|
Cunning Linguist The long awaited and anticipated expert linguist report prepared by Mr. Gary Prideaux Professor Emeritus Department of Linguistics University of Alberta in Edmonton has arrived. Paul Fromm might be right. The report is contrived gobble de gook. Paul informed me that Mr. Prideaux had been instrumental in fabricating the Commission's Zundel case when there wasn't one. Apparently, this cunning linguist can drone on and on in esoteric terms that boggle even the pedantic minded. Really difficult to prepare against because, apparently, most of what he says only other so-called expert linguists pretend to understand. It appears that without Taylor's lead and Prideaux's “testimony” the Zundel Tribunal's decision might be a complete defeat for the Commission. Help! Prideaux may be a great linguist but he's a lousy speller. On the cover of his “expert report” he has misspelled Machiavelli. I wonder if he spells potato with an (e). On the other hand, it might be an honest mistake, oversight or maybe he's not heard off or read the Prince. I wonder how many copies have gone out with the spelling error blatantly on the cover. After reading his report I'm not certain that the misspelling is an oversight. He is, after all, an expert linguist. I read and reread the report and damn if I don't get the idea that he's quite impressed with my writing. I think he thinks I'm quite the linguist. Mr. Prideaux considers my use of quotation marks (on the Citizen's web site as scary and defines them as “scare quotes”). Maybe my marks maligned mark. As a fellow author I owe him at least a phone call to correct the cover of his report. “Hello”, answers a pleasant female voice. “Good afternoon, John Micka speaking, I would like to speak with Mr. Prideaux”. “He's not home yet”, replies the pleasant voice. “Can I assume I am speaking with Mrs. Prideaux?” I venture. “Yes you are” the lady continues. “You might recognize the name Citizens Research Institute, it's the domain name of my web site. Mr. Prideaux has just finished a report on it for Mr. Taylor at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The cover is green.” I intentionally pause and wait for her to say something. “Why yes” she says, “Why do you ask? “Because he has spelled the Respondent's name wrong and I wanted to bring it to his attention before too many copies get out. I think Mr. Prideaux would want to correct the error if possible.” “Just a minute, there is a copy in his office”…………… “What did you say your name was”, she inquires after the brief pause. “John Micka, Mrs. Prideaux” I reply. “Well your name isn't on the ………oh I see, Machiavelli is misspelled”. I have accomplished my task. “You will mention it when Mr. Prideaux comes home?” “I most certainly will, thank you, Good bye”, she closes. “Good bye, Mrs. Prideaux and thank you for your help, would you have the time to take down my phone number?” I ask. 'Go ahead” she says. I do and we end the conversation. April 24, 2001 18:42:51 E-MAIL FROM PAUL HENDERSON pauljhenderson@hotmail.com TO: john Micka Subject: Disclosure You mentioned a surprise witness would be called. I saw your disclosure today. Is the 'internet' your surprise witness? Also, I wasn't totally clear about your position but are you seeking damages b/c your human rights have been violated? Thanks, Paul Henderson p.s. I'm on a deadline of about 4 p.m. today for this story THIS GUY HAS READ MY CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING. I ONLY SENT IT YESTERDAY!! IS NOTHING SACRED, WHO'S IN BED WITH WHO? April 27, 2001 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Holly Lemoine Human Rights Tribunal cc: micka, Prideaux & schnell The Canadian Human Rights Commission is aware that Mr. Micka is not a lawyer and he is acting on his own behalf; however, a very disturbing development has arisen. The respondent asked for early disclosure of the Expert's Report of Dr. Gary Prideaux, which the Commission gave. The respondent attempted to contact the expert witness by telephone at the expert's home. That in and of itself is not objectionable; however, Dr. Prideaux was not at home and the respondent spoke to the expert's spouse. The respondent queried Dr. Prideaux spouse and raised a number of issues including Dr. Prideaux's credibility concerning the Expert's Report. This was impolite, demanding and rude. This is not acceptable. The Commission will consider other avenues to deal with this. I am advised that Dr. Prideaux does not wish to speak with the respondent. Sincerely signed Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel Friday April 27 2001 To: Ms. Holly Lemoine Registry Officer Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Dear Ms. Lemoine Re: schnell v. Micka (T595/5300) & schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc (T594/5200) The Respondents are aware that Mr. Taylor is a lawyer and is acting like