Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Richard Warman and oaths: An awkward combination?


A private e-mailer sends along the following tidbit, and I'm just going to ask about it without taking any position on it.

The current situation is that Richard Warman admits to posting under the alias "lucy", while denying under oath that he also posted as "90sAREover". However, my little birdie claims that Warman also initially denied -- under oath again -- that he was "lucy" until he was confronted with unimpeachable evidence, at which point he retracted.

Is this true? Would someone like to supply the appropriate links for either confirmation or refutation? And as Constable Benton Fraser would say, thank you kindly.


11 comments:

Blazing Cat Fur said...

Here ya go, http://www.freedominion.com/images/transcript.gif

It was only after he was presented with proof that he admitted to it. The CHRC complaint initially made reference to the racist screed posted by 90sareover but was dropped when the defendants won the right to suphoena Rogers Cable records - very mysterious.

Sheena said...

Cripes you guys got way too much time on your hands.

Ti-Guy said...

Rather than take genocidal Right Girl's associate "Blazing Cat Fur's" nazi-generated evidence from Free Dominion, here's a link to the partial transcripts found on an anti-Warman site (so the authenticity still has to be ascertained). On page 769, he denies setting up any account, and then subsequently acknowledges setting up one account.

It's a bit legalistic to say this, but he didn't deny setting up a specific account and then affirmed he did when presented with the evidence. We really shouldn't rely on the haters' sources of information about this, since they're notorious liars and/or abysmally stupid.

The CHRC complaint initially made reference to the racist screed posted by 90sareover but was dropped when the defendants won the right to suphoena Rogers Cable records - very mysterious.

Really? Do you or one of your genocidal pals have a link to substantiate that claim?

A real drawback to these discussions is that one is exposed to genuine, hate-spewers like Blazing Cat Fur, who's obviously lurking and hovering over blogs posting on this. Never a pleasant experience.

CC said...

Frankly, based on that transcript, I'm exceedingly unimpressed with Warman's ability to recall fairly basic details.

It's hard to take seriously Warman's clear and unambiguous denial that he set up a user account until he's presented with the evidence.

"Dead body in the trunk? No, there's no dead body in the trunk. Oh, you mean that dead body. Yeah, I've got one."

At this point, I think I'm going to leave it to others to defend Richard Warman. That bit of tap-dancing was enough to make me nervous about hitching my wagon to that particular horse.

NOTE: This doesn't mean that he hasn't been libelled regarding the other account in question, only that I'm creeped out by Warman's apparent cluelessness and short memory.

Ti-Guy said...

You don't have to defend Richard Warman to focus on what might be the fabrications or faulty reason in the case the nazis are making against him.

In general, I find the entire discussion about this kind thing of pointless, because none of us is in a court of law. Mike Brock is over at Stageleft using his vast experience as an executive engineer to litigate the case. And he'll be on Michael Coren at some point. Isn't that wild? I long for the good old days when Conservatives held authority, not amateurishness and dilettantism, as an ideal

I'm just fascinated by the number of haters who are attracted to freedom of expression issues. It is very, very telling. Check out Blazing Cat Sick's blog...it's like a mini-Stormfront.

CC said...

As I said, ti-guy, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Warman was still libelled. But it makes me uneasy that this whole controversy hinges on his denying that he created and used a particular account name, when he clearly denied that very thing earlier and had to retract it.

I believe the phrase "impugning the credibility of the witness" applies here and, at this point, I'm removing myself from the discussion and am just going to spectate.

Ti-Guy said...

But it makes me uneasy that this whole controversy hinges on his denying that he created and used a particular account name...

That's not what he did. At least, from what I can tell from the transcripts.

I don't defend frauds, ever, so I'm not particularly invested in Richard Warman's reputation as an honourable man as Kinsella is flogging. But, on balance, when you've got the nazis/the proto-fascists/the haters on one side, and their victims on the other, I tend to side with the victims (potential or real), every time.

In any case, the tribunal concluded that Lemire could launch his own human rights complaint against Warman, and if he thought he had a case he should have done it, as the character of Warman (and this other issue of corruption within the HRC process) might have been exposed. But then these people really don't understand the purpose of the law; they see it more as an obstacle to degenerate behaviour or as a means to exact revenge, rather than a process to establish justice.

I believe the phrase "impugning the credibility of the witness" applies here and, at this point, I'm removing myself from the discussion and am just going to spectate.

Good choice. You're starting to attract nazis.

Bowler said...

But then these people really don't understand the purpose of the law; they see it more as an obstacle to degenerate behaviour or as a means to exact revenge, rather than a process to establish justice.

Absolutely. These fringe groups are experts at using the law as a sword, not a shield. Caution is warranted here before drawing any conclusions.

bigcitylib said...

CC,

Remember that the guy was using any number of different accounts on any number of different forums, and probably tried to make them all not sound too much alike. The particular one in question was only used briefly. How many hotmail accounts have you created that you've forgotten about?

There is also apparently a question of whether there are two accounts involved here or one ("Lucie" vs. "Lucy"), and which one Warman used.

CC said...

Yes, BCL, I can appreciate your point -- I'm sure I've created the occasional account for some online forum that I eventually forgot about. But we're not talking about a normal situation, are we?

We're talking about a hearing where Warman is under oath and if I was in a situation like that, I'd make damned sure I had all my information straight.

Besides, wouldn't that issue have come up in the preliminary deposition? Are we supposed to believe that this question just came out of the blue? (Maybe it did, but it still means Warman seems to have been unprepared.)

In any event, let me make my position clear: I have no reason to believe Warman is lying. I'm just unimpressed with how he couldn't seem to answer a simple question correctly, when he's in a situation where that's the only thing he should be worried about.

Dr.Dawg said...

CC:

Pull up a chair. There's still a little popcorn left.

I think watching events unfold without further comment is a wise course of action at this point.