ZGram - 4/8/2003 - "Additional thoughts regarding the last Zundel
hearing"
irimland@zundelsite.org
irimland@zundelsite.org
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:02:03 -0700
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!
April 8, 2003
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
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.
This one, too, is for the historical record:
[START]
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.
[END]