one; however, a very disturbing development has arisen. Pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and the Tribunal's letter dated Feb 6, 2001, the Respondents were asked to provide full disclosure by Monday, April 23, 2001. For the record the Respondents complied and “carbon-copied” Mr. Taylor's office. On the very next day April 24,2001 the Respondents received an e-mail from Mr. Paul Henderson, a local freelance writer for Vancouver's Gay and Lesbian bi-weekly, the Xtra West newspaper. That in and of itself is not objectionable; however, Mr. Henderson informed me that he had already read the Respondent's Disclosure to the Tribunal and proved it by quoting verbatim from it. The following is a complete copy of Mr. Henderson's e-mail. Mr. Henderson can be reached at 1-604-738-9005 Mr. Micka, A couple of quick questions You mentioned a surprise witness would be called. I saw your disclosure today. Is the 'internet' your surprise witness? Also, I wasn't totally clear about your position but are you seeking damages b/c your human rights have been violated? Thanks, Paul Henderson p.s. I'm on a deadline of about 4 p.m. today for this story Sharing my disclosure before the ink had sufficient time to dry was unethical and is unprofessional, illegal and behavior unbecoming a lawyer. Such behavior is unacceptable. The Respondents will consider other avenues to deal with this. Perhaps Mr. Prideaux would like to speak to Mr. Henderson? Warm Regards John Micka May 3, 2001 IT'S MACHIAVELLI'S BIRTHDAY AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO It's Ian's birthday tomorrow, Bill's daughter Rachel's the day after that and Doug's was a couple of days ago. It's good to be born under the Taurus sign. Lunch at Bill's today has become a tradition. If not for Ian I would be the eldest at the table. Jim and others are joining us, the table for eight is too small so Rachel adds two, closes the section and it's now a private party. My daughter Jacqui has found a way to stop by, she looks great and can't resist telling a few “tales out of school”. She's most concerned about the upcoming Tribunal and is of the opinion that I'm being led to slaughter, sacrifice or something worse. It's our birthdays, talk about something good. The weather could not be better and is bringing out women without brassieres and with see-through blouses. Regardless the weather and the sights, the conversation drifts back to the upcoming Tribunal and I pass the expert linguist report around the table. Everyone concurs, Mr. Prideaux considers me quite the writer “the writer uses interesting and unique orthographic conventions” so says the expert. Branislav reads the report from cover to cover, twice. Pay attention John, he says, this report is not about you. This report is written about and for himself, an intellectually constipated esoteric, whose curriculum vitae is twice the size of his report and size matters. I speak four languages fluently, of which English is the worst. You might have noticed my accent, he continues with a sneer. Branislav has the floor and says, I have decided, with your permission of course, that if you give me that report before you make a copy of it, I will come to the Tribunal and cross examine this expert for you. Branislav, I …., as I try to get a word in. Hold on John, I'm not finished telling you the terms, continuous Branislav, you give me the report, don't ask any questions, make no suggestions and prepare yourself for the other witnesses. Do not tell me what you're going to say and ask and I won't tell you what I intend to say and ask. Your job is to smuggle me in as your representative. Interested? Happy Birthday. Who can turn down an offer like that? I can't. I suspect that Branislav may have his own hidden agenda. Ever since my trouble with the Commission started our group of investors have turned their backs on us, suspended their commitment to fund, and our work on the engine has stalled. I think Branislav thinks the more he helps get rid of the Commission the quicker our investors will return. I hand him the report and we shake hands. More wine, wench, is the battle cry, a toast or two are in order. Our section is having fun and Rachel wants to know how many of us want a special drink. A unanimous decision, this is not the time to talk about the debilitating effect this Human Rights Threat is having on my retirement plans. Can you believe this; I couldn't get Branislav to pay attention to this Human Rights Drama because, “he'd seen it all before” and now just like that he's taken over, proviso I ask no questions. Clarence Darrow would be proud of Branislav. May 10, 2001 To: Mr. Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel for the C. H. R.C. re; schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. and Micka CHRT # T549/5200 & T595/5300 and the Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary. D. Prideaux Professor Emeritus Mr. Taylor Thank you for going out of your way to provide earlier than legally necessary, expert linguist, Mr. Prideaux's discourse analysis of SELECTED text from “the Citizens Research Instrument” I note with interest that your expert witness claims linguistic knowledge over both the German and Spanish languages and restricted linguistic knowledge over the Japanese and French languages. I understood the Tribunal to be held in English. I also note that the Professor has been in a contractual consultant relationship with the Canadian Human Rights Commission since 1993. I am entitled to know the contractual relationship between your expert witness and the Commission. Please provide me immediately with a copy of all current contracts /agreements/ understandings/notes/ memos/faxes/e-mails etc. that were created and exist between the Commission and the Professor or conversely between the Professor and the Commission in relation to the aforementioned cases. Please also provide a copy of the Prideaux refereed articles to enable my expert and equally cunning linguist to prepare for the Tribunal. I further note that the Professor's 8 of the last 9 Publications since 1992 have been under contract for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I am certain that the contracts between the Commission and Mr. Prideaux will clearly show he can be considered a part, near full time employee whose “findings” would be unbiased. Thank you in advance for your time and your consideration John Micka The Day before the Ides of May, Monday, May 14, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LETTERHEAD To: Holly Lemoine Canadian Human Rights Tribunal cc: Machiavelli and Micka This is a request pursuant to section 50 (3) (a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act for a subpoena for a witness to attend the above noted tribunal and give viva voce evidence and produce evidence. The witness is Jim Nylander who is a Corporate Security Specialist and an Information Security Specialist 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 Canada's national telephone network and is a telecommunications undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament. The principle that the purpose of a subpoena is to secure evidence that is relevant, useful or necessary for the Tribunal is fixed in law. The principle has been further enunciated that it is not necessary to demonstrate that the witness will give relevant evidence, merely that the witness may do so. Sincerely Eddie Taylor Legal Counsel The Ides of May, Tuesday, May 15, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LETTERHEAD To: Mr. Michael Glynn Registrar, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. CC: Machiavelli and Micka Re: schnell v. Machiavelli (T549/5200) and schnell v Micka (T595/5300) THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE MAY 22 WEEK HEARING DATES IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE. DUE TO UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, MR. TAYLOR IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE. WE REGRET THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY OUR REQUEST. WE CAN HOWEVER ASSURE THE TRIBUNAL THAT EVERY EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO INSURE THAT THE CASE IS NOT FURTHER DELAYED SINCERELY SIGNED RICHARD TARDIF GENERAL COUNSEL CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION May 15, 2001 TO: Mr. Michael Glynn Registrar Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Dear Mr. Glynn: Re: schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) So there I was conscientiously and with premeditated aforethought looking to avoid an expensive and unnecessary adjournment by urging you to quickly send me a copy of your “Book of Jurisprudence”. This request so I might cozy up for some interesting and stimulating bedtime reading over the next few days to familiarize myself sufficiently to enable a cogent tribunal presentation. Much to my dismay, I am informed by the Commission's General Counsel, Mr. Richard Tardif, that due to “unforeseeable circumstances” Mr. Eddie Taylor is no longer available and therefore he wants to cancel the about to commence Tribunal. He regrets the inconvenience such a cancellation by their request would cause the Tribunal. He makes no mention or apology, however, for the direct financial costs, not to mention the inconvenience your granting the Commission's request would cause me. As recently as yesterday May 14, Mr. Taylor wrote and personally signed a request pursuant to section 50(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act for a subpoena for a witness (Mr. Jim Nylander a Telus employee) to attend the above noted tribunal and give viva voce evidence and produce documents. This action and behavior would generally be identified with someone actively involved in the case, planning