|
Monday January 8, 2001 Monday nights are for video golf, our first game of the year. It is almost embarrassing to acknowledge the number of hours Jim & I have spent playing video golf. The focus and concentration is both relaxing and like therapy for me. Jim is competitive to the max and like to take credit for teaching me to never quit. Focusing on video golf with the human rights police howling at the door is the challenge. Do I really need this additional handicap? I hope the pressure does not affect my video golf game skills and concentration. I set up a meeting with Uniserve, our host server facilitating the company, Machiavelli to act as a re-server, a telecommunications undertaking. I've never met these people. Ken knows them or, at least, they know Ken. Uniserve is a success story. An Internet Service Provider doing well. They are reliable, give tremendous technical support and Ken has developed relationships. We are not looking to switch. They can see me right after lunch. I'm there at 1 o'clock to meet with Uniserve's C.F.O. Man, have they grown! There must be 40 employees. It is a beehive of activity. In an effort to supply sufficient background for her to re-explain my situation I have, for her convenience, brought four written copies of my presentation She says she understands completely. She also tells me that in order to meet certain CRTC regulations Uniserve must amass 75,000 plus end users by some time this year and will do so partially through acquisition. She acknowledges us as long time customers and further confirms that “they” know the sites and pass no negative judgment. However, as C.F.O., she advises me that should adverse publicity caused by a lawsuit (wrongful or otherwise) hamper their objectives they will drop us like a hot potato. Straight forward is good and refreshing. I like her attitude. I should be okay, because, the Commission hasn't named Uniserve in any action against me. Of course not, Uniserve is a large telecommunications undertaking and therefore exempt. Any and all Servers are, regardless the size of the telecommunications undertaking. Just like Machiavelli the company, a small telecommunications undertaking, ought to be. Tonight I can't help but be the best video golfer. January 10, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli etal Tribunal – mark schnell v. Machiavelli etal our files T594/5200 &T595/5300 We have now received the completed questionnaires from mark schnell and the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as verbal responses to the questionnaire from Machiavelli for the above-noted matter. The Tribunal has reviewed the responses and directs as follows: PRELIMINARY MATTERS: Mr. Taylor confirmed by telephone that he will not be raising the issue of the Federal Court decision: CTEA et al v Bell Canada. Mr. Taylor was to get back to the Tribunal after consultation with mr. schnell to confirm his response. The Tribunal has not heard back from Mr. Taylor and we assume there is no objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to proceed. On January 4, 2001, Machiavelli confirmed that they believe the Commission's Tribunal is systemically flawed because they are designed only to protect special interest groups' agendas. The Tribunal will proceed with its inquiry as mandated under the Canadian Human Right Act. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS: The parties are encouraged to attempt to prepare an Agreed Statement of Facts for any facts not in dispute, in the interest of expediting the proceedings. SCHEDULING DATES FOR THE INQUIRY: Based on the estimates of the parties for completion of their cases, the following dates have been scheduled for the hearing in this matter: May 7 to 11,2001 – May 14 to 18,2001 Counsels are to present their case in full including merits, damages and final submissions. The tribunal will only grant a bifurcation of the case in unusual circumstances. A Notice of Hearing will follow shortly. VENUE The hearing will convene in Vancouver, British Columbia, upon agreement of all parties. SCHEDULE FOR DISCLOSURE/WRITTEN PARTICULARS Pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Complainant, mark Schnell and the Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide full disclosure by Monday, February 26, 2001. The Respondents, will provide full disclosure by Monday, April 9, 2001. Should an expert witness be called by any party the Expert reports must be exchanged through our office at least ten days prior to the commencement of the hearing, as per Rule 6(4) of the Tribunal's Rules. Please note that all parties must confirm in writing to the Tribunal Registry that they have met the disclosure deadlines established. It is not necessary to forward any documentary evidence relating to disclosure to the Registry. However, please ensure that the Tribunal Registry and all parties receive your written particulars outlining the issues and evidence to be submitted to the Tribunal by the deadlines established above. During the course of disclosure, should any concerns arise from any of the parties, those concerns should be brought to the attention of the Tribunal Registry at the first reasonable occasion prior to the hearing convening. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: The hearing will be conducted in English Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have any questions regarding the process. Yours truly, Signed G, Zappa for Holly Lemoine, Registry Officer A walk in the park Full steam ahead, I can feel the pressure building inside. This is not going to be a walk in the park. Stress is no good for me. Who is it good for? Self-reliance has a price. Thank goodness that the threat of adverse publicity has hastened the collapse of the Slopemaster Golf Project. Now I've got extra time on my hands to deal with the threat. Sometimes you have to reach beyond your comfort zone to make it work for you. The only thing easy around me is me. Business is bad, it's like I'm in a time warp where everything goes forward except me. Call for a rubber ambulance if I start answering myself. February 6, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli etal Tribunal – mark schnell v. Machiavelli & etal our files T594/5200 &T595/5300 Further to our recent telephone conversations, I am enclosing a Notice of Hearing confirming that the above-noted hearing has been rescheduled to now take place on May 22 to 25 and June 18 to 22, 2001 in Vancouver. The Commission and the Complainant will now provide full disclosure by Monday, March 12, 2001. The Respondents will provide disclosure by Monday April 23, 2001 Yours truly, Signed Gwenn Zappa, Manager, Registry Operations RESCHEDULED? WHY? WHO SAYS? I NEVER AGREED TO A RESCHEDULING RETALIATION for the NATION February 20, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Holly Lemoine, Registry Officer CHR Tribunal 900 – 473 Albert Street Ottawa, Ont Re: schnell v Machiavelli THIS IS A NOTICE OF MOTION pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion is for an amendment of the complaint to include the ground of RETALIATION pursuant to section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The complaint alleges discrimination pursuant to section 13(1) of the Act because of certain postings on a website alleged to be controlled by the respondents. The grounds for the motion are that since the filing of the complaint additional posting have been made to the website which continue the discriminatory practice and compound the effect of the discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The new postings, as of February 9,2001, name the complainant and label him a “gay man” (quotes in original). As well there are several new headings on the website: Web Under Attack, which details the “human rights inquisition”. What Do They Want, What Can You Do, What Should You Do, and Guestbook. The Commission wants to add the publication of the Guestbook to the complaint because it violates section 13(1) of the Act. (Enclosed) It is the position of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the continuance of the alleged discriminatory practice against gay men and lesbians, and the naming of the complainant and the description of him, can only serve to threaten and intimidate the complainant and is being used to retaliate against him for making the complaint. The Commission submits this amendment is a matter of procedure, not substance, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to amend the complaint under its power to determine its own procedure. (Section 48.9 Act) In Courtois v Canada, the Tribunal allowed an amendment of the complaint, “[because] it did not substantially modify the text of the complaint and that, in any case, the amendment was implicitly contained in the text of the complaint thus this amendment application did not in any way take the respondent by surprise” 11C.H.R.R. D/363, para.22 (CHRT, 1990) Signed, Sincerely, Eddie Taylor, Legal Counsel Monday, March 5, 2001 Ms. Holly Lemoine Registry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 900 - 473 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1J4 Re: Schnell v. Micka T595/5300 and a notice of motion pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion is for an amendment of the complaint to include the ground of retaliation pursuant to section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act sought by Mr. Eddie Taylor legal counsel for the Commission and the complainant. Dear Ms. Lemoine: Thank you for your letter dated this February 21 advising me that a notice of motion to include the ground of retaliation pursuant to section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act amending complaint # T595/5300 against me has been initiated by Mr. Taylor. Did Mr. Taylor act on the instructions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission or on his own accord as opposed responding to a further motion by the complainant mr. mark schnell? The grounds for the motion are not relevant, are quicksand, as untested as the original notion is claiming that pedophiles are an identifiable group before caught. The motion is spiteful, a completely separate issue from the original charges and meant to intimidate the respondent. Is Mr. Taylor mad? A horse's ass? Or is that a ponytail growing out of his head? The core content of the website is as it was, unaltered since a self described gay man presumably concerned about his “human rights” in relation to pedophilia first went to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, who knew how badly the Feds were looking to extend their jurisdiction over the