|
April 5, 2001 E-MAIL FROM MR. PAUL HENDERSON Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:58:31 Mr. Micka, I am a freelance journalist in Vancouver and I'm doing a piece on mark schnell's human rights complaint against your website and the ramifications for free speech etc. I'm speaking with mr. schnell tomorrow (Friday, April 6) and of course would at some time like to speak with you for balance. I do have a deadline of next Wednesday so if you could get to me before that I would very much appreciate it. Thanks Paul Henderson 604-738-9005 April 5, 2001 E-MAIL TO MR. PAUL HENDERSON Mr. Henderson My phone number is 604-551-5769 John Micka April 5, 2001 To: the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal From: Machiavelli Re: schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) THIS IS NOTICE OF MOTION NUMBER ONE: pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. The motion is for the respondent, the complainant and the members of the Tribunal to be provided access to the world wide web (Internet) and be provided (or self provide) the hard and software to do so, so as to be able to present cogent and real evidence. The complaint alleges a discriminatory practice by the Respondents pursuant to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act purporting they acted to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, matter that is likely to expose a person(s) to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person is identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The grounds for the motion were established by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions' investigator(s) report, where in paragraph 6, 7, & 8 under the heading Jurisdiction they state (in the # identified0 sections that “6.The Internet is a specific name for a service which is part of the information superhighway. The elements of the highway are: the basic infrastructure of telecommunications; the software which enables individual users to access the highway; the information re-sellers, the local "goffers" or Freenets which supply the information to the users; and the information appliances which are the personal computers, telephones or combination of the two 7.Access to the respondent's web site is gained by using a computer which is connected to telephone lines, which provide the medium for communication. Any person who gains access to the web site must communicate electronic messages thought the use of a telecommunication undertaking. 8.The author of a message sent via the Internet could be held liable for the message since, under the terms of subsection 13(1) of the CHRA, is discriminatory act for a person or a group of persons to communicate telephonically and repeatedly, matter which is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” In order to ensure a “real time” level “playing field” for evidence presentation, the format without the presence and the demonstration of the new “medium” (new as in, since the Canadian Human Rights Act was written and amended to include Section 13(1)) identified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission Investigator as “the Internet which is a specific name for a service which is part of the information superhighway” the findings of the Tribunal would be as incomplete, inconclusive and unsubstantiated as the Commissions' “original findings”. I submit that this motion is a matter of procedure and of enormous substance to my presenting real evidence on my behalf and the Tribunal has the jurisdiction under its powers to determine its own procedures. (Section 48.9 the Canadian Human Rights Act). I also submit that the making of a judgment about granting jurisdiction over the Internet in relation to Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act without proper and informed equal opportunity demonstrations by all parties concerned is tantamount to a thumb down signal from the emperor to the slave after having defeated the lion. I further submit that any objection by the complainant, the Commission and their legal team to the presence of the “information highway” at the proceedings would confirm their inability to withstand the light of day. THIS IS NOTICE OF MOTION, NUMBER TWO: pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. The motion is to sanction the dissemination in real time of the Tribunal proceedings via Machiavelli and my Internet Service Provider. There are no precedents for the motion sanctioning the dissemination in real time of the Tribunal proceedings via an Internet Service Provider because this is the “test” case. Failure to provide precedence cannot be reason for denial of motion when the action in the motion is setting the very precedence sought. Warm regards Signed John Machiavelli April 6, 2001 To: Mr. Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel for and c/o the Canadian Human Rights Commission From John Micka Re; schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc.CHRT # T549/5200 & T595/5300 and your March 9,2001 written notice of the Factual and Legal Issues and Disclosures of the Complainant and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in the aforementioned pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. Mr. Taylor Please provide me with a copy of all documents with their corresponding identifying item #, as identified by numbers 1 through 116 listed out under the heading Documents. Please instruct Courier to Deliver WITHOUT Signature Required Please also provide me with the grounds, the credentials and the verifiable expertise validating the opinion of the representative from the Vancouver gay and lesbian community as anything more than simply a subjective and