and getting ready for a tribunal in less than a week. I have suspected for some time now that Mr. Taylor knows the charges against me are bogus and without jurisdiction and was looking to “bail” by disqualifying himself. If my suspicions are without ground and something so serious has happened to Mr. Taylor that he cannot physically attend the slated tribunal next week I apologize and extend my condolences. To allay my suspicions, please advise me of the exact nature of the unforeseeable circumstances preventing Mr. Taylor from completing what he started. Surely Mr. Taylor's handling of this case was in concert with other Commission Counsels and even more surely with a multi million-dollar budget one would reasonably expect that Mr. Taylor's void can readily be filled in time to cause no further undue hardship to the Respondents. The Respondents have no confidence that every effort will be made to insure that the case is not further delayed causing further hardships and financial losses for the Respondents. It is unconscionable for Mr. Richard Tardiff to make a request at the eleventh hour for cancellation under the guise of “unforeseeable circumstances”. If the reason for Mr. Taylor's non-attendance is valid, why not say what they are from the onset? Unless the disclosed and verified “unforeseeable circumstances” are bona fide, “let the games begin”. Sincerely Machiavelli & Micka p.s. Please do not forget to send me a copy of your “Book of Jurisprudence” via overnight courier (no signature required) Thanks p.p.s. If Mr. Taylor's inability to attend is in any way linked to his candid replies to Colin Freeze & Andrew Mitrovica--Investigations Unit Globe & Mail and their subsequent article (Canadian Human Rights Commission near collapse, former managers say) (see Globe and Mail 05/12/01) it would prove that the Canadian Human Rights Commission does not believe in Freedom of Speech, Free Opinion and Free Expression and should never be allowed jurisdiction over Canadian Citizens Speech regardless the methodology employed. May 16,2001, Internet hate case delayed as rights lawyer suspended Copied from the Globe and Mail Internet hate case delayed as rights lawyer suspended Ousting of outspoken commission attorney draws comparison to Alliance party tactics BY COLIN FREEZE, INVESTIGATIONS UNIT The case against a B.C. man accused of using the Internet to incite hatred is unraveling in the wake of The Canadian Human Rights Commission's suspension of a lawyer who publicly Criticized the agency. John Micka & Machiavelli were scheduled to appear before a tribunal next week to answer a complaint against their Web site, which they argue is "anti-pedophile" and "pro-heterosexual," but not antigay. But the case has been delayed until June, because lead lawyer Eddie Taylor was told to leave his workplace on Monday. Citing the ouster, one expert witness said yesterday he may no longer testify. "This business about his being suspended seems outrageous to me," said Gary Prideaux, a linguist whose expertise in analyzing implicit meanings was used in a similar complaint against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Dr. Prideaux said that because he holds Mr. Taylor in high regard, he would be "very reluctant" to testify in the case against Mr. Micka, should it be handed off to another, commission lawyer. "I'm really astounded that the human-rights commission is using the same tactics that a certain political party is using to deal with its dissenters," Dr. Prideaux said, drawing a comparison to the Canadian Alliance. In an interview that was published Saturday in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Taylor criticized his organization's leadership and direction and said the body had lost its moral authority. Many of his criticisms were echoed in an internal report work, a work place assessment that found the commission's staff also had harsh criticisms. 'Throwing him out of the office and escorting him out of the building in that way seems to us to be extremely inappropriate.' The tribunal granted a delay in the case after the commission's general counsel requested it in a letter on Monday. "Due to unforeseeable circumstances, Mr. Taylor is no longer available," he wrote. Earlier that same day, Mr. Taylor was marched Out of his workplace of 10 years and informed he was under investigation for both his conduct and his published comments. Many complaints of harassment and discrimination will be affected by the suspension, said Joel Richler, a lawyer who is now looking into filing a lawsuit on Mr. Taylor's behalf. "He's got a large number of cases on his plate—his number to me was about 23 or 24—more than anybody else as far as I'm aware," Mr. Richler said. " Throwing him out of the office and escorting him out of the building in that way seems to us to be extremely inappropriate and detrimental to the public interest." Mr. Richler