the Commission October 6, 2000 CHIEF COMMISSIONER / PRESIDENTE OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD Ms. Anne Mactavish Chairperson Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Trebla Building Room 900 473 Albert Street Ottawa Ontario K1A 1J4 Dear Ms. Mactavish The Canadian Human Rights Commission has reviewed the complaints of mark schnell against Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. (W48126) and against John Micka (W50230) The Commission has decided, pursuant to section 49(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to request that you institute an inquiry into the complaints as it is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaints, an inquiry is warranted. The commission has also decided to request that you consolidate the complaints as it is satisfied that they involve substantially the same issues of fact and law. Copies of the complaint forms are enclosed. Form 1, including complainant and respondents' information will be provided by Legal Services. The complainant and respondents are being advised that they will receive further information from the Tribunal regarding the proceedings. Yours sincerely Signed Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay Q.C. Chief Commissioner The differences between commissars, commissionaires & commissioners are: 1) one gets paid more than the others & gets to travel the world at your expense. 2) one is overpaid and is forbidden independent thinking while on the payroll 3) one gets paid in payola and party favors. . Trouble starts with T and rhymes with P which stands for Pool I think I'm in serious trouble. The Respondent at a Canadian Human Rights Commission Tribunal is considered guilty and must prove themselves innocent before exoneration. In the entire Canadian Human Rights Act neither the Respondent nor any of the Respondents' rights are mentioned. The Respondent presumably has no rights. It appears as if the Act was written for the complainant, by the complainant and endorsed by the Prime Ministers Office through the Attorney General via the Commissioner. If I've done something wrong, broken some law of the land, why aren't the police breaking down my door? Only the human rights police think I'm guilty of something. Should I be surprised or suspicious about the number of lawyers who have nothing good to say about the Canadian Human Rights Commission? The majority of lawyers say that they have great difficulty with the Commission and its Tribunal stretching the legal boundaries established by Parliament. They view the Canadian Human Rights Commission/Tribunal as a quasi-legal system, which deals with matters, that real lawyers won't. What's the difference between quasi-legal and illegal and legal? The light is finally going on. The Commission Constantly Craves Greater Control, justifying their ever-Expanding budget. The Commission wants Internet Jurisdiction. The Commission knows its upcoming contrived Internet victory over Zundel is over a website owned by a U.S. Citizen, hosted by a U.S. server and therefore hollow and without teeth. 5years of Zundel tribunal, millions spent & still the commission can't get no satisfaction. Obviously the Commission desperately needs an enforceable home grown Canadian Internet victory and I'm it. The commission sees me as a precedent setting stepping stone in their unholy quest to “regulate” the Internet. I look like easy prey. I bet the complaint is contrived as well. Me thinks mark schnell does protest too much. If I am to be railroaded then only the truth will set me free. What do Ontario Liberal Lawyers and Politicians know about the truth? I'm in a deep, deep pool of trouble. Wednesday, October 9, 2000. 11:59 am. Lunch at Stephanos, where the owner is a friend. Stephanos is truly a fine Greek family restaurant where Pasquali creates the best roast lamb & Greek style ribs in town. Ian wants to know the latest goings on with the Commission. Branislav is concerned about clandestine Commission's goings on. Are you still going to represent yourself, asks bodacious Sue who has served us more lunches than I care to remember. She's a shit disturber and one of my favorites. You know some lawyers, don't you, she presses, knowing full well there's a table of lawyers within earshot. I think I appear confident, perhaps almost cavalier. But I'm bluffing because inside there's a constant niggling and a feeling that I am biting off more than I can chew. Things do not appear to be going my way. First strike, instead of dropping charges against Machiavelli in favour of me, they add charges against me and retain those against the Company. Second strike, my response to the Investigation report, which recommends conciliation, causes a Tribunal to be struck. Third strike, third strike you're out. I don't like what's happening. If you don't hear something by next week you should call the Commission says Ian. You just never know, he muses. Ian, I interject, that philosophy got us here in the first place. He smiles knowingly. Wednesday, October 18, 2000 You just never know, goes through my mind as I dial the Commission. Bon Jour, and I wait for the perfunctory spiel in both official languages to be over. I am calling for Ms. Lucie Veillette, Secretary to the Commission regarding Machiavelli. One moment Mr. Micka She acknowledges me by name, she knows me? Strange! Eddie Taylor here says a voice. I called for Lucie Veillette. Well, your call was put through to me because I'm in charge of your case and it's good that we are talking, because, as