introspective opinion. Please provide me with the basis on which you and the representative intend to bring evidence on the consequences of likely exposure. Please further provide the job title, job description, experience and qualifications the representative from Telus brings to the table and please advise if the representative is a member of an identifiable group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. Mr. Taylor, I understand that according to Section (6) 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure that you are not obligated to serve and file the signed expert linguist report until 10 days before the commencement of the hearing. This would effectively allow me only 6 working days to prepare, which, is unreasonable considering the length of time you have had and still have to prepare. If in fact you have identified your expert linguist witness, then please present the name and qualifications now along with the signed report identifying the substance of the proposed testimony. Waiting to present the expert witness details to me until the last possible legal moment (10 days before commencement) may cause insufficient preparation time for me - forcing a motion for an adjournment / postponement / reschedule which would be costly and unnecessary. Should you choose to provide these expert witness details in a more timely fashion, like forthwith, I am certain we can avoid unnecessary and expensive delays. Should you on the other hand still be in the process of identifying your expert linguist witness I can understand your inability to be forthcoming at this time. Please advise me regarding the status of the expert linguist witness and the report, etc. Thank you in advance for your time and your consideration. April 17, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli From: Eddie Taylor I refer to your letter of April 6, 2001. The Material you have asked for is being prepared and will be sent to you via courier (without signature required). The witness from the Vancouver gay and lesbian community is a fact witness and needs no further qualification. As is the witness from Telus a fact witness. As for the expert witness, I understand the timing difficulty and will endeavour to get the report to you by May 1, 2001 Sincerely, Eddie Taylor, Legal Counsel April 17, 2001 FROM AND ON CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / carbon copy to Machiavelli Re: schnell & the Commission versus Machiavelli. The Canadian Human Rights commission has received a series of communication from the respondent in this matter. In this letter I try my best to answer his wants and wishes, recognizing that he is a layperson. If the motion is for the tribunal to provide access at the hearing to the world wide web, the commission would only object on the question of relevance. If the request is for the Tribunal to provide this service, please be advised that the Commission counsel will be equipped with a laptop computer and his embryonic understanding of the technology. As for motion number 2 – to; “sanction the dissemination in real time of the Tribunal proceeding via Machiavelli and my Internet Service Provider”. I understand all of the words in this phrase, but have no idea what he means. Perhaps he could explain. Sincerely Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel April 19, 2001 E-MAIL FROM MR. PAUL HENDERSON Mr. Micka, I am writing a freelance article for Xtra West newspaper here in Vancouver. If you are not aware, Xtra West is Vancouver's Gay and Lesbian bi-weekly. To answer your questions: 1) Yes, I have met with the complainant and interviewed him. 2) No, I am not a member of an identifiable minority group as laid out in Sec 13.1 of the act. I don't think it is relevant to me interviewing you, but I am not gay. The reason I am doing this article is because I am interested in the freedom of speech angle. 3) As for posting articles on your site. Of course I can't do that as I am writing for a specific publication. 4) I have most recently been writing for Sterling Newswire covering Surrey/White Rock. Some of my briefs were in the Vancouver Sun. Most of the other work I have done has been in small local publications. All I can suggest to read of mine right now is at the site www.medusamag.com I have a feature story posted that I wrote while in Guatemala recently. It is not controversial or political though. I am writing this as news piece just stating the facts of the situation with both points of view. As I stated above I am taking the freedom of speech angle to this story as that is the most interesting side. When speaking to Mr. Schnell he clearly was not happy with this angle. As for my personal opinion, I might disagree or even abhor what you or anyone else says or writes but I will defend your right to say or write it. My editor feels the same way. So, if you would oblige me I have a few questions. 1) why did you start the site? 2) does it promote hatred or contempt? mr. schnell told me that he has had to get an unlisted phone number after receiving several threatening phone calls since his name was posted on your site. 3) has your defense changed? at first I understand you were claiming the site was anti-pedophilia and not anti-homosexual but now you are simply taking the freedom of speech defense. is that accurate? 4) if it is not anti-homosexual why the link to a fag-bashing site and so many offhand comments like, "homosexuality is a repugnant lifestyle"? 5) what do you think the HRC will decide and will you adhere to their decision? 6) what do you think of the three witnesses being called? 7) will you be calling any witnesses? mr. schnell mentioned the Canadian Association for Free Expression is getting behind you. is this correct? 