View Full Version : Arthur Topham -- Free Speech in Soviet Canuckistan

04-27-2013, 12:31 AM
Arthur Topham -- Free Speech in Soviet Canuckistan


Preliminary Hearing Delayed in Arthur Topham "Hate" Case -- Update

Arthur Topham's latest update on his Sec. 319 "hate law" case, resulting from complaints by B'nai Brith's Harry Abrams and complainer-in-chief Richard Warman, the Ottawa lawyer who has sued over 30 people while employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and who now works for, after being fired by the CHRC for reckless conduct - due to his postings on Stormfront trying to lure people into the trap for Section 13 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the Department of Defense.

This is a crucial case, as it involves the Internet. Mr. Topham, first with a now stayed Section 13 (1) of the CHRA complaint by Abrams, and now with the Criminal Code charges has been in the censors' sights for a half dozen years. The late Douglas Christie was Mr. Topham's lawyer. With or without counsel, the impoverished Mr. Topham will battle on and we must support him -- morally, financially and with advice.

Paul Fromm




April 19, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It's been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what's been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada.

A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting "bug" that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.

Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn't slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada.

As such I'll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present.

Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 - 6, 2013.

Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time.

When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court - a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren't in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.

Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.

Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as "particularization" of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.

When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through.

Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I'd ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn't that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.

On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: "Particularization of Information" and I based my reasons on the following statement:

"The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes "willful promotion of hatred" within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence."

Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.

Judge Morgan wasn't present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013.

Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the "particularization" application and for the preliminary trial.

As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a "Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue" to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia.

By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a "Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment". Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.

Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the actual nature of the Section 319 (2) charge I'll deal with in future posts.

Under Section 319 (3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:


(1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she'd told me earlier in the morning. I'm presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional "Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment". The Justice told me that they weren't clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the Attorney General's office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding "Particularization of Information".

I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. :-)

I'll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn't like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.

R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 68, Section 8

Notice of questions of validity or applicability

8 (1) In this section:

"constitutional remedy" means a remedy under section 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms other than a remedy consisting of the exclusion of evidence or consequential on such exclusion;

"law" includes an enactment and an enactment within the meaning of the Interpretation Act (Canada).

(2) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding

(a) the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of any law is challenged,


(b) an application is made for a constitutional remedy, the law must not be held to be invalid or inapplicable and the remedy must not be granted until after notice of the challenge or application has been served on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia in accordance with this section.

(3) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding the validity or applicability of a regulation is challenged on grounds other than the grounds referred to in subsection (2) (a), the regulation must not be held to be invalid or inapplicable until after notice of the challenge has been served on the Attorney General of British Columbia in accordance with this section.

(4) The notice must:

(a) be headed in the cause, matter or other proceeding,

(b) state

(i) the law in question, or

(ii) the right or freedom alleged to be infringed or denied,

(c) state the day on which the challenge or application under subsection (2) or (3) is to be argued, and

(d) give particulars necessary to show the point to be argued.

(5) The notice must be served at least 14 days before the day of argument unless the court authorizes a shorter notice.

(6) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding to which this section applies the Attorney General of British Columbia appears, the Attorney General is a party and, for the purpose of an appeal from an adjudication respecting the validity or applicability of a law, or respecting entitlement to a constitutional remedy, has the same rights as any other party.

(7) If in a cause, matter or other proceeding to which this section applies the Attorney General of Canada appears, the Attorney General of Canada is a party and, for the purpose of an appeal from an adjudication respecting the validity or applicability of a law, or respecting entitlement to a constitutional remedy, has the same rights as any other party.

Canadian Constitution Act 1982 Part One (1)

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;


Marginal note:Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Legal Rights

Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


Canadian Constitution Act 1982


R.S.B.C. Chapter 68 - All Sections Included Updated April 10th, 2013


So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous "hate crime laws" in our judicial system so as to cover up their own actions against Canada.

Stay tuned folks!

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
"Digging to the root of the issues since 1998"



PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on.

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn't come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.

Being a 'Senior Citizen' on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I'm left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses.

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don't make the cheque out to "RadicalPress" as that account is no longer available to me.

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C
V2J 6T8

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.

For Freedom of Speech, Justice for All,


Arthur Topham
The Radical Press

04-29-2013, 01:09 AM
Hydraulic Fracturing [“Fracking”] Worldwide.
Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta. Encana Corporation. Market Manipulation. Derivative Bubbles and The Fracking Wars.