counsel for the Commission I have a duty to make sure that your interests are looked after. Does he think I am an idiot? Surely you jest. I'm informed you have no counsel and as the Commission's counsel it is my responsibility to ensure that you are properly represented. I could recommend and arrange counsel on your behalf. I am stunned and say very slowly and distinctly, so you would have me believe that a lawyer you arrange for would have my best interest at heart? That's right says Mr. Taylor. For both of us to believe that, one of us must be an idiot, say I. Who do you think you're talking to, snaps Taylor. Some smart-ass liberal lawyer, it's off my tongue before I take the time to think. Taylor continues, I've been doing this a long time and am good at it. Understand that without counsel you don't stand a chance because we don't initiate cases to lose. Just how old are you anyway, he rants the question. This guy is mad. I can hear it in his voice. Listen up, Mr. Taylor I'm probably older than you. I turn 55 next year so have some respect. At any rate, I didn't call you. I simply wanted to know something about the scheduling, from Ms. Veillette. This is the Commission! explodes Taylor. For that information you have to call the Tribunal. They are in a different building and we have nothing to do with them. This is the same guy that wants me to believe that their lawyer would have my best interest at heart. If I got my own lawyer he wouldn't have my best interest at heart. Hell, most lawyers don't have a hearts. Goodbye for now Mr. Taylor, thank you for erasing any doubts I might have had about representing myself. Holy smokes, what was that all about? Can you believe this guy? He's right though. I cannot win. It's against the rules. The Commission has deep pockets and a burning desire. Branislav is right! This is like David and Goliath and David without a rock between a rock and a hard place. October 20, 2000 ON CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD Mr. Michael P Glynn, Tribunal Registrar writes three similar yet different letters to Machiavelli & Micka, Eddie Taylor and mark schnell To: John Micka / Machiavelli Tribunal – mark schnell v. Machiavelli & Micka our files T594/5200 &T595/5300 I understand that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has advised you that the complaints of mark Schnell dated April 29, 1999 against Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. and dated March 2, 2000 against John Micka have been referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for an inquiry and decision. Subsection 50.(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act states in part that: “After due notice to ….., the member or panel shall inquire into the complaint and shall give parties to whom notice has been given a full and ample opportunity, in person or through counsel, to appear at the inquiry, present evidence and make representations.” As a Respondent to these proceedings the Act entitles you to present evidence and legal submissions in support of your position concerning the complaint to the Tribunal for its consideration. This can only be done on your own behalf or you may engage legal counsel to represent your interest . However, prior to the actual inquiry, which we anticipate being held in Vancouver, I would ask that you respond in writing to the enclosed Questionnaire to assist the Tribunal Registry with the planning of this inquiry. We would appreciate receiving a response to the Questionnaire by November 10,2000. A copy of the completed Questionnaires will be sent to the other parties in this case through our office. Would you please advise the Registry Officer assigned to this case, Holly Lemoine by November 3, 2000, if it is your intention to appear on your own behalf, alternatively, the name and address of counsel representing Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and John Micka in theses proceedings. It is the Tribunal's understanding that the inquiry into this matter will be conducted in English. If you wish to present you case or call witnesses who prefer to be heard in the other official language, you must advise the Registry at least 45 days in advance of the scheduled inquiry so that appropriate arrangements can be made. In the interest of expediency, the Tribunal proposes that one hearing be convened to inquire simultaneously into the complaints against Machiavelli and Micka unless, an objection is received by you or one of the parties, by November 3, 2000. Enclosed is a copy of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's Rules of Procedure governing the practices of the Tribunal process in general, please contact Ms. Lemoine, the Registry Officer assigned to this case at (613) 995-1707, extension 310 Yours sincerely, Signed Michael P. Glynn Registrar. October 20, 2000 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: mark schnell This letter is identical to mine except the word respondent is complainant, and the addition of the following paragraphs. Would you please advise the registry Officer assigned to this case, Holly Lemoine by November 3, 2000, if it is your intention to appear on your own behalf or be represented by your legal counsel during these proceeding. Before making this decision, you may wish to contact the Legal Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission assigned to this case, Eddie Taylor, at (613) 943-5269 to discuss this matter prior to advising us of your position. Mr. Taylor will be able to advise you of the position