|
New Barrister Blood MAY 30, 2001 on CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LETTERHEAD To: Ms. Holly Lemoine Registry Officer, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal CC: Machiavelli, Micka, Fromm, Nylander, Horgos, Prideaux and schnell I am writing you to inform you that Ms. Angela Westmacott, Barrister & Solicitor # 417 – 645 Fort Street Victoria, BC. (250) 480-7475 has assumed carriage of the Commission's file. Please direct all further correspondence to her. Sincerely Signed Richard Tardif, General Counsel JUNE 4, 2001 TO: Mr. Richard Tardif General Counsel CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Dear Mr. Tardif I wanted to thank Mr. Eddie Taylor for finally providing me with copies of the Commission's Disclosure from numbers 1 to 116 as I requested. I understand that you still see him regularly. Please convey my thanks when you next see Mr. Taylor again. Having now had sufficient time to peruse the unbelievably repetitive “monster disclosure” I can more readily understand how the current Canadian Human Rights budget should be increased. I also note that the final recommendation of your investigator's report was; That the Commission, appoint a conciliator in the complaint (see # 87 of your disclosure). Your investigator (A. Chase) conveys to the complainant that she recommends conciliation (see # 88 of your disclosure) but her recommendation is subject to the Commission meeting Sept 2000. Mr. Chamberlain, Manager Complaints & Investigations confirms that the investigators report recommends the appointment of a conciliator. Mr. Chamberlain goes on to say that the Commission may accept or deny this recommendation. (See # 90 of your disclosure). “The Canadian Human Rights Commission has reviewed the complaints of mark schnell against Machiavelli and Associates Emprize and against John Micka. The Commission has decided, pursuant to section 49(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as it is satisfied that, having regard to all circumstances, an inquiry is warranted” so says Lucie Veillette Secretary to the Commission and Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay, Q.C. (see # 102 and # 104 of your disclosure). Please provide me with the minutes of the meeting where the decision was made to launch this Tribunal. I am interested in the minutes, which pertain only to this case. Failing that, please provide the names of the Commission members who were present at said meeting and who voted for and who voted against the recommendations of the investigator. Surely there must be a record of who was present at that Sept 2000 meeting, who voted how and how many Commission members were actually present when the vote was held or the decision made. What did they see that the investigators did not? Why have an investigator if you are not going to heed their recommendations? Or have I been right all along? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I have attempted to contact your expert witness Mr. Prideaux to discuss semantics. I have also contacted Mr. Nylander your Telus witness to discuss his area of Internet expertise and to establish an agreed statement of facts. Neither of them have had the courtesy to call me back. Please instruct them that they cannot make themselves unavailable to me. They can contact us at 1-604-551-5769 Machiavelli & Micka Respondents JUNE 8, 2001 on LAWYERS LOVETT & WESTMACOTT LETTERHEAD To; The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Attention Ms Gwen Zappa CC: Machiavelli, Micka, and Fromm I was retained last week to assume conduct of this matter on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I'm writing to advise you and the parties that there will be some changes to our list of witnesses. Our expert, Dr Gary Prideaux will not be attending the hearing. As a consequence, I have arranged to have Dr. Prideaux's report reviewed by another expert in linguistics, Dr. Barbara Harris, who is the former chair of the Linguistics Department at the University of Victoria. Dr. Harris has adopted Dr. Prideaux's report in its entirety and will be available for cross-examination during the first week of hearing. I enclose a copy of Dr. Harris' curriculum vitae. I will also be tendering expert evidence from Dr. Barry Adam, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Windsor, who specializes in gay and lesbian studies. I enclose a copy of Dr. Adam's “draft” report and curriculum vitae. I will endeavour to have the final copy of the report forwarded on Monday, June 11, 2001. As Dr. Adam is not available to testify during the week of June 18, 2001, I propose to tender his evidence during the second scheduled week of hearing at the end of July. This should provide the respondents with sufficient time top prepare for cross-examination. Yours