8) what about the freedom of speech issue? what will a decision against you do to freedom on the web? 9) mr. schnell said to me when I asked him about freedom of speech, "Certainly there has to be freedom of speech but there has to be limits and boundaries, as in words that incite to action or violence." Could you comment on that? That is about it for now. I hope you can find the time to answer my questions. I would have you remember also that I am not taking sides per se in this story. But I will be focusing on freedom of speech. Thanks in advance, Paul Henderson 604-738-9005 Frequently Answered Questions The following answers are in response to questions by Paul Henderson. Q. Why did you start the site? A. The site was created in response to the apparent lenient treatment afforded Vancouver's notorious homosexual pedophile and long time school principal billy bennest Q. Does it promote hatred or contempt? mr. schnell told me that he has had to get an unlisted phone number after receiving several threatening phone calls since his name was posted on your site. A. No, the site does not promote hatred or contempt. The site, some say in a sarcastic, some say in a caustic, still others say in a sardonic manner, and I say in a humoristic "tongue in cheek" manner mixed with plenty of poetic hyperbole, promotes citizens awareness that their court system in Vancouver and Beautiful British Columbia is providing safe haven for homosexual pedophiles. mr. schnell has said a lot of things. The Canadian Human Rights Commission / Tribunal posted mr. schnell's and my name on their website (and still do) under upcoming events long before I posted unabridged copies (deemed to be in the public domain) of Human Rights Police documents containing the complainants name. Q. Has your defense changed? At first I understand you were claiming the site was anti-pedophilia and not anti-homosexual but now you are simply taking the freedom of speech defense. is that accurate? A. No, my position has not changed. Your understanding is partially correct the site was and still is anti-pedophilia. The issue of Freedom of Speech however did not arise until a self-described gay man involved the Human Rights Commission, forcing the Issue of Speech on me by enforcing Section 13(1) of Canadian Human Rights Act. Q. If it is not anti-homosexual why the link to a fagbashing site and so many offhand comments like, "homosexuality is a repugnant lifestyle"? A. Which site linked from the Citizens Research Site do you consider to be a"fagbashing" site? In my opinion as a heterosexual a comment like "homosexuality is a repugnant lifestyle" is simply a comment without adjective. Q. What do you think the HRC will decide and will you adhere to their decision? A.I suspect that the Human Right Tribunal Decision is already in the kangaroo pouch so to speak. I also suspect that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is delirious in its insatiable desire to gain jurisdiction over the Internet in order to expand the horizon of authority to further inflict their mandate of protecting special interest groups. I further suspect that the Human Rights Commissions are havens for lawyers incapable of running a private practice. In a private practice one assumes that billable hours are at least partially kept in check by the clients ability to pay. The Canadian Human Rights Commission appears to condone make work projects for reject lawyers who would otherwise be on the dole or forced to apply for commissionaire status. I will abide by the appealed decision made by a real Canadian Court. Q. What do you think of the three witnesses being called? A. I think witnesses representing identifiable minority interest groups will for what they believe is in their best interest, assist and succumb to the Commission's desire to gain jurisdiction over the Internet. Q. Will you be calling any witnesses? mr. schnell mentioned the Canadian Association for Free Expression is getting behind you. is this correct? A. Yes, and No, I am heterosexual and do not willingly let any man get behind me. Q. What about the freedom of speech issue? What will a decision against you do to freedom on the web? A. Thank you for coming back to the issue. My opinion about homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles and pedophiles of any other nature is not the issue, not important nor even interesting. The issues that are important and interesting are the following: 1) Does section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act provide Jurisdiction over the Internet? 2) If so, should the Human Rights Commission have such Jurisdiction? 3) Did I in fact communicate telephonically or cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is 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? 4) Does enforcement of the Canadian Human Rights Act contravene / supercede the Canadian Charter of Rights? Behavior deemed unconstitutional by Parliament. A decision against me is a decision against Freedom of Speech and the Press. Q. mr. schnell said to me when I asked him about freedom of speech, "Certainly there has to be freedom of speech but there has to be limits and boundaries, as in words that incite to action or violence." Could you comment on that? A. I am sorry to report that unfortunately I am not aware of any definitive evidence that any of my words incited action or violence against any pedophile, are you? Did Mr. Schnell report his telephone problem to the authorities and provide them the opportunity of tracing and apprehending the offenders or did he simply change his phone number to unlisted for other reasons such as trouble with his "boyfriend" and then