Thursday, April 10, 2008

Motion for Disclosure of CHRC fake names and to reopen hearing over CHRC WiFi Hacking

Because of CHRC Willful Disregard for Disclosure Rules - The legality of each and every section 13 case is in question




In a motion filed on March 31, 2008 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Marc Lemire is demanding that the CHRC disclose the fake names they used on internet message boards and to reopen the hearing so that the CHRC employees can be cross examined.


With the revelations from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that they withheld very relevant information from every single victim of Section 13 – every “conviction” has to be reviewed! 


Here is some excerpts of the motion filed:




TO: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal,

160 Elgin St., 11th Floor,

Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4


Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405



It is clear that the respondent cannot close his case in the circumstances given the evidence by Dean Steacy last week and the statement made by Ms. Margot Blight at the hearing concerning the change in disclosure policies of the Commission.


Three things became clear from a review of the proceedings:


1:  Firstly, and most importantly, Dean Steacy revealed that as an investigator he had signed onto the Freedomsite message board using a pseudonym. This was one of a number of message boards that he had accessed using false emails and personas.  Nothing was ever disclosed about this to the respondent in these proceedings. Since four other people had access to the false email accounts, the question is raised of whether other investigators posted on the Freedomsite.  As of this date, Marc Lemire has not received any disclosure about the signing up and posting of material on Freedomsite by Commission employees. This goes directly to the merits of the case since most of the material which forms the basis of this case comes from the Freedomsite message board.

The Commission has violated its duty of disclosure. Dean Steacy ignored the requirements of the subpoena issued by the Tribunal which required that he bring all documents with respect to monitoring the Internet. This case cannot be closed when it is now revealed that evidence going to the merits of the case exists and was never disclosed to the respondent. This evidence must be disclosed.


Ms. Margot Blight, for the Commission, stated to the Tribunal on March 25th that it had been the Commission’s policy up until the Federal Court decision in Lemire in January of this year, not to disclose to any respondent in a section 13 case that the Commission investigators were communicating under false names with respondents via emails and/or were signing up accounts under false names on their own message boards or message boards such as Stormfront. This included the respondent. This admission by the Commission shows that not one respondent in a section 13 case obtained full disclosure from the Commission and that matters going directly to the merits of these cases were hidden from respondents and the Tribunals hearing their cases. This admission brings into question the legality of each and every section 13 case decided by the Tribunal.


2: The evidence given by Alain Monfette of Bell Canada was extremely puzzling to me and to the respondent. However, after further investigation, Mr. Lemire has informed me of the following facts:

·        the log files of the Freedomsite show that when Hannya Rizk accessed the site in 2003 and 2004 during her duties at the Commission, she did so through UUNET Canada.  UUNet provided businesses with Internet access.  

·        Bell Sympatico is Bell’s RESIDENTIAL internet provider.  Bell Nexia is Bell’s BUSINESS internet provider  (


It is submitted that the evidence shows that Dean Steacy, at the offices of the Commission on December 8, 2006 accessed via a high-jacked wireless access point. Ms. Nelly Hechme lives just down the street from the Commission offices and it appears her unsecured wireless access was used by the Commission in an attempt to hide their tracks. If this is correct and the Commission is using the Internet accounts of private citizens, without their knowledge, on section 13 cases, this goes directly to the constitutionality of section 13.


3: The evidence of Dean Steacy that there are no written agreements between police forces and the Commission regarding the exchange of information on respondents and therefore no legal authorization for such violation of the privacy rights of Canadian citizens also goes to the constitutionality of section 13. Information has been obtained or given over a dozen times according to Mr. Steacy. This goes directly to the constitutional challenge as the Commission is indirectly accessing information from police which it could not obtain lawfully through its own procedures.


The documents produced by Ms. Blight on March 25th included emails of showing that the Commission employees had over 50 emails at that time in the email inbox. No disclosure was made of these emails or other contacts with respondents or other persons via false name emails or postings or private messages.