This was posted on Arthuir's website here: (see below)

By Robin Mathews

April 26, 2013

They merge. They interpenetrate. The thread of one weaves into the fabric of the others. “Fracking” operations rush past law, past regulation, past health and environmental concerns. Supporters of ‘quick cash’, gas ‘futures’ pass corporate-written law to silence land-owners, elected councils, voters … you and me.

Narrowly – “fracking” legislation and regulatory behaviour push aside, silence anyone questioning a dangerous procedure. Broadly – they strip away the Rule of Law, disenfranchise populations, ‘despotize’ governments.

In Alberta, Stephen Harper, Alison Redford, Encana Corporation, the newly appointed Alberta Regulator Gerard Protti (enforcing newly written law), and – so far – The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittmann all merge … interpenetrate to hold off remedial action – to create toxic law, toxic wealth, toxic environment.

People waken worldwide and begin to battle corporations, “regulators”, police forces, legislatures, courts – the dominators determined to engage in “unconventional drilling” (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’). Conflict on the subject continues. France (2011) Bulgaria (2012), and Tunisia have banned hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). It continues in Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, the U.S.A., and more.

Hydraulic Fracturing is the intensive assault on shale, and coal beds, through multiple well bores (often invading water tables) to release marketable gas. “Fracking” uses giant amounts of sand, water, toxic chemical-mixes near the surface or miles down to fracture strata – ‘fracking’ – for marketable gas.

Said to be ‘old hat’ (sixty years old), present hydraulic fracturing to release marketable natural gas has new aspects and possesses multiple knowns and unknowns. Hyper-industrialization of agrarian sites: outcomes unknown. Increased earthquake activity: recorded. Unforeseen “leak gas” explosions: recorded. Increased cancer incidence close to oil and gas wells: measured. Ground water sources polluted: common, but extent and health effects unknown. Water Tables lowered: unpredictable but occurring. “Migration”/leaks of gases over time: unpredictable but certain and increasingly frequent. Toxic effects on water, soil, animal life, human health: certain, unregulated, largely unresearched, information repressed.

The commonly named ‘radioactive threat’ is only now starting to be researched. A. Rich, E.C. Crosby, University of Texas [New Solutions, Vol. 23 (1), 117-135, 2013] reveal (in layman’s language) that a cocktail of radioactive agents are set free especially by ‘unconventional’ (‘fracking’) gas operations. Radioactive agents are found in depositories [sludge storage, waste pits, storage pools] – AND in the land no longer used for those purposes.

“Out of Control: Nova Scotia’s Experience with Fracking for Shale Gas”, Report Summary, April 2013” reports that from the few test wells undertaken radioactive materials were found to be present “only several years after drilling and disposal of some of the waste….” (p. 4)

Jessica Ernst (Rosebud, Alberta) reports that sludge from fracking operations is spread on agricultural lands in Alberta.

In Alberta, (using Joyce Nelson’s words) “the government has introduced draconian legislation (Bill 2) that would strip landowners and others of their right to object to any energy project that would adversely and directly affect them.” (Watershed Sentinel, Jan-Feb, 2013) The determined action envisioned in Bill 2 is doubtless a response to Jessica Ernst’s $33 million lawsuit against Encana Corporation and Alberta’s regulator. And so – one may conclude – is the switching of judges on her case. And so is, one may conclude, (what I would call) the concerted delay engaged in by Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Neil Wittmann. He is the highly dubious present judge on the Jessica Ernst case.

Something is seriously wrong in Canada. And globally. Evidence is mounting of real, multiple dangers in hydraulic fracturing. Legislatures should be restraining, researching, proving, regulating … preventing … at high speed. But legislatures, joining with corporations, courts, security forces are – often – deregulating, erasing evidence, punishing protesters, repressing criticism.

The whole operation world-wide is so dangerous, so untested, so irresponsible, so despotic, that reasons have to be available for largely unresearched, unregulated hydraulic fracturing in the face of its perils.

And reasons are available.

First. Think of Wiebo Ludwig (1941-2012) of Trickle Creek farm, Peace River, Alberta, fighting “Sour Gas” fracking. Sour gas “a potent neurotoxin, has left a legacy of death and destruction….” (Andrew Nikiforuk). Think of the attacks on Sour Gas operations around Trickle Creek. Think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate the attacks on Sour Gas fracking around Trickle Creek.

Think of the threats and attacks in B.C. near Chetwyn against Encana Corporation operations and the millions of dollars spent to investigate.