used me as an excuse? Supplemental Questions I do have just two more quick things: Q. 1) You asked where there was a link to fagbashing sites. On the first page of the Instrument page is a link to you other site, Heterosexuals.com, and on the first page of that site is a note inviting readers to look at your links page including, "The Fagbashers of America." A. Heterosexuals.com is an open forum, free speech pro heterosexual site encouraging diverse points of view. The Citizens Research Instrument site is also linked to Mad Mothers Against Pedophiles and the American Family Association. The following disclaimer has been on the front page since inception: The Instrument Web Site is not responsible for the content at any of the external sites that we link to (including sponsors) and therefore are not necessarily endorsed by us. Q. 2) You responded yes to my question about calling witnesses. Who will you be calling? I assume from your response regarding CAFE that nobody from that organization will be called by you? A. I will not be calling any witnesses from the Association known as CAFE. Once the Canadian Human Rights Commission fully discloses their witnesses, I will follow suit. There will be a "surprise" witness. More Frequently Asked Questions and Answers The following answers were given to questions by Adrienne Tanner, Reporter, the Province Newspaper. Q. Who are you? A. I am who I say I am. Q. What do you do? A. Currently I am attempting to stand up for Freedom of Speech on the World Wide Web. Q. Do you still own Machiavelli? A. Never have. Q. Why did you post the website? A. The site was created in response to the apparent lenient treatment afforded Vancouver's notorious homosexual pedophile and long time school principal billy bennest Q. What is your response to the complaint? A. The Responses to the complaints of mark schnell and the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and John Micka pursuant section 13.1 and as of May 1 2001 additional charges of retaliation pursuant to Section 14.1 of the Canadian Human Right Act will be delivered during the upcoming Canadian Human Rights Tribunal/Inquisition which will convene in the Tax Court of Canada, Pacific Centre, 6 Floor, 701 West Georgia St., Vancouver, Beautiful British Columbia commencing at 9:30 a.m. local time on the following dates May 22 through May 25 and June 18 through June 22, 2001 Q. Do you believe all homosexuals are pedophiles? A. No! In my opinion any man sexually abusing any boy is a homosexual pedophile by definition. Q. Will you attend the tribunal later this month? A. Yes! Q. Why won't you agree to a telephone interview? A. The fight is for Freedom of Speech on the Net. Q. What are your connections to Family Research Institute? A. None. Monday 23, April 2001 To: Holly Lemoine Registry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by e-mail Re: schnell v. Micka (T595/5300) & schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc (T594/5200) Dear Ms. Lemoine Here sits your humble scribe with the onerous onus of providing full disclosure by today, April 23rd 2001 Without being privy, having never seen all 116 documents which the commission finds relevant to matters in issue in this case and claims no privilege for. Without sufficient reasonable background knowledge to prepare any rebuttal for the proposed witnesses, without confirmation that access to the Internet for at least the Respondent at and during the Tribunal will be available to permit the bringing forth off all the pertinent information and facts as they relate to Section 13(1) of the Act, (best case scenario=access to Internet for all parties). Without confirmation that the tribunal will invite or at least consent to an Internet Server disseminating the on-goings, without a decision on Intervener status preventing unnecessary overlapping of evidence presentation while simultaneously creating unfair preparation burden and costs for a singular evidence presentation. Without knowing whether or not to prepare submissions for the personal punitive motion against John Micka brought by Mr. Taylor to include the ground of retaliation pursuant to section 14.1 Overwhelming wouldn't you say. Nevertheless, the following is written notice of the Factual and Legal Issues and Disclosures of the Respondents, in the above noted matter, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. Factual We contest some or all of the complainant and commission's 7 points Legal We contest some or all of the complainant and commission's 3 points Relief Facing the shallowest, soon to be short lived “Zundel victory” the commission, its investigators, its lawyers etal in their zeal to gain jurisdiction over the Internet we will prove that they often and repeatedly broke their owns rules to crucify Machiavelli thereby violating my Human Rights. We intend to seek remedies, relief and financial compensation pursuant to Common Sense, Common Law, Current Law, the Canadian Charter of Rights, the Court of Public Opinion, the Federal and Supreme Courts of Canada. Supreme Courts of Canada ultimately will find the “human rights police” guilty of conspiracy while covering their “hidden agenda”, violating my human rights in the process, in the second most despicable manner. Documents Show me yours, I'll show you mine. Witnesses If I am allowed I would like an opportunity to “cross examine” any and all of the commissions witnesses which includes the complainant and Mr. Eddie Taylor. My first witness will be the Internet itself, proviso of course that in your wisdom you do not prevent but rather encourage an Internet presence by providing access for it at and during the tribunal proceedings. Without the presence of