internet and so coached and directed him to Big Sister in Ottawa. The website additions made to date are only and exactly the unabridged copies of the content of the original Human Rights complaint form which includes the Commissions' “investigation” report, their “finding”, their opinion / conclusion and my opinions of their investigation / finding / opinion and conclusion. Long before Feb 9th 2001 the Tribunal initiated the posting of my name and the complainant's name on the Tribunal web site under upcoming events. See your own web page http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/english/uphear.htm Having my name listed under upcoming Tribunal events on the grounds of sexual orientation without any further particulars is more than damaging by association and is likely to expose heterosexuals to hatred or contempt in direct contravention of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is natural that some visitors to your site would come to the conclusion that there must be something to the charges against me simply because I and it (the charge) are listed. The description of the complainant “I am a gay man” is a direct quote from the complainant's own original “coached” complaint form. How Mr. Taylor makes the uninformed leap from -- it is “okay” for the Tribunal to list me but it is not okay for me to inform and voice my opinion I do not know. Why he makes such leaps I do know. The justification required for such a leap is both apparent and abhorrent. I wonder if such horrendous leaps to “justice“ caused the term “Kangaroo Court” to become part of our colloquial speech? If the Tribunal has any sense of fair play they will immediately make available on all upcoming Tribunal events the allegation, investigation, analysis and recommendation reports so that Canadian Citizens may at least have the whole story and can form their opinions' without negative associations. Is it still in vogue to form opinions? Apparently not if you are heterosexual, according to Mr. Taylor. I take from Mr. Taylor's position that even before the Tribunal has begun, that he and the Human Rights Commission have already found me guilty of alleged discriminatory practices against homosexual pedophiles. How is he determining that I am engaging in, let alone continuing in any alleged discriminatory practices before the facts have been presented? Maybe Mr. Taylor is right; a free speech guest book where citizens voice their opinions of their own free will is something that section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should control, by shutting it down. Is that really a ponytail? The Commissions', or perhaps, Mr. Taylor's admission that the submission of said amendment is a matter of procedure as opposed to a matter of substance speaks volumes. This “procedure” only serves to cause me further grief and cost. Please! Someone at the Tribunal take the time to read Courtois v. Canada C.H.R.R. D/363, paragraph 22 (CHRT 1990) and ask yourself - how is this relevant? It is not! I have done nothing to intimidate or coerce the complainant from seeking to enforce his rights under the Code. There was no retaliation. I am doing nothing to intimidate or coerce the complainant from seeking to enforce his rights under the Code. There is no retaliation. I will do nothing to intimidate or coerce the complainant from seeking to enforce his rights under the Code. There will be no retaliation. I hereby object to the notice of motion requesting an amendment to the complaint to include the ground of retaliation pursuant to section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because: Firstly, common sense dictates that the grounds for charges of a continued practice cannot be filed before such a practice has been proven. Secondly, because the expressing of an opinion over an exact reproduction of information deemed in the public domain is not yet unlawful in Canada and Thirdly, Mr. Taylor's' notice does not meet the criteria as spelled out in 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure which clearly state that a notice shall (a) be given as soon as is practicable (b) be in writing unless circumstances do not permit (c) set out the relief sought and the grounds relied upon and (d) include any consents of the other parties. Mr. Taylor with surprisingly good foresight did not seek my consent and had he sought and obtained consent from the complainant he would certainly have included it. Even though the grounds he relies on are more shaken than a James Bond martini, he did provide some (albeit shaky ground). However, he failed to spell out the relief sought. Why? Should in fact my actions be such, that reasonable people would view them as my retaliating or my intimidating and coercing the complainant from seeking to enforce his rights under the Code, certainly relief would be sought. Perhaps Mr. Taylor's long tenure with the Commission should be coming to an end as familiarity breeds contempt. Mr. Taylor spoke with forked tongue when he stated that the Commission submitted said amendment as a matter of procedure, not substance. What he really meant to say is that Mr. Taylor submits this amendment for job security and is guilty of using scare and intimidating tactics. Presumably the standard practice of publishing citizens' names on the Tribunal's