Think of the RCMP/Encana Corporation, alleged to have created a “false flag” and blowing up an Encana well site to spur on distress – no charges laid. Then think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate, charge, jail, and reinvestigate Wiebo Ludwig. One example of many: “RCMP conducted a four-day [fruitless] search of Trickle Creek (2010) involving over a hundred RCMP officers.” (Wikipedia)

Think of Wiebo Ludwig (but do not speak of him). Think of him driven to desperation by Sour Gas fracking. (But do not speak of him.) Think of his repeated (unanswered) pleas to Alberta government for regulation, for research, inquiry, and investigation of hydraulic fracturing. (But do not speak of him – or risk being accused of sympathizing with lawlessness, terrorist activity.)

Who will speak of the terrorism of Alison Redford, Stephen Harper, Encana Corporation, Gerard Protti and the Alberta Regulators, legislators of Alberta, and – so far – of Neil Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in openly, or tacitly, or passively accepting and/or furthering what many believe is a ruthless attack on the health, the well-being, the security, the privacy, the property, and the reasonable tranquility of honest, law-abiding, innocent Albertans?

Alberta may be seen as a poster-location for the kinds of violation named above. But – in various ways – such invasions are happening widely on the planet. And there is a reason.

LSE professor Lord (Nicholas) Stern and thinktank Carbon Tracker state in a recent Report noted by Damian Carrington in The Guardian (Apr. 19, 2013) that instead of “reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn…in 2012 to find and exploit more….” That is about the sum named in a 2006 report that would “pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy”.

Stock markets “are betting on countries’ inaction on climate change”, the Report says. Stock markets are creating a Carbon Bubble not unlike the massive mortgage/derivatives/fake credit scandal of 2008. “If all goes well” – I say – countries will insist on internationally agreed Climate Change targets, and the “Carbon Bubble” will burst because of over-valuation of oil, coal, and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. If all does not go well – Climate Change will ramp up beyond control.

It may be fair to say the same kinds of ‘investors’ are engaged in the present Carbon Bubble as were engaged in the 2008 blow-up … criminally irresponsible people willing to cause any kinds of destruction in their drive for wealth. The whole fossil fuels Bubble is being driven by greed … by big, irresponsible money.

To meet only present agreed Climate Change targets, it is estimated that at least two-thirds of present so-called fossil fuel ‘reserves’ will have to remain unexploited. But … instead of diminishing the push presently going on for hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), it will probably intensify the push. As long as the pollutions created by hydraulic fracturing, by the huge environmental disruptions involved in its activities, and by the waste dumps it creates – as long as they aren’t registered by the present ‘Climate Change/global warming’ regulation machineries, the obviously destructive and dirty activity will be called “clean”.

(But science knows the methane gas leaking and leaking into the environment (almost unmeasured and unrecorded) from oil and gas operations is a potent climate changer! Methane is said to be 25 times more potent in relation to Climate Change than carbon dioxide. Who will bell the leaking methane cat?)

Redneck and Redford governments in Ottawa and Alberta (and elsewhere in the world) will attempt to criminalize any who resist “unconventional gas drilling” (‘fracking’). They will provide aid and comfort to corporations like Encana Corporation, and they will work to undermine courts seeking just adjudication of disputes about injury done from hydraulic fracturing. They will do what they can to push for Liquid Natural Gas pipelines – hoping that a Climate Change clampdown on conventional extractions will raise prices on Hydraulically Fractured Gas.

Here is huge field for environmentalists, many of whom are already engaged in the gigantic task of revealing that – however it may (or may not) register on Climate Change measuring devices – the pollution from unconventional gas drilling (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’) is a very, very Dirty Wildcat. Out of (seemingly) nowhere, in the last twenty years at most, one of the dirtiest “mining” operations in history has come into play and into visibility.

The more governments – like the Redneck government in Ottawa and the Redford government in Alberta – are absorbed into private corporate operations and dictated to by those corporations, the more they will resist just demands by citizens and populations for regulation.

The fight is worth it. The outcome certain. People all over the globe will not, ultimately, permit huge corporations and huge governments to desecrate the planet. “The bigger they are”, remember, “the harder they fall.”

Pictures available online. The environmental ruining of Canada is evident. This is all for oil, something that we hvae in abundance but have sold off. There are other ways to get it, but the corporations (jews) don't care. I wanted to post this because it exposes the stupidity of Canadian leadership, which we all know isn't Canadian.