truly, Signed, Angela Westmacott. JUNE 11, 2001 Ms. Gwen Zappa Manager Registry Operations CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL Dear Ms. Zappa Re: schnell v. Machiavelli and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) In response to Angela R. Westmacott Barrister & Solicitor wanting to delete, substitute and add to the Commission's disclosed witness list. Are there no boundaries, no rules, no set of laws that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not break / contravene in their unholy crusade to achieve Internet jurisdiction? Obviously, Ms. Westmacott has missed the point along with the other lemmings at the Commission. Does no one there think for themselves? It would now appear that only Mr. Eddie Taylor understands that the Commission has no jurisdiction over Machiavelli and or the Internet via Section 13.1 of their Act. In review: Fact, the Commission reacted to one manufactured complaint even though their own investigators questioned going forward before the Zundel decision was in. Fact, the Commission's investigator recommended conciliation. Fact, the Commission's decision to file a second charge rather than amend the first is proof positive of their self admitted embryonic knowledge of the Internet. Fact, the Commission's decision to pile on charges of retaliation when it was / is self evident that the Complainant goes well out of his way to attract exposure was /is as ignorant of truth and fact as charging Machiavelli in the first place. Fact, the Commission leaked the Respondent's disclosure to the Tribunal to the Gay Press in the Respondent's hometown less than 24 hours after the Tribunal received it. Fact, the Commission fires / suspends own lawyer at the eleventh hour, seeks and receives postponement in record time. Fact, the Complainant laments and alludes to threats while wallowing in the limelight provided by his picture in our local Province newspaper, accompanied by some prejudiced journalism. Fact, the Commission denies request to provide details of the financial and contractual arrangements between itself and expert witness Mr. Prideaux. Fact, the Commission's expert Mr. Prideaux disappears under the same cloud as Mr. Taylor. I could easily continue in this vein, however, I am boring even myself with the redundancy. So, on to the latest request by the Commission to change, add, substitute, delete and alter their disclosed witness list in contravention to all accepted procedures not to mention in contravention of Section 6(4) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure. Dr. Barbara Harris has adopted Mr. Prideaux's report in its entirety! So says Ms.Westmacott. In its entirety? She agrees with Every word? Amazing and irrelevant. The Commission should either enforce its contractual arrangement with Mr. Prideaux or ask for an adjournment to have another expert do their own report and give first hand evidence as opposed to hand me down rhetoric. We object to Dr. Barbara Harris' eleventh hour appearance. The notion of having Dr. Adam tendering his evidence during the week of July 30 - Aug 3, 2001 (which the Tribunal is holding if necessary to complete this matter), so as to provide the respondents with sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination is intentional delay, which the Tribunal ought not to condone. Obviously, the much reported human rights troubles at the Commission run deep and they are in need of breathing room to regroup. Other than suspending or firing Ms. Westmacott early next week they are out of postponement cards. To be fair, I do not need to take advantage of a Commission in such disarray. A victory over the second or third string with untried substitute players rings hollow in my ears. To that end please find and rule favorably on the enclosed motion. Thank you in advance for your time and your consideration. Micka & Machiavelli Respondents NOTICE OF MOTION To: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Court of Canada, Mr. J. Grant Sinclair Tribunal Chairperson / Mr. Michael Glynn Tribunal Registrar Ms. Gwen Zappa Manager Registry Operations This is a Notice of Motion pursuant to Rule 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Interim Rules of Procedure by the Respondents. The motion is for a postponement of the Tribunal hearings set for June 18 through June 22,2001 until anytime as soon as possible after the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has rendered a decision regarding the Zundel Tribunal. The grounds for the motion are that the Zundel Tribunal which has already consumed more than 50 days of hearings over more than a 5 year period is the first and only other Tribunal ever held relating to the World Wide Web and specifically to the communication of web site content as it might relate to Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Temporarily postponing this Tribunal until after the long awaited and imminent Zundel decision is handed down is prudent, cost effective and beneficial for all parties concerned with Freedom of Speech in general and Freedom of Expression in particular on one's own home page on the Internet. The Respondents take the position that a favorable Respondent decision / outcome from the Zundel Tribunal would deny the Canadian Human Rights Commission jurisdiction over the Internet making this Tribunal redundant. The Respondents submit that the setting in motion of another redundant, unbelievably long, drawn out and expensive Tribunal aimed at “Legalizing Internet Jurisdiction” in favor of the Canadian Human Rights Commission before the verdict is in on the original would be the same as Mike Tyson biting another mans' ear in the pretext of “normalizing” such behavior before the referee has had sufficient time to rule on the first bite. MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2001 To: Ms. Gwen Zappa Manager Registry Operations CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL Dear Ms. Zappa Re: schnell v. Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc and Micka CHRT No. (T5449/5200) and (T595/5300) In response to Angela R. Westmacott Barrister & Solicitor wanting to delete, substitute and add to the Commission's disclosed witness list. Having just now had a moment to reread and reflect on this morning's proposed alteration / deletion / substitution / addition of the disclosed expert witness list by Ms. Angela Westmacott who last week assumed carriage of the Commission's file mentioned above, I am left with the impression that Ms. Westmacott is NOT making a motion to the Tribunal requesting permission to change, alter, add and delete at will from the Commission's disclosed expert witness list. Ms. Westmacott in representing the Commission IS in fact TELLING THE TRIBUNAL WHAT SHE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO DO! “I was retained last week to assume conduct” “I writing to advise you and the parties that there will be some changes to our list of witnesses. Our expert Dr. Gary Prideaux will not be attending” “I have arranged to have Dr. Prideaux's report reviewed by another expert” “I will also be tendering expert evidence from Dr. Barry Adam” “I will endeavour to have a final copy of the report forwarded on Monday, June 11,2001” (direct quotes, the grammatical error is not mine) As the relationship between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal brings new meaning to the phrase “ at arms length” I can understand that as a novice to the Commission Ms. Westmacott may not be as subtle and clandestine as she might be with more training which would make her less obvious when the Canadian Human Rights Commission feels the need to usurp the will of the Tribunal. What I can't understand is the reason for Dr. Gary Prideaux's inability to attend. What is even harder to understand is how an expert witness (by definition) after a review can adopt any report in its entirety without exception and be cross-examined as if it were their expert opinion. Having also had sufficient time to reread, review and reflect on this morning's hastily penned Respondent's response and subsequent motion for a postponement of the proposed Tribunal until after the Zundel decision is in, the Respondents wish to add the following. One would have logically thought that the “linguistics doctor” would have been acutely aware for at least the past 90 days for his need to be there to present his evidence. Unless the Commission can show that some unforeseen medical emergency is looming preventing “doctor” Prideaux's appearance or there is some other plausible explanation for his “cold feet”, the Respondents ask that the Tribunal insist that the Commission either enforce their contract with the doctor and make him appear or make a motion to delay the Tribunal now slated to commence June 18, 2001. A favorable ruling on this motion would facilitate other / substitute expert cunning linguists sufficient time to prepare, present and give evidence on reports that they themselves wrote. (the respondents would not object to such a motion) The appearance of Dr. Barbara Harris at the Tribunal slated to commence June18, 2001 is unfair to the Respondents and to reiterate it contravenes Tribunals Rules # 2(1) and 6(4) The addition of Mr. Barry D. Adam to the Commission's expert witness list can only be accomplished via a motion and a subsequent favorable Tribunal ruling after the Respondents have had sufficient and reasonable time to respond. The Respondents will respond should the Commission file such a motion. Thank you in advance for your time and your consideration. John Machiavelli Respondent. |
click  for chapter9
|