that will be put forth to the Tribunal by the Canadian Human Rights commission. After these discussions, you may be satisfied that your interest and concerns will be properly presented to the Tribunal and it may not be necessary for you to engage your own counsel. However, as previously indicated, you are entitled to have your own legal representation if you so wish regardless of the Commission's position. October 20, 2000 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Eddie Taylor, Legal Counsel Canadian Human Rights Commission Similar letter advising and asking for filled in Questionnaire November 2, 2000 – Good News! According to the Federal Court decision of Madam Justice Tremblay Lamar in the case of: the Canadian Human Rights Commission versus Bell Canada the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are systemically biased. Therefore a Respondent cannot be assured of a fair hearing. Hooray! Hooray! Reality publicly acknowledged in the papers. This is good news! The Headline reads BITTER PAY-EQUITY DISPUTE STALLS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM Impartiality ruling freezes national tribunal hearings. By Kathryn May Ottawa Citizen Ottawa – One of Canada's most bitter pay equity disputes has effectively shut down the countries human rights system and stopped hearings into new discrimination cases. A controversial Federal Court Ruling last November that called into question the impartiality and “institutional independence” of a Canadian Human Rights tribunal has virtually halted hearings into new discrimination cases since December. The ruling has been used to stop or quash hearings into seven discrimination cases, which were sent for hearings in December by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The Commission investigates hundreds of human rights complaints every year and refers those that merit a hearing to their tribunal for a decision. It's expected another 14 cases sent for hearings last month will be added to the backlog said Mike Glynn, registrar at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal heard 73 cases last year and expects close 100 cases this year. It has never before faced a backlog. “Human rights is on hold in this country,” said Peter Engelmann, a lawyer representing Bell Canada workers whose pay equity complaint was halted by the ruling. The legal challenges and delays that have all but shut down the system began when Federal Court Judge Danielle Tremblay-Lamer found the Tribunal hearing the longstanding pay equity dispute between Bell Canada and its operators was not impartial. Other ongoing pay equity cases also have been halted. The Tremblay-Lamer ruling is being used to stop all types of discrimination cases. November 7, 2000 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Holly Lemoine c/o Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 900 – 473 Albert Street, Ottawa Ontario K1A 1J4 Tribunal – mark schnell v. Machiavelli & Micka files T594/5200 &T595/5300 Further to the letter of mike Glynn of October 20, 2000, the following are the responses of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the questionnaire. 1) there are no preliminary matters to be raised by the Commission. However the Commission reserves the right to bring any issues to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. 2) the Commission expects to call three (3) witnesses. 3) the Commission expects to call two expert witness. 4) the Commission expects to complete its evidence in 2.5 (two and a half)days. 5) the Commission will require .5 (one half) day for final submissions. 6) an agreed statement of facts is possible 7) the Commission will seek remedies pursuant to section 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that is a cease and desist order against each respondent, and an order that each respondent pay an additional penalty of ten thousands dollars ($10,000.00) 8) Commission counsel is available March 19, 2001 until the end of May, 2001 9) the Commission agrees that the hearing should be conducted in English in Vancouver. I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, and if I can be of further assistance please feel free to call Sincerely, Signed Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel Canadian Human Rights Commission What is the commission doing? Why does Eddie Taylor pretend he hasn't heard about the clogged pipes, (re the Bell Canada decision) at the Commission's Tribunal? He must still be mad and making a last ditch effort at pretending that the Commission is at arms length from its enforcement arm, the Tribunal Maybe I'm supposed to say, do or write something. I think I should hear from the Commission's Tribunal soon. This “Bell” decision must affect me somehow. November 16, 2000 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: John Micka / Machiavelli Tribunal – Mark Schnell v. Machiavelli & Micka our files T594/5200 &T595/5300. The Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has requested that I make you aware of a decision rendered by the Trial Division of Federal Court of Canada on November 2, 2000, in the matter of CTEA et al v Bell Canada. A copy of the Federal Court decision is enclosed. In the event that any of the parties wish to make submissions with respect to this decision, you should file your submissions with this office by no later than November 17, 2000. A copy of your submissions will be provided to the other parties through our office. Yours truly, Signed Holly Lemoine, Registry Officer. |
click  for chapter5
|