NOTE:  Richard "the Nazi" Warman is trying really hard to clear his name in this case. This is little more than a nuisance suit. In the process of trying to clear his name of the infamous "Anne Cools" post, he's gone through extraordinary measures. He has filed numerous false affidavits (putting his law degree in jeopardy). He has sued everyone under the sun (ALL lawsuits with ZERO merit). He has called in all the favours he can at the CHRC to repeatedly delay the complaint against him. If Richard Warman loses this case, he will not only be deep in debt to the Respondents, he will face the Commission/Tribunal, the law society and a criminal prosecution.

Richard Warman is not a good lawyer. He is substandard compared to most. He's actually a complete idiot. In every case he has been in, he has been a party while having the Commission fight the case for him. The extent of his submissions in any Tribunbal case has generally been "I agree with the Commission". Richard Warman KNOWS he will lose this lawsuit. He doesn't have a kangaroo court this time.

Joseph Brean,  National Post
Monday, February 8, 2010

TORONTO • Richard Warman, Canada's top online hate-hunter and scourge of free speech advocates, offered his first public response on Monday to the online campaign against him led by conservative blogger and lawyer Ezra Levant.

In court filings for a libel suit, Mr. Warman calls Mr. Levant's conduct toward him "obsessive," states he "has no respect for authority," and says it is "surprising" he is a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

"Mr. Levant is in the habit of fabricating extremely serious allegations of misconduct against others," Mr. Warman states in an affidavit filed in Ontario Superior Court.

"He describes various human rights tribunals across Canada as ‘kangaroo courts.' He vilifies their members, he accuses their lawyers of lying to them (without any evidence) and he mocks those who would dare to disagree with him."

In a brief hearing on Monday, Mr. Levant's lawyer Peter Jacobsen said Mr. Warman has made "irrelevant and scandalous accusations," and that he will file a full written response in two weeks. Mr. Levant declined to comment on them on Monday.

Of all the libel suits that arose from the vicious public debate over hate speech in human rights law, none are as richly layered as this one, known officially as Richard Warman v. The National Post Company, Jonathan Kay, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Fivefeetoffury.com, smalldeadanimals.com, Catherine McMillan, Mark Fournier, FreeDominion.ca, Constance Wilkins-Fournier.

There are others, including one that goes to trial this morning in Ottawa, brought against Mr. Levant by Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna.

Khurrum Awan, a lawyer whose hate speech complaints against Maclean's magazine brought the issue to Canada's front pages, has another on the docket against Mr. Levant.

They all arise out of the blog-driven backlash against Section 13, the internet hate speech section of Canada's Human Rights Act, and in particular the activism of Mr. Warman, who has brought every case in the last decade or so, often by posing as a hatemonger online.

In 2004-05, for example, he posted 33 messages to VNNForum, and 93 to StormFront, two prominent hate sites. He states in his affidavit that the "vast majority" were "banal" and that he "endeavoured to ensure that any postings he made were done in such a way as to comply with all applicable Canadian law."

He lost his first major case last year, against webmaster Marc Lemire. That ruling is soon to be appealed in federal court.

The Lemire case gave rise to the current libel suit, because Mr. Lemire hired an expert who analyzed computer records and alleged Mr. Warman was the author of an online comment in 2003 about Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools, including racist and sexist epithets.

This case is against bloggers who repeated that allegation, which Mr. Warman denies.

The National Post briefly repeated the allegation in an online comment piece, apologized and corrected it. The Post and Mr. Kay, an editor at the newspaper, have since settled their parts in the lawsuit. The other parties were not in attendance on Monday.

Court records show that a forensic expert hired by Mr. Warman to analyze a laptop computer found no evidence it was used to make the post. Mr. Warman has sworn in an affidavit that it was the only home computer he used at the time.

In a report dated December 17, 2009, René Hamel of Digital Wyzdom Forensic, Inc. wrote "It is our professional opinion that Mr. Warman's computer was not used to make the Cools post... Our examination revealed that Mr. Warman's computer was not turned on the date that the Cools Post was made. Further, our forensic analysis found no trace on Mr. Warman's computer of the Cools Post," nor of the author's pseudonym or email address.

The analysis did, however, provide statistics about the hundreds of times the racist and sexist epithets used on the Cools Post appeared on Mr. Warman's computer, although it did not identify the author of such terms.

The report concludes that these results are "consistent with Mr. Warman's lengthy human rights work collecting evidence of hate group activity." It adds there is no evidence of "unusual or excessive deletion."

In a responding affidavit, Mr. Levant's lawyer Adrienne Lee said the report still does not settle "whether [Mr. Warman's] disclosure obligations have been met," and she cites various examples.

Mr. Warman's court filings also include correspondence about the recent resolution of his 2008 complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about Mr. Levant's blog, on which Mr. Warman is a frequent target.

The LSA found Mr. Levant violated the following rules of professional conduct: to "respect and uphold the law in personal conduct," to "seek to improve the justice system," to not " act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law," to be "courteous and candid," and to not "harass any person or discriminate against any person" on various prohibited grounds.

Mr. Levant confirmed the matter was dropped after he attended a "mandatory conduct advisory," known as a "fireside chat," with senior bencher Stephen G. Raby, QC.

A confidential letter signed by complaints manager Katherine A. Whitburn, dated last year, states that the senior lawyer would have to be satisfied Mr. Levant understands there is "a balance between freedom of speech and the obligations imposed on a lawyer... to maintain courtesy at all times," and that he "undertake to cease the publication of [his own or others'] opinions... that are discourteous."