Here we continue with the still-breaking story of Mr. Bernie Barber's ill-starred affidavit.
It seems the alarmist spokesperson of the Canadian Jewish Congress originally made it, thinking that Ernst would not spend the money to fly Doug Christie out for his, Farber's, cross-examination on said affidavit. Fat chance that one! Doug has now flown to Toronto twice, and will undoubtedly do it again to "depose" Mr. Farber in good time, chronicling all the Houdini acts as things proceed and develop in this case.
The Germans have a wonderful line from one of (I believe) Schiller's poems:
". . . Herr, die Not ist groß!
Die ich rief, die Geister,
werd' ich nun nicht los...!"
which means, loosely translated and adapted to this case:
"Oh, Lord, oy vey, oy vey!
The phantoms that I summoned,
I cannot shake today!"
The Holocaust Lobbyists have marshalled a few monster phantoms with this Zundelsite case that are taking on a life of their own and are decidedly dogging their heels.
Here is the next installment from Ernst Zundel's Power letter, describing what happened after Mr. Farber didn't show up for cross-examination on his affidavit to be tested by Doug Christie on his sweeping statements about the "irreparable harm" to the Jewish community emanating from the Zundelsite by the truths revealed in the material posted therein:
<start of Power letter excerpt>
The next day, Doug Christie had to return home. I drove him to the airport. We had a few hours together in my trusty Chrysler to discuss strategy and future moves, and there was even time for a convivial cup of tea before he winged his way to Western Canada.
Next thing that happened was that Paul Fromm, the only intervenor with sympathy for our side, announced his intention to cross-examine Mr. Farber on his affidavit. Paul is a highly intelligent school teacher, who was fired from his job because of pressure brought for many years by Mr. Farber and other Jewish lobby groups - and thus he, too, was looking forward to grilling Mr. Farber.
Paul paid the required "witness conduct fee", which pays for the witnesses' meals and transportation, to Mr. Farber's lawyers. He also sent the proper formal notification in good time, just as the rules require, and reserved the transcribing services, as we had done, for June 3rd, 1999.
Fromm arrived at the appointed hour, all ears and expectation.
No Mr. Farber, sadly.
Instead, three - count 'em, three! - lawyers appeared for the Jewish side, visibly upset and angry. Paul was informed he had no proper credentials and authority to cross-examine their client. Not being a lawyer, they sneered, Paul needed court approval. They proceeded to berate and to belittle him for a while - and then left! <end of Power letter excerpt>
Here, for the record, is a portion of what happened, according to the transcript, (Mr. Richler and Mr. Kurz being two of the three lawyers for the opposition, the third being Judy Chan):
Mr. Richler: Mr. Fromm, you have served a direction to attend on Mr. Farber. And do you have a proof of service indicating when this document was served on my witness?
Mr. Fromm: I do.
Mr. Richler: May I see that, please? And this will indicate...this is a letter from you to my associate, Ms. Chan, dated May 31, 1999, which would indicate the date of service, is that correct?
Mr. Fromm: Yes, the date of service was Monday.
Mr. Richler: All right, Mr. Farber is not being produced today for several reasons and I will list them for you, not necessarily in the order of importance. First of all, the Notice of Examination which you have served is improperly served. Rule 91 (3) requires that the document be served at least six days prior to the proposed examination, so your notice is late. This is the first reason.
Now the second reason, I am afraid I have to ask you a question. Do you have an order of the Court permitting you to represent the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.? Mr. Fromm?
Mr. Fromm: I don't understand the question.
Mr. Richler: I will help you even though I am not (some words missing here in the transcript) Court say as follows, and I quote:
"...A corporation, partnership or unincorporated assocation shall be represented by a solicitor in all proceedings, unless the Court in special circumstances grants leave to it to be represented by an officer, partner or member, as the case may be..."
Do you have an order of the Court authorizing you to represent the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.?
Mr. Fromm: I am not aware of any such order.
Mr. Richler: In that case, you are not entitled to cross-examine Mr. Farber and that is the second reason that he is not being produced.
The third reason that Mr. Farber is not being produced, Mr. Fromm, is related to the second, and that is that the direction to attend is a nullity given the fact that you are not entitled to issue it, not being a solicitor. And I am going to return the $50 cheque that you sent to us on Monday.
