Criminal Complaint against CHRC:  Evidence leads to the USA, where the RCMP can’t follow up.  RCMP won’t investigate further.

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/nov21-08_RCMP_criminal_complaint_against_CHRC.html

 

 

According to an article in today’s National Post, the RCMP will not criminally charge the CHRC with theft of an innocent woman’s internet connection because the evidence leads to an American website, which is outside the jurisdiction of the RCMP.

 

While Marc Lemire filed the criminal complaint, he has yet to be notified of any decision taken by the RCMP in this matter, although Lemire was receiving regular updates from Sgt. Stéphane Turgeon, who is the “OPS NCO” in charge of the “Integrated Technological Crime Unit” of the RCMP.  During the course of the investigation, it appears that the RCMP conducted interviews with five individuals, most of whom were CHRC employees.

 

The allegation made by Lemire is that “Dean Steacy and/or other Commission employees willfully connected to the wireless access point owned by Nelly Hechme, in order to hide their online identity.  Then impersonating Mrs. Hechme, via her internet connection, browsed to Stormfront.Org website and printed documents that were submitted as evidence of material fact before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.” 

 

Lemire’s allegation further submits that this violated four sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, in particular:

 

  1. Mischief in relation to data in contravention of Section 430 (1.1) (c)(d) of the Criminal Code.
  2. Unauthorized use of a computer in contravention of Section 342.1 (1) (a)(b) of the Criminal Code.
  3. Theft of telecommunication service in contravention of Section 326 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
  4. Interception of Communications in contravention of Section 184 (1) of the Criminal Code.

 

The facts in this case are overwhelming against the CHRC and concern their spying operations and entrapment program via internet service providers in Canada and websites in the United States of America.

 

To fully understand how much evidence there is against the CHRC, here is a brief summary of the case Marc Lemire put forward to the RCMP.

 

 

1

The CHRC used a pseudonym on Stormfront.org called “Jadewarr” to post messages and to print posting.

 

2

When the CHRC was using the pseudonym “Jadewarr” on December 8, 2006 at 3:29pm, they had the IP address of: 70.48.181.203, and printed out material to be used in a Tribunal hearing days later.

 

3

The CHRC tried everything in their power to not allow Marc Lemire to call any evidence on either Jadewarr, or the WiFi hacking allegations.  They attempted to block every single attempt he made.  The CHRC lost on all counts, including at the Federal Court of Canada.

 

4

A representative of Bell Canada testified that on Dec 8, 2006, the IP address of 70.48.181.203 was actually owned by a women who lived down the street from the CHRC’s offices in Ottawa and had no connection to the CHRC at all.

 

5

In December 2006, the woman in question had an unsecured wireless access point, which was in range of the CHRC’s Ottawa office at 344 Slater Street.

 

 

 

The decision by the RCMP to not proceed, is certainly not due to lack of evidence, but actually driven by cross-border issues and jurisdiction.   The CHRC has not been found innocent or fully exonerated,   rather the National Post article sums it up as “the RCMP .. do not have proof her account was hacked, nor proof that it was not, and to investigate further would involve going after technical data from a website based in the United States, stormfront.org, which they said is not possible.”

 

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is still investigating this case, and their investigation is looking at a burden of proof that is on a “balance of probabilities”.  Criminal investigations require a much higher level of proof, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”.   As Marc Lemire has recently stated “on a balance of probabilities, the evidence appears to be very solid that the CHRC has engaged in the theft of an innocents woman’s internet connection.”

 

A decision by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is still outstanding.  As well, the Justice Committee in the House of Commons has expressed interest in reviewing the shady investigation practices of the CHRC. 

 

The Justice Committee investigation brought forward by St. Catharines’ Conservative MP Rick Dykstra, would “review the mandate and operations of the Commission” and “review the Commission’s application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act”.