Website does not serve to further threaten and intimidate the respondents. Apparently the respondents' noting the complainants name on his web site does serve to threaten, intimidate and retaliate. Really? With all due respect, I submit that the proposed amendment to the complaint should become a rejected submission from the Commission to the Tribunal. Making subsequent revamped 14.1 “Taylor” motions also denied. The stretch required for the Human Rights Commission to condone this conduct by Mr. Taylor confirms their willingness to go to any lengths to get over the Zundel fiasco and to gain “jurisdiction over the internet”, not only at any cost, but also at my expense. The allowance of said motion by the Tribunal will bring new meaning to the word impartial. Warm regards Machiavelli P.S. I double the bet that that's not a ponytail. March 9, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli Tribunal – mark schnell v. Machiavelli our files T594/5200 &T595/5300 THIS IS WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE FACTUAL AND THE LEGAL ISSUES AND DISCLOSURES OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, in the above noted matter, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of procedure. FACTUAL The Commission intends to prove the following material facts: 1) On or about the June 23, 1998 the complainant accessed a website citizensresearchinst.com (“the website”) 2) Along with many other texts on this website the complainant read, “Question-are all homosexuals paedophiles or are all paedophiles homosexuals? Answer – yes” 3) The website is in operation and is accessible currently. 4) The website was created by Machiavelli & Associates Emprize. 5) John Micka is the owner of Machiavelli & Associates Emprize. 6) Access to the website is by way of computer and modem using facilities of Telus. 7. Telus is a telecommunications undertaking under the legislative authority of Parliament. LEGAL The points to be determined in this case are as follows: 1) Is John Micka the individual responsible for the operation of the website? 2) Does the communication over the website constitute the act of “communicating telephonically…repeatedly… by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament?” 3) Is the communication over the website “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”? RELIEF 1) The Commission will seek remedies pursuant to section 54(1)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that is: a cease and desist order against each respondent, that John Micka, and Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc., and any other individuals who act in the name of, or in concert with John Micka and Machiavelli cease the discriminatory practice of communicating telephonically or causing to be communicated telephonically by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, matters of the type contained in exhibits to be filed before the Tribunal and found on the website, or any other messages of substantial similar form or content, which are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, including sexual orientation, and to refrain from any such action in the future. 2) The Commission will seek a further remedy pursuant to section 54(1)(b) that John Micka pay to mark schnell a sum of sixty-nine thousand dollars ($ 69,000.00) in special compensation. 3) The Commission will seek a further remedy pursuant to section 54(1)(c) an order that each respondent pay a penalty of ninety-six thousand dollars ($96,000.00) DOCUMENTS The Commission has 116 documents in its possession, which are relevant to matters in issue in this case, for which no privilege is claimed. WITNESSES The Commission intends to call the following witnesses: 1) The Complainant. A summary of mr. schnell's expected evidence is contained in the complaint forms, and it reiterated in the material facts. 2) A representative of the Vancouver Gay and Lesbian community. This witness is expected to give evidence on the consequences and impact of the likely exposure to hatred and contempt based on the prohibitive ground of sexual orientation. This witness is also expected to give evidence on strategies for avoidance and coping mechanisms that members, of the target groups employ. 3) A representative of Telus, the B.C. Telephone provider. This witness is expected to give evidence on the nature of the Internet and the role of the telephone company in providing the backbone for the transmission of material by way of the Internet. This witness will also give evidence that Telus is part of the Canada's national telephone network and is a telecommunications undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament. 