Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
It is against this background that I submitted to what had been billed as one week's cross-examinations beginning on September 15th, 1997 of me and one of my long term attorneys, Barbara Kulaszka, about affidavits we had submitted in these Judicial Review proceedings. In other words, for the layman: we wanted a regular court to look at the facts, outlined above, because we feel we have proof that the Commission is biased, and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its Tribunal have no jurisdiction to even be hearing this case!
One of the lawyers for the Human Rights Commission, which had been granted intervenor status by a judge in Vancouver in these review proceedings, wanted to cross-examine me on 15. September 1997.
My attorney, Doug Christie, was of the opinion that he had no right to ask me some of these questions.
A verbal fire works ensued, with the result that the Commission's lawyer went off in a huff and promptly dragged us before a Federal Court judge in short order. The attorney for the Attorney General of Canada cross-examined me in the meantime for a day.
Tuesday, September 16, was spent by the legal team in the research library and in the preparations of legal paperwork like "Books of Authority" etc.
On Wednesday, the 17th of September, we arrived at Toronto's Federal Court and found that Judge Rothstein was presiding, I remembered that it had been Judge Rothstein who sealed David Irving's fate during the railroading of Irving out of Canada in the early 1990s, when Irving was dragged through politically motivated, Zionist-Lobby-demanded Immigration hearings etc. The lawyer for the Human Rights Commission on that 17th September proceeding was Mr. Freiman.
As soon as the proceedings had begun, Judge Rothstein seemed to dismiss my attorney's arguments almost out of hand. I was shocked by what I saw and heard! It did not take very long, and I found myself ordered by Judge Rothstein to allow the Human Rights Commission lawyers to cross-examine me-what they interpreted-in great depth.
Additionally, the Human Rights Commission asked that they be awarded costs, $2,500 in all, against me because I had dared to insist on my rights. They seem to be so broke that they demanded the punitive payment immediately?!
Judge Rothstein showed compassion of sorts, if you can call it that, by allowing my lawyer to haggle the price down to $1,750 still to be paid forthwith. If nothing else, that shows you the Commission's mood!
Thus, on September 19, 1997, I handed over my $1,750 check to the Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer, who took it, studied it, and tucked it away. I leave it to you to speculate on his thoughts!
He then proceeded to cross-examine me till 5:15 P.M., not without incidents, in that he repeatedly threatened to go back to court when Doug Christie advised me not to answer some questions. He basically intimidated me, by the threat of further incurring punitive costs, into answering questions my lawyers think he had no right to ask.
We had lodged an appeal against the Rothstein order on Thursday the 18th September '97. It was dismissed within two hours by fax with one proviso: the answers elicited from me were to be kept confidential.
The problem, of course, is that the lawyer interrogating me in the Judicial Review proceedings by the Commission is also the lawyer for the Human Rights Commission, where he is prosecuting me-which means he would have to keep my answers to him from himself and his staff, some of whom sat in on the cross-examination!
Very likely, eh?
My lawyer pointed out that he was in a conflict of interest situation.
He did not think so, the Commission's lawyer replied, and plowed right ahead. He had so many questions that one day's interrogation did not suffice, so on the 10th of October I will be interrogated for another day at least. He seemed very anxious to get all these interrogations of me done before the Canadian Human Rights Commission continues its prosecutions against me on the 14th of October 1997.
To me it will be interesting what various other levels of Canadian courts will say about the incredible tactics of the Human Rights Commission lawyers and their staff.
I remember similar tactics employed by the prosecution in my 1985 trial under Judge Locke. Boy, did they twist the law then, and hinder the defence, and put me through the wringer! They threatened Doug Christie with contempt then as well, and Judge Locke treated me and Doug Christie with disrespect and in a despicable and distasteful manner. We had to suffer their arrogance and indignity, along with the vilification in the press.
As you will remember, and as it bears repeating for the record, in 1987 the Appeal Court of Ontario overturned Judge Locke's decision in one of the lengthiest rulings in the court's history for errors he had made. I was re-tried by the state in 1988, re-convicted, even lost my next appeal in the Ontario Court of Appeal-but IN THE END, I WON MY CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA!
Thus, as painful and disgusting, as costly and energy-consuming as these "persecutions through prosecutions" are, I believe that there is a good chance that I will prevail again in the end in these politically motivated Kangaroo proceedings, as I did in 1992-as long as I can find the money, and my own and my lawyers' health hold out. These are taxing proceedings! We are a David pitted against several Goliaths with unlimited resources and funds, since they feed off the taxpayers.
There is one difference!
The last time around, I had not had my house burned, and I viewed the trials in a little more benign light. Not so this time!
My attorneys have been and continue to assemble the material for a damage suit against all those who have put me through these ordeals for almost two decades! We have a saying in German that God's mills grind slowly but surely: "Gottes Mühlen malen langsam, aber sicher." That's how I feel about the situation I am in with these Tribunal hearings.
I do not believe that the higher Courts of Canada will sanction and approve what is being done by the Commission in this case at this stage in these proceedings. I don't believe this behavior, and these tactics, will go unpunished-not because the higher courts and their judges love me or my cause any more than the lower courts and tribunals do. Seventy years of anti-German hate propaganda in the Canadian media have seen to it that there is massive, all-permeating institutional bias against Germans who speak up and demand equal protection and equal rights under the law of Canada!
No-I believe that the interests of the state, and the entire judicial process, demands a correction; otherwise the public will perceive the courts as a mere instrument and means for the state and powerful lobbies of destroying individuals and perfectly legal opinions!
Like the last time around - I BELIEVE THAT ULTIMATELY I WILL WIN THIS!
Ernst ZündelThought for the Day:
"Law is nothing unless close behind it stands a warm living public opinion."
(Wendell Phillips, 1811-1884)