The last reason, Mr. Fromm, is that, as you are undoubtedly aware, an issue arose as to whether Mr. Farber was to be examined last week and Mr. Christie has taken a position in writing which, from our perspective, contains many false statements and is being responded to both by way of correspondence and by way of affidavit. As you know, because we have told you this by telephone, we offered to make Mr. Farber available for cross-examination by all persons properly entitled to cross-examine Mr. Farber today. Mr. Christie and/or Ms. Kulaszka chose not to respond to our telephone calls asking whether they were available today. The first we heard that they were not available today was receipt of Mr. Christie's Notice of Motion on behalf of Mr. Zundel which we received yesterday morning, I believe. As I said, this is responded to by affidavit. We have made it clear to all parties that Mr. Farber would be produced for cross-examination by persons properly entitled to cross-examine Mr. Farber at one and only one occasion.
Mr. Christie has brought a Motion seeking an order that Mr. Farber be produced on June 22nd. We will be responding to that Motion. If, as and when the Court orders Mr. Farber to be produced for cross-examination, Mr. Farber will be produced for cross-examination and that is the last ground upon which Mr. Farber is not being produced today. We are not going to produce him more than once.
That sets out our position.
And, Mr. Fromm, on the return of any Motion, we will be asking for an order that you personally pay the costs of today's abortive attendance, given the fact that you knew that Mr. Farber would not be produced today and you should know that you are supposed to obtain the proper court orders allowing you to represent your client...your own company.
Mr. Kurz: I echo the comments of Mr. Richler. It is my position as well that your Notice of Examination is a nullity. You are not entitled to practice law in the Federal Court of Appeal without leave, and that leave can only be given in exceptional circumstances. It hasn't been given in this case.
Furthermore, you have made no attempt to clear the dates with me or anyone else. Mr. Christie, a week ago, attempted to set up a cross-examination of Mr. Farber again on dates that weren't cleared with counsel and simply unilaterally attempted to impose a date on counsel, whether or not the witness and the counsel were available. This is a part of a process engaged in by both yourself and Mr. Christie that is intended to delay the hearing of a Motion which is seeking to expedite a series of appeals by attempting to delay these appeals and, in effect, you are attempting to render them a nullity, or rather, moot.
Those are my comments. <end of transcript>
So what do we have here? A Mr. Farber who cannot be "produced" (and, hence, cannot be "deposed" by Mr. Zundel's lawyers) who, according to his attorneys - who keep frazzling their lips on procedural grounds, which were dredged up after the facts.
Our side says dates were agreed to by one of the CJC's lawyers - namely "any time" suitable to our side. This agreement was later denied. Additional affidavits have in the meantime been submitted. The court has been asked to settle that dispute.
Paul Fromm had this insightful comment and summary:
"Richler was slick and smug, knowing there were three lawyers -- his silent sidekick, Julie Chan, the voluble Marvin Kurz for B'nai Brith and himself -- against one non-lawyer.
"He remarked, when I briefly left the room, just as the appointed 10:00 a.m. starting time was approaching that, if I wasn't back within one minute, he'd start without me.
"As it was MY cross-examination. It wasn't his meeting to start or not to start." <end>
An additional issue is now heating up. To Mr. Fromm's amazement, he discovered that our opposition, in their rush to "expedite" these Zundelsite hearings, ***signed documents submitted to the court in Mr. Fromm's name, without his written or verbal consent!*** Get this! They signed for Mr. Fromm!
Courts, even Canadian courts, usually take a dim view of such things. So there might well be serious repercussions. Of which more shall be said forthwith.
The net result for us is relief for what we hope will be a glorious summer - free of the censorship tormentors. The Federal Court of Canada is not in session through July, apparently not even through August, according to a court clerk. Something to dwell upon for our opposition who did this to themselves while rushing forth to "expedite"- while we were plotting all along to have a gargantuan Revisionist barbecue, smoke curling to the sky, to celebrate the Fourth of July.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The sheople will have to chose between the discomfort of revisionism, or the stupor of status quo."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)
Back to Table of Contents of the June 1999 ZGrams