In June of last year, I informed the Tribunal that the respondent had no further witnesses. I did not say that the respondent’s case was closed. It obviously was not closed since the respondent had commenced an application in the Federal Court to obtain answers to various questions


It is not the prerogative of this Tribunal to tell the respondent when his case is closed. The duty of this Tribunal is to ensure that the parties are given a fair hearing.  There is no requirement in the Canadian Human Rights Act that cases be finished within a certain time. The Tribunal’s repeated statement that “This case is done” is, with respect, not a matter for the Tribunal to decide. The Tribunal’s duty is to ensure a fair hearing and that justice is done.


It is submitted that the revelations on March 25th show the outline of the following activities of the Commission:


1.      They have failed to make major disclosure of vital and key information in all section 13 cases, including this one, of contacts with respondents or attempted contacts via false identities;

2.      That Sgt. Stephen Camp (as “Estate”) and Richard Warman (as “Pogue Mahone”) on Stormfront, worked together on the Stormfront message board from the fall of 2003 until their false personas were revealed. “Jadewarr” was simply part of the same strategy. None of this was disclosed to respondents who were brought before this Tribunal for postings on Stormfront;

3.      That only John Chamberlain, if even he, is the only person at the Commission who knows the full extent of the creation of false personas and false email accounts by Commission employees;

4.      That a deliberate decision has been made by the Commission to use unsecured wireless Internet accounts of private Canadian citizens to access targeted sites and message boards;

5.      That the Freedomsite message board was accessed by Dean Steacy in his “Jadewarr” persona with no disclosure of any facts concerning this made to the respondent.


The respondent therefore makes this motion for the following relief:


1.      An order from this Tribunal that the Commission make full disclosure of


(a) all email accounts using false names used by Commission investigators in section 13 cases, such as

(b) all emails sent or received in those accounts;

(c) all pseudonyms used by Commission employees to post on message boards or websites;

(d) all pseudonyms used by Richard Warman, police officers, or any other persons, that the Commission coordinated and worked with in section 13 investigations;

(e) copies of all private messages (PM’s) sent or received using pseudonyms on message boards or websites;

(f) copies of all Commission or investigator notes or other documentation or memos with respect to policies, strategies or activities using the false emails and pseudonyms or personas;

(g) disclosure of all documentation concerning the unauthorized use of private wireless access points;

(h) all documents relating to the exchange of private information on respondents or other individuals to police with respect to hate investigations by either police of the Commission;


2.      An adjournment of the hearing until such disclosure is made, at which time the parties may make motions on the hearing of oral evidence or subpoenas.



I realize that the Tribunal has been criticized for lengthy hearings. However, in this case it is Mr. Lemire who is the one who stands to lose the most from this complaint. Richard Warman is demanding a penalty of $9,000.00 to be assessed against Mr. Lemire [Vol. 4, p. 695] as well as a lifetime cease and desist order.


Mr. Warman, in the meantime, has left the proceedings and has not returned. He suffers no prejudice whatsoever from a full hearing of the evidence.


Ms. Blight, for the Commission, stated earlier on the last conference call that the Commission wished to have final submissions in the Fall. The Commission therefore sees no problem with a delay to the autumn for final submissions, giving ample time for this disclosure to be made and for further hearings, if necessary.


The material at the heart of this complaint was removed by the respondent some four years ago. There is therefore no prejudice to the public interest.


This Tribunal has a duty to uphold the law. The evidence of March 25th shows that the Commission has not followed the law or the rules of natural justice in the section 13 cases decided prior to this one or in this one. It did not make highly relevant disclosure to respondents.


This evidence goes directly to the merits of the Lemire case and to the constitutional challenge of section 13 and its penalty provision.


Mr. Lemire is entitled to a hearing which is lawful and where the Commission is required to obey the law. He has never delayed proceedings and never complained about delay in the proceedings. The time a case takes is irrelevant to whether justice is done. In this case, given the incredible statement of Ms. Blight on March 25th that the policy of the Commission has now changed, it means that this case just changed.


The disclosure requested is required for the respondent to have natural justice and a fair hearing as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Whether the respondent will request further subpoenas as a result of this disclosure remains open.


The respondent’s case has not been closed when full disclosure from the Commission has never been made, even on the merits of the case. The announcement of Ms. Blight last Tuesday on the change of policy of the Commission means that that disclosure must now be made.


All of which is respectfully submitted.




Barbara Kulaszka