Saturday, July 18, 2009

*** RCMP release documents on the CHRC Criminal Hacking Investigation ***

RCMP release documents on the CHRC Criminal Hacking Investigation

Investigation dropped due to jurisdictional issues with the United States

And the RCMP investigates Lemire for daring to complain

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/july18-09_rcmp_access_req.html

In late June, 2009, the RCMP responded to an Access to Information request filed by human rights activist Marc Lemire for all documents surrounding the criminal investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection.

The evidence showing that the CHRC hacked into the internet connection of Nelly Hechme came to light as a result of evidence subpoenaed by Marc Lemire. The evidence was sworn testimony by Alain Monfette from Bell Canada’s Law Enforcement Team and examination of CHRC employees during a May 2008 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

The heavily censored documents released by the RCMP show that the recent statements made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch were inaccurate and misleading. Lynch wrote in July 11, 2009’s National Post that “Mr. Hiebert says there is uncontradicted expert evidence that a commission employee illegitimately used the Internet connection of a third party. Two independent investigations, one by the RCMP expert unit responsible for computer crimes, and one by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, found no evidence to support this allegation.

Highlights from RCMP Documents

  1. The RCMP found the case to be “Complete – Unsolved
  2. The RCMP could not pursue the case because evidence trail lead to the United States where RCMP has no authority and no MLAT existed to compel information
  3. After a message from CHRC’s lawyer Kathleen Fawcett, the RCMP turned around and investigated Lemire for daring to lay the complaint. RCMP censored what the message from CHRC said.
  4. As part of the CHRC rebuttal to the charges, they submitted their own copy of the March 2009 Transcript, which has been found to be highly questionable and “missing” key testimony.
  5. The RCMP found that the distance from the CHRC offices to the WiFi access point of Nelly Hechme was only a mere 400 meters (across an open field)
  6. The RCMP saw this investigation as highly political and had multiple printouts from Ezra Levants website, articles from the National Post and other internet websites.
  7. Multiple CHRC employees were involved in case and “liaised” with the RCMP. This included the manager of the CHRC’s IT dept.
  8. The Ottawa Police reviewed the case, accepted it, and forwarded it to the RCMP, who had more expertise in federal matters.

All RCMP Documents

[JPEG Images]

[PDF Format]

Detailed analysis of the RCMP documents

[enlarge]

This is the general summary of the RCMP’s investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Notice the “Clearance status” shows the investigation by the RCMP as “Complete – unsolved

[enlarge] [enlarge]

In the summary, the RCMP notes that “Matter was investigated by OPS [Ottawa Police Service] but follow-up is now done by A Div ITCU [Integrated Technical Crime Unit – RCMP].” This shows that the Ottawa Police Service investigated the case, accepted it, and sent it onto the Integrated Technical Crime Unit of the RCMP because it involved a Federal Government Agency.

At the Ottawa Police Service, the complaint was investigated by Martin Dompierre. Detective/Forensic Examiner. Criminal Investigative Services. High Tech Crime Unit. Ottawa Police Service.

The summary continues: “Investigation completed as of 2008-11-10 reveals not enough evidence to pursue charges.” As described in more detail below, the RCMP were not able to use sworn legal affidavits provided by the owner of Stormfront, because the affidavit was not collected pursuant to a Canada / USA “MLAT”, which is a Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty.

“MLAT” agreements with the USA are generally only implemented for serious criminal matters, such as murder, child exploitation or kidnapping, because it involves getting many different agencies involved, including provincial Attorney Generals.

[enlarge]

During the course of the investigation, the officer met with RCMP lawyer Christine Morris of IPOC (Integrated Proceeds of Crime division - RCMP) who specializes in multi-jurisdictional investigations. Any MLAT request by the police have to be reviewed and vetted by an IPOC counsel, who then submits it to IAG (International Assistance Group - part of the Department of Justice Criminal Law Branch) [See Department of Justice - The Federal Prosecution Service Handbook at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/fps-sfp/fpd/ch43.html#43_6_3 ]

While the specific recommendations of Morris were censored, it would seem to be that, as a result of that meeting, the affidavit and other sworn legal information provided from the United States were not allowed to be used as evidence in the criminal investigation of the CHRC.

[enlarge]

In a RCMP’s “Briefing Note: Theft of telecommunications – CHRC,” the RCMP officer wrote that: “The information obtained from Marc Lemire were obtained without legal authorization and involved the USA country. To use the evidence, it would require that an MLAT be obtained and executed.

Thus without that information about the IP address CHRC investigator Dean Steacy (Internet codename: JADEWARR) used when he accessed the Stormfront website as “Jadewarr”, there was a limited chance of the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

RCMP investigate Marc Lemire for daring to complain about CHRC

One of the most shocking revelations to come out of the RCMP documents is that the RCMP actually investigated Marc Lemire for daring to lay the criminal complaint against the CHRC!