the Internet while examining and making judgments as to how Section 13(1) of the Act applies to said Internet and its users, the proceeding and subsequent decision will be irrelevant, laughable and overturned faster than a New York second. Denial of the Internet as my witness would effectively quell me, but then hasn't that been the idea all along? Our second witness is Mr. John Micka Warm Regards John Micka cc Mr. Eddie Taylor by e-mail cc Mr. Mike Glynn by e-mail Tuesday April 24, 2001 To: Holly Lemoine, Registry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal c/o registrar@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca Re: schnell v. Micka (T595/5300) & Schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc (T594/5200) Dear Ms. Lemoine I am now in receipt of Mr. Eddie Taylor's April 17th letter to you. I am concerned that Mr. Taylor does not understand the relevance of having the Internet present and accessible. According to the Commission, the Internet is a telecommunications device and is therefore subject to their jurisdiction as per Sec 13(1) of their own Act. That I intend to prove differently is not sufficient reason to object on the question of relevance. I am even more concerned that Mr. Taylor possesses only self-admitted embryonic understanding of the technology. I dare say that had he and the Commission possessed even a rudimentary understanding as opposed to an embryonic one they would have comprehended that Section 13(1) of their Act does not apply, no jurisdiction exists and we would not know each other. I am beyond concern that Mr. Taylor only understands all the words in the following phrase “to sanction the dissemination in real time of the Tribunal proceedings via my Internet Service Provider” but has no idea what it means. I received a short not from Mr. Glynn yesterday denying the “sanctioning” of the dissemination in real time of the Tribunal proceedings via my Internet Service Provider”. Obviously he and the people making that decision understood what I meant, or are they just saying no rather than admitting a lack of understanding? This morning, after reading Mr. Taylor's April 17th letter to you and before writing this letter, I took the liberty of doing a random survey of 10 people regarding their understanding of said phrase. 7 understood without question, 2 did not care and 1 was a commissionaire. I withdraw my request for an earlier than 10 day before proceedings disclosure of the expert witness linguist report I suggest the expert linguist spend that time coaching Mr. Taylor. Warm Regards Machiavelli p.s. Does Mr. Taylor sense snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and is he therefore trying to disqualify himself? True Story The following is a true story from the WordPerfect Help line, which was transcribed from a recording monitoring in the customer care department. The Help Desk employee was fired; he is currently suing the WordPerfect organization for "Termination without Cause." This is the actual dialogue > > > "Ridge Hall computer assistance; May I help you?" "Yes, well, I'm having trouble with WordPerfect." > > > "What sort of trouble?" "Well, I was just typing along and all of a sudden the words went away." > > > "Went away?" "They disappeared." > > > "Hmmm. So what does your screen look like now?" "Nothing." > > > "Nothing?" "It's a blank; it won' t accept anything when I type." > > > "Are you still in WordPerfect or did you get out?" "How do I tell?" > > > "Can you see the C: prompt on the screen?" "What's a sea-prompt?" > > > "Never mind, can you move your cursor around the screen?" "There isn't any cursor: I told you, it won't accept anything I type." > > > "Does your monitor have a power indicator?" "What's a monitor?" > > > "It's the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV." > > > "Does it have a little light that tells you when it's on?" "I don't know." > > > "Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where the power cord goes into it. Can you see that?" "Yes, I think so." > > > "Great. Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it's plugged into the wall." "Yes, it is." > > > "When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that there were two cables plugged into the back of it, not just one?" "No." > > > "Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and find the other cable." "Okay, here it is." > > > "Follow it for me and tell me if it's plugged securely into the back of your computer." "I can't reach." > > > "Uh huh. Well, can you see if it is?" "No." > > > "Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way over?" "Oh, it's not because I don't have the right angle - it's because it's dark." > > > "Dark?" "Yes - the office light is off and the only light I have is coming in from the window." > > > "Well, turn on the office light then." "I can't." > > > "No? Why not?" "Because there's a power failure." > > > "A power............a power failure? Aha, okay, we've got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in?" "Well, yes, I keep them in the closet." > > > "Good. Go get them and unplug your system and pack it up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from." "Really? Is it that bad?" > > > "Yes, I'm afraid it is." "Well, all right then I suppose. What do I tell them?" > > > "Tell them you're too fucking stupid to own a computer." April 24, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli & Micka Enclosed is, the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary Prideaux and his Expert Report as you requested. The documents (116) you requested will, be sent under separate cover by courier no signature required. Sincerely Eddie Taylor |
click  for chapter7
|