argues the matter has less to do with the outspoken lawyer's conduct than his public statements, though commission executives have said the opposite. Mr. Micka said he finds the suspension curious. "It would be ironic if Mr. Taylor's inability to be available is related to his exercising his Freedom of Speech," he wrote in an e-mail sent to the Tribunal. Canadian Alliance member Rahim Jaffer raised the suspension in the House of Commons yesterday, describing it as the only action the commission has taken since the report. Justice Minister Anne McLellan responded by commending the commission for the workplace study, adding she is confident managers will address concerns. The stress of recent days may have taken a toll on Mr. Taylor, who was in the emergency department of the Ottawa Civic Hospital last night after complaining of chest pains. "He's doing fine," said a nurse, addling he was awaiting the results of blood-work. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Investigations@globeandmail. MAY 16, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Richard Tardif, General Counsel Canadian Human Rights Commission CC: Micka, Machiavelli, Paul Fromm, Grant Sinclair, mark schnell. Re: T594/5200 & T595/5300 Mr. Tardif We are in receipt of your letter dated May 15, 2001, requesting a postponement of the hearing week scheduled for May 22-25, 200, as well as Mr. Micka's response by e-mail, dated May 16, 2001. The Tribunal has decided to grant your request for adjournment of the week of May 22. The hearing will now commence on the second week, which was scheduled, June 18-22, 2001. In addition, the tribunal is holding the week of July 30 – August 3, 2001, if necessary, to complete this matter. A notice of postponement will follow Yours very truly Signed Michael Glynn, Registrar. MAY 16, 2001 on CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC LETTERHEAD To: Michael Glynn – From Fromm Registrar, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal I must protest the decision to cancel the Tribunal hearings in this matter set for May 22. I received a FAX of this decision this morning. Firstly, as an intervener in this matter, the Canadian Association for Free Expression did not receive notice of Mr. Tardif's letter seeking a cancellation. Thus, there was no way for us to offer our input before the decision was made. I find the decision to cancel the hearings for May 22 unconscionable and an abuse of process. Mr. Tardif advises: “Due to unforeseen circumstances, Mr. Taylor is no longer available.” This morning's Globe and Mail makes it clear that this statement is, to be charitable, disingenuous. The Canadian Human Rights Commission engineered its own difficulties by suspending Eddie Taylor, apparently, for comments to the effect that the Commission itself has an all but dysfunctional work environment. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has an annual budget of $22-million and has a number of lawyers on staff. Surely another counsel can be brought up to speed in time for May 22. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was an intervener in the Zundel Internet case. During those hearings, I had occasion to observe and formed the opinion that things are stacked against the respondents in these matters. The process seems designed to wear out the respondent with delays and onerous expenses. Even if, at the end of the hearings, the defendant is cleared, he receives no compensation for his expenses as he might in a libel-case. Mr. Micka & Machiavelli have no counsel. They are self-employed and have undoubtedly arranged their affairs and taken time off business to avail themselves for the dates the Commission and the Tribunal set. It is incumbent on the Commission, which has both wealth and legal personnel, to keep to the dates set. To do so otherwise is to impose a hardship on the respondent and, I might add, on CAFÉ. I have already booked airfare and hotel for the dates appointed. I urge that 1) The Tribunal reconsiders the postponement and have the hearings proceed on May 22. 2) Dismiss the Charges as the CHRC is unwilling or unable to proceed on the appointed date 3) Should the decision to grant the postponement be upheld, reimburse Mr. Micka and Machiavelli for reasonable expenses incurred by this delay and reimburse the Canadian Association for Free Expression for reasonable travel expenses incurred in good faith in arranging to appear for May 22. Sincerely Yours Signed Paul Fromm Director MAY 16, 2001 To: Mr. Michael Glynn Registrar CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL From Machiavelli & Micka Re: schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE Your latest “decision” to grant the Commission's request for a postponement of the hearing week scheduled for May 22-25,2001 brings new meaning to the words impartial and unprejudiced as they relate to the “relationship” between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its' enforcement arm the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Is there anything that the Commission wants that the Tribunal won't give? The original dates scheduled for this matter were May 7-11 and May14 -18 and rescheduled at the Commission's request to May 22-25 & June18-22. This is the second self-serving rescheduling request made by the Commission and granted by the, at arms length? Tribunal. Does the position of the Respondent and their rescheduling costs not to mention the expensive inconvenience count for anything? It would be truly ironic if Mr. Taylor's inability to be available is related to his exercising his Freedom of Speech, Expression and Opinion when being interviewed by the Globe and Mail Newspaper. (May 12 article) Surely the Commission could have waited a week to inflict their retaliation and allow Mr. Taylor to proceed with the slated Tribunal leaving plenty of time to familiarize new counsel for the second week should it have proved necessary. Just how unencumbered is the “direct line” between the Commission and the Tribunal? It has taken literally weeks even months for the Tribunal to rule over or deny the Respondents motions or requests. Yet a far past the eleventh hour “wet ink” request to adjourn by the Commission is heard and granted in less time than it takes for cement to set. Micka & Machiavelli Sincerely MAY 16, 1717 VOLATILE VOLTAIRE VOLTAIRE IS IMPRISONED IN THE BASTILLE Writer Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, is imprisoned in the Bastille on this day in 1717. The outspoken writer was born to middle-class parents, attended college in Paris, and began to study law. Disgusted by the “profession”, he quit law to become a playwright and made a name for himself with classical tragedies. Critics embraced his epic poem, La Henriade, but its satirical attack on politics and religion infuriated the government, and Voltaire was arrested in 1717. He spent nearly a year in the Bastille. Voltaire's time in prison failed to dry up his satirical pen. In 1726, he was forced to flee to England. He returned several years later and continued to write plays. In 1734, his Lettres Philosophiques criticized established religions and political institutions, and he was forced to flee again. He retreated to the region of Champagne, where he lived with his mistress and patroness, Madame du Châtelet. In 1750, he moved to Berlin on the invitation of Frederick II of Prussia and later settled in Switzerland, where he wrote his best-known work, Candide. He died in Paris in 1778, having returned to supervise the production of one of his plays. MAY 17, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli, Micka, Tardif, Fromm, Sinclair, and schnell I am enclosing a letter dated May 16, 2001; from Paul Fromm on behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. which has been granted interested party status. Mr. Fromm raises concern, as an interested party, about not receiving a copy of Mr. Tardif's letter dated May 15 requesting a postponement of the above case, which was granted. Because all parties in these proceedings were not consulted prior to a decision being taken to postpone the hearing, the Tribunal is now seeking input from all parties and in particular, a response to Mr. Fromm's letter of May 16, by 2:00 P.M. TODAY (EDT) Yours truly, Signed Gwen Zappa, Manager, Registry Operations. The Commission's Tribunal works Schnell (german for fast) when they have to MAY 17, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Ms. Gwen Zappa Manager Tribunal Registry Operations We wish to comment on Mr. Fromm's letter dated May 16, 2001. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to Mr. Fromm as a result of our inadvertent failure to copy him our letter requesting the cancellation of the nest week hearing dates. Since been reported in the Globe and Mail. The fact of the matter remains that Mr. Taylor is not available. We take issue with Mr. Fromm's suggestion that we have been disingenuous with the Tribunal. At the time we wrote our letter, it would have been improper for us to specify that Mr. Taylor's unavailability was due to the circumstances which have cancellation request is warranted. Contrary to Mr. Fromm views, a lawyer cannot be replaced on such short notice. As for Mr. Fromm's comments on the Zundel case, we will simply note that at no time did our Tribunal suggest that the Commission had done anything to prolong the hearings. We take the position that Mr. Fromm has no authority to speak on behalf of the respondent therefore his requests Number 2 and 3 should be disregarded. Sincerely Signed Richard Tardif General Counsel May 17, 2001 a Machiavellian scam? To: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL Ms. Gwen Zappa Manager Registry Operations From Machiavelli Re: schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) and the Cancellation of the May 22 – May 25 Tribunal due to 'unforeseeable circumstances” causing Mr. Taylor to be no longer available. “Because all parties in these proceedings were not consulted prior to a decision being taken to postpone the hearing, the Tribunal is now seeking input from all parties in particular, a response to Mr. Fromm's letter of May 16, BY 2:00 P.M. TODAY (EDT)” Dear Ms. Zappa IT IS A FEW MINUTES TO 2:00 EASTERN STANDARD TIME AS PER YOUR REQUEST I must admit that my initial response to Mr. Richard Tardif's request for cancellation of the long ago slated Tribunal was disbelief and concern that the Commission would employ such an amateurish ploy to avoid / delay the resolving of the Freedom of Speech on the Internet as per Sec. (13.1) Issue. My second thought was “ I sure hope nothing life threatening has happened to Mr. Taylor”. Thirdly I found it hard to believe that Mr. Taylor had worked in isolation and that here was no one on the “team” that could pinch-hit in the event of his inability to attend for what ever reason. (Your Multi Million Annual Budget obviously needs to be bigger) To have the Tribunal meet, discuss, investigate, conclude, grant and reply in writing their approval of the request to cancel by 10:18 A.M. the following day is nothing less than miraculous if you believe the Commission and Tribunal are stand alone government agencies independent from each other. I must further admit that even though I accept the reality that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is the enforcement arm of the Canadian Human Rights Commission I was somewhat taken aback and outraged (as my response indicated) that the Tribunal would be so blatant in their disregard for the negative effect, on the Respondents', their (the Commission's) knee jerk, pavlovian response/approval of the Commission's unreasonable request might have. A few hours after my response to your decision to grant the requested cancellation I was informed that Mr. Taylor is not only alive and well but also suspended and escorted from his position allegedly for exercising his Freedom of Speech, Expression and Opinion while talking to the Globe and Mail Newspaper. Irony, Devine Retribution, or a Machiavellian Scam? After more than a decade of being the “main man” why would Mr. Taylor choose this time to bite the hand that has so generously fed him all this time. In my opinion you have to give Mr. Taylor full marks for understanding and employing a Machiavellian theorem. His understanding of timing is excellent. I speculate that Mr. Taylor has figured out that Section 13.1 of the Act does not apply to the Internet and his subsequent charge under Section 14.1 of the same Act was retaliation personified. Rather risking certain defeat at the hands of a completely unarmed rank amateur he chose to “bail” from the situation under the cover of exposing the obvious sins and transgressions inherent in the Commission. I believe that Mr. Taylor made the calculated decision that it was better for him in all ways including contractual and financial to “rat-out” the Commission rather than be humiliated in defeat all the while risking exposure of his questionable and inept conduct in this case. As a result of the Commission asking and the Tribunal granting a cancellation of the Tribunal May 22 – May 25 the Respondents have already rescheduled other activities like making a living during those days. As far as the Respondents are concerned reversing the decision to cancel the Tribunal will cause even greater hardships for the Respondents than deciding to cancel it in the first place. Please be advised that upon your notice of cancellation the respondents have committed to other activities during the week of May 22 through May 25, which do not include attending a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Should the Tribunal waffle and not stick with its original compliance to the Commission and decide to hold the Tribunal after all, the Respondents will not be able to attend. They are available for the Tribunal slated for June and are holding open the dates in late July and early August should they be necessary. Warm regards Micka & Machiavelli Schneller than a speeding bullet MAY 17, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL LETTERHEAD To: Machiavelli, Micka, Tardif, Fromm, Sinclair and schnell As a result of Mr. Fromm's letter of may 16, 2001, the Tribunal Registry, by letter dated today, (May 17) requested input today, May 17) from all parties on the issue of postponement. After having reviewed all the correspondence on this question, the tribunal confirms its decision to postpone the hearing, which was scheduled to commence on May 22, 2001. The hearing will now commence on June 18, 2001 in Vancouver. Yours truly, Signed Gwen Zappa, Manager Tribunal Registry Operations |
click  for chapter8
|