Here are some additional observations, courtesy of Dr.
Robert Countess, who was at the last immigration hearing and who saw how
biased the entire procedure turned out to be.
What follows are some brief annotations I made this
morning that could be useful for you to share with Ernst in case I return
to join the defense team.
1. The Crown's case against EZ has so far been
characterized by one word: superficiality at every major point.
2. All adduced "evidence" is at bottom
NON-evidence insofar as convincing a reasonable, educated audience.
3. The Crown based its case on
"suspicion"--a highly subjective concept; each of us has
SUSPECTED someone over the years of having done such and such, only to
learn later that we were quite in error.
4. If the Minister can prevent bail or have someone
arrested on the basis of the Minister's subjective feeling or intuition of
SUSPICION and without tangible evidence, what safety is there in Canada
for the masses or for the minorities? For SUSPICION to be taken seriously
after, say, a 24 hour arrest ON SUSPICION OF SO AND SO, there must be
tangible evidence-say, a smoking gun and gunshot powder on the suspects
hand.
5. The Crown case against EZ is really NOT
different from residents of the USSR who could be arrested and sent to a Gulag
for life JUST BECAUSE STALIN S U S P E C T E D the person was thinking or
intending to do something against "national security."
6. "National Security" was not defined by
the Crown on March 31st and April 1st,; yet it was the centerpiece of the
effort to keep EZ from being allowed out on bail. Next time, we must
insist that "NS" be defined in some objective way, plus
DEMANDING that the Crown demonstrate that EZ not only INTENDS to
jeopardize Canada's "NS" but also possesses the ABILITY to do
so.
[Illustration: I may INTEND to dunk a basketball into the
net but if I LACK the height and strength and spring in my legs to
accomplish it, the Crown would look utterly ridiculous in charging me with
the "crime" of INTENDING to dunk a basketball.]
7. Does Canadian jurisprudence agree with the USA
view of an accused being INNOCENT until proven GUILTY or is it the other
way around? The big difference has to do with the Crown being required to
PROVE its case and EZ only defending himself against the procedure; if the
latter, EZ is legally guilty as charged and then has to demonstrate his
innocence-a much more dangerous situation for the accused.
8. The Crown's attorney MacIntosh compromised
himself irreparably on April 1st at the break period, around 1530 hours
when I personally observed him in the hallway whispering into the left ear
of the CJC [CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS] agent. Since the CJC is a know anti-Zundel
and anti-FREE SPEECH fanatical and radical organization, MacIntosh's
unprofessional behavior renders him no longer suitable to represent the
Crown Minister in these proceedings. MacIntosh has NO objectivity as a
result of this seemingly secretive activity. (...)
9. In Western jurisprudence [but not in the East or
Oriental world], punishment should fit the crime. EZ has NO record of
felonious crimes and NO record of flight from bail or court dates and the
charge against him is an administrative charge in the USA, not a felony.
In Canada, he has applied for Political Asylum, thus NOT a charge but a
positive action on his part wherein he seeks the GOOD offices of the
elected Ministers of the Dominion and the Administrative Law Judge [or
whatever Murranick is called]. HENCE, to keep EZ in a solitary confinement
and bring him to hearings in leg irons and handcuffs and prison orange is
so egregiously INCOMPATIBLE with his positive action to seek Political
Asylum that ANY reasonable observer with a university education can judge
that the Crown has punished a man outrageously for appealing to the
positive good of the Dominion to hear and examine his pleading for asylum.
(...)
10. There has been NO evidence provided from the
USA's FBI that is negative; one can be certain that the Crown has in fact
been in touch with the FBI and it might be good to learn from any FBI
office and agents if a Crown agent traveled to the USA to speak with
officials and examine and copy ANY relevant files.
11. The Crown has obviously NO interest in the
IN-justice of EZ's arrest without a warrant nor in the strange INS actions
about the meeting notices and the attorney's failures. Instead, the Crown
insists that EZ flagrantly disregarded US INS law. The point by point
details presented by Dr. I. Rimland show the Crown to be lying.