4) An expert witness. This witness is a linguist who is expected to give evidence on the structure of discourse and the interpretation of particular texts. The witness is expected to testify that interpretation of texts is governed by a variety of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors. It is expected the evidence will be that a meaning represented in a text is much more than just the literal meaning of the words and the sentences, that both explicit and implicit information are used, that bridging assumptions are constructed, that pragmatic knowledge is exploited, that a variety of rhetorical strategies are employed and that participants' attitudes colour interpretations. This expert will provide a report and the material will be disclosed pursuant to Rule 6(4) Sincerely Signed Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel March 19, 2001 THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC. LETTERHEAD To: Holly Lemoine to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Re: schnell V Machiavelli I wish to apply on behalf of the Canadian Association for free Expression Inc. for intervener status in the matter of the complaint against John Micka in regards to material posted on his website which it is alleged is likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of their sexual orientation, contrary to section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. is a non-profit educational organization incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario we are dedicated to promoting and maximizing the Charter guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc has been granted intervener status – or “interested party” – status before the Ernst Zundel Tribunal and the Doug Collins constitutional challenge. We seek full participatory rights to make oral and written arguments, to present written evidence, to call witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses. Sincerely Yours Signed Paul Fromm Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. Box 332, Station B Etobicoke, Ont. (905) 897-7221 Free Expression I receive an e-mail from Fromm suggesting that he too is outraged by the “commission decision” to strike up the Tribunal against me. I return his e-mail thanking him for his encouragement. He advises me that he is in Vancouver regularly and would like to meet on such an occasion. When we spoke on the phone, I got the feeling that he was somewhat taken aback with my admission that I had never heard of him or his organization. Where is Fromm from? We meet in a North Vancouver Motel at the base of Grouse Mountain and he suggests breakfast across the way. He is a lot smaller than I imagined him to be. Having been married to a schoolteacher, I recognize the characteristics immediately and am not surprised or even offended when I end up picking up the cheque. Paul Fromm appears to be intimidated by the role he's playing. He also appears uncomfortable with me. There is no doubt, however, that I can learn from Fromm as he has experienced and observed the Human Rights Police firsthand. He tells me that his Organization, the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFÉ) had intervener status at the Zundel Tribunal and their mandate also includes acting as an intervener in this case because unlike the Zundel case, this will be precedent setting. He says that, when ever and what ever the Zundel ruling will bring, it will not satisfy the “Internet jurisdiction craving” engulfing the Agency to the very marrow. He goes on to say that those that know, know that all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men cannot enforce the upcoming Zundel Tribunal Decision. He is very concerned about my representing myself and thinks I'm out of my league. He offers not only the resources of CAFÉ but also the services of Mr. Doug Christie and I'm free as well to communicate with his lawyer in Ontario, Ms. Barbara Kulaszka. There is no doubt he (Paul) is interested in the case and predicts the identity of the as yet unnamed cunning linguist expert to be Mr. Gary Prideaux. Their (CAFÉ & Company's) position, as I understand it, is that I cannot truly be concerned about Freedom of Speech because my irresponsible attitude in rejecting legal counsel is certain to cause Commission conquest concerning the Internet. “You will cause irreparable harm to the preservation of Freedom of Speech”, says Paul. And I thought the Commission was zealous. Mission Impossible & Linked like Bratwursts to Bigoted Berghof Bastards Other than by quitting, it will be nearly impossible to prevent being “linked” to and with the Holocaust Deniers. I grew up disliking Germans in general and Anti Semitic Idiot Germans in particular. I cannot quit - my friend Jim will think less of me and his approval is important. Wherever Fromm is coming from and is going to, I haven't been and am not going to! Just how many of hitler's henchmen were homosexual? Wasn't that a prerequisite or was that a coincidence? No matter what, I have to separate myself from the nazis neo or otherwise. I would rather lose the case than to associate or give the appearance of associating with sick sodomite schicklegrubers. Predictably, the papers will side with the Commission/Tribunal and against and in a cheap effort to discredit me will try to link me with the goose-steppers. I will need to provide my own press releases. I can feel the pressure. Did Robert Blencoe feel this way? If this Internet case is so precedent setting and so important, shouldn't the Internet be present and available at and during the Tribunal? Why not “broadcast” the proceedings via a live web cam? All parties should have access. This will allow the public to see me as my own man as opposed to seeing me as another hapless hitler's henchman Total and true Freedom of Information is the answer to this almost impossible mission of NOT being linked like Bratwursts to Bigoted Berghof Bastards. |
click  for chapter6
|