[enlarge]

Only a few weeks before the RCMP was going to close the case, they received “a message from Kathleen FAWCETT, lawyer at the CHRXCH” [Canadian Human Rights Commission]. The contents of the message sent by the CHRC’s lawyer were censored from the report, but the RCMP immediately turned around and investigated Lemire.

The report stated “writer [RCMP Sgt. Stephane Turgeon] requested the assistance of DCAU for a background check of COM LEMIRE, Marc.” The “DCAU” is the RCMP’s “DIVISION CRIMINAL ANALYTICAL UNIT.”, which performs CPIC checks on Canadians.

CPIC is an acronym for the Canadian Police Information Centre. The RCMP administers this database and says that CPIC “is a computerized system that provides tactical information about crimes and criminals.” This is the most highly secure police database in Canada and holds private details on some 10 million Canadians.

The CPIC computer has four data banks: Investigative, Identification, Intelligence and Ancillary. Contained in those four data banks are:

  • Vehicles: License information, including validation tags, stolen, abandoned or wanted in connection to a crime.
  • Persons: Persons wanted by the police or accused persons; persons on probation or parole; persons against whom prohibition orders have been placed (e.g. driving, possession of firearms); missing persons, including children; body marks/scars; clothing and dental records or body parts that can be cross-referenced; amnesia, comatose or disaster victims.
  • Property: Stolen guns, articles and securities.
  • Marine: Stolen and abandoned boats and boat motors.
  • Dental Characteristics: Individual dental records (a sub-system of Persons File)
  • Canada Firearms Registry: Every Canadian owning a firearm or having a license. Cross-referenced with every gun serial number to registered owner (this alone contains over 10 million records)
  • Criminal Records: Full criminal record information.
  • Criminal Record Synopsis: Condensed version of criminal records supported by fingerprints maintained by the RCMP’s Information and Identification Services.
  • CPIC Surveillance: Contains criminal intelligence information and information on persons, vehicles and boats which are under surveillance.

So, what lies did the CHRC spin for the RCMP to do an about-face and parse through Marc Lemire’s most intimate details, which could include information from his dental records to marks/scars to his vehicle information?

Unfortunately, the RCMP completely censored what the CHRC’s lawyer said, but based on the CHRC past paranoid ranting on “security,” it is easy to make an educated guess.

Through out the entire human rights hearing against Marc Lemire, the CHRC constantly used the sphere of alleged “security threats” to stifle the defence that Lemire was putting up. In order to keep the lid on the CHRC spying operations, they even tried to have Lemire banned from his own hearing, using the fraudulent accusations of “security threats.” [CHRT ruling – Para 15-17]

CHRC lawyers – spinning tales of threats and imaginary security breaches – used this tactic as a way to block hundreds of questions by invoking “national security” and Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which stopped dead all answers to questions. Looking back now, it is clear that the CHRC invoked Section 37 to cover up their abuse and misdeeds. It had nothing to due with security at all. For instance, the CHRC invoked Section 37 to stop all questions about the “Jadewarr” account, which was used by CHRC employees to infiltrate websites and post messages. The CHRC screamed security! Security! Security! over any questions about “Jadewarr”. Now that the answers have been revealed, the utter abuses of “security” claims are clear and documented.

The CHRC have used false claims of “security” so often – to hide everything they were doing – even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal became disgusted by their abusive behavior.

In 2008, the Tribunal chastised the CHRC for their numerous groundless claims of “security.” The Tribunal ruled that:

[9] The outcome of the [Marc Lemire’s Federal Court Appeal to] s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission's invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is shameless and has proven in the past, they are willing to do and say anything to protect their censorship franchise. Is it really hard to believe that the CHRC would call up the RCMP and spin some imaginary tale of terror, in order to throw the RCMP off their dirty corrupt scent? Or perhaps the CHRC could just sign onto to one of the many websites they have memberships on and post a “violent threat” themselves, then use it as justification to get Lemire. It all might sound pretty conspiratorial... BUT the CHRC does have a proven track record of calling up police agencies and having them investigate people who dare to file complaints against them or their friends.

Perhaps the CHRC was trying to stop the 9 months straight of negative publicity they were receiving as a result of being under the cloud of a criminal investigation? By having the RCMP do the dirty, and investigate every detail of Lemire’s life in hopes that they might find something. After all, it would have been a great coup de grace to have Lemire charged with some criminal offence in the end. Then Jennifer Lynch and her cronies could do their usual finger wagging diversion and point to Lemire and say, “see he’s the criminal... not us!”

On an interesting side note, if Lemire was a criminal or corrupt, he would easily be able to get a nice cushy job at the CHRC in the future… After all, the CHRC and ethics don’t mix.

For background information on the hacking allegations made against the CHRC and the criminal complaint filed with the RCMP, please see:

Link: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/july18-09_rcmp_access_req.html