08-19-2013, 03:16 AM
System Keeps Spinning Its Wheels in "Hate" Persecution of Political Prisoner Arthur Topham


And don't forget all Arthur Topham ever did was express opinions critical of Zionism and Israel. His life is cast into poverty and turmoil by repeated complaints by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams and an anti-free speech law that enables such thought suppression. And our hypocritical Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a virtual mouthpiece of both the Israel First lobby and increasingly of the homosexual lobby, dares criticize Russia: " 'We don’t imprison people for their expressing political positions. I think our position in this regard represents the position of Canadians and they expect that we speak in favour of these rights,' he added during a speech in Miramichi, New Brunswick." Tell that to Arthur Topham. Of course, Canada seeks to imprison those expressing political positions strongly critical of privileged minorities.
CAFE is proud to support this scrappy freethinker in his battle against thought control and state suppression of free speech.

Paul Fromm

https://www.cafe.nfshost.com/ https://www.canadianfreespeech.com/

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #15

August 16, 2013


“There’s no such thing as ‘Hate Speech.’
You either have FREE speech or you don’t – it’s that simple.”

- Paul Fromm, Canadian Association for Free Expression

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters:
Tuesday, August 13th, 2013 saw my return to Quesnel’s provincial courthouse for yet another appearance related to the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and my arrest and incarceration May 16th, 2012 for the spurious crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’

The previous time was back on July 9th, 2013 when the issue of CC Johnston’s attempt to go for a direct indictment failed. It was also then that further efforts were made to set dates for my Rowbotham application hearing, the Rowbotham being my only option at this stage of the proceedings that will literally afford me a lawyer in order to act in my defence. As well, a the date of August 13th was supposed to be when I would appear before Judge Morgan and speak to my application for particularization of the evidence which the Crown was planning to base its case on.

At this point in the process where every appearance tends to hold unanticipated surprises it has become my practise not to get too bent out of shape trying to fathom what may or may not occur. That way of thinking appears to be best and so again I wasn’t disappointed to find that things didn’t go as planned.

I was scheduled to also meet with the Trial Coordinator, Sherry Jasper, after dealing with the particularization issue in court but while waiting in the courtroom for Judge Morgan to appear CC Johnston approached me and said that she was sure that she had heard the Judge say during our previous appearance that I could postpone the Particularization application until such time as I knew whether or not my Rowbotham application was going to be approved and I could have counsel representation for the Particularization hearing.

I didn’t recollect the judge telling me that but at the same time I also realized that given the option it would be best to wait until I knew if the Rowbotham application was going to be approved and a lawyer appointed for my defence. Knowing I was ill equipped to do so beyond just reading out the information to the court that my former lawyer Doug Christie had prepared in my defence I decided to heed what CC had just revealed to me and so I told her that I would opt for not proceeding with the application at this time. Johnston then suggested I let the Trial Coordinator know what had transpired and that was that for the courtroom side of things.

I went to Jasper’s office and explained what had just taken place in the courtroom and she told me that she would strike the Application from today’s list and that once I knew the outcome of the Rowbotham application I could then bring it back before the Court to fix a hearing date.

That taken care of we moved on to the Rowbotham application issue and she called Keith Evans the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office in order to fix a hearing date for that application.

It should be mentioned here that prior to my appearance on August 13th I had spoken with Keith Evans via the telephone regarding all the additional documents which the AG’s office still required in order to process the application. Mr. Evans told me at that time that he would not likely be able to hold a hearing on the matter until after September of this year as he was already booked up for that month and that I still would have time to submit further materials to back up my application. I had already begun the process of putting together some of the documents requested and filling out forms allowing the AG’s office to access my bank accounts and contact Canada Revenue Services, etc. and had shipped these off to his office prior to my appearance on Tuesday so when Jasper contacted Evans he told her that the process was unfolding according to plan and that he expected the remaining documents from me would be forthcoming well in advance of the hearing date then to be set. Jasper then suggested November 18th, 2013 for the hearing date along with a time allotment of two hours. Evans responded by saying that he would rather see five hours set for the hearing as that was usually how long they took. Jasper expressed surprise at that but then agreed to set a longer period of time. The 18th was also a date when Judge Morgan would be able to preside over the hearing which is a good thing given that he has been overseeing the case to this point.

I should add here with respect to this Rowbotham application that the expectations of the Attorney General’s office are the equivalent of having to perform a forensic audit of my financial situation since last November 5th of 2012 when the indictment was finally handed down. It’s intense and very time consuming having to justify every penny since that time period.

That concluded the day’s events and my wife and I left the building.

One other related issue that came up during the interval between August 13th and my previous appearance on July 9th was a Notice of Libel that I received from Richard Warman, one of the complainants in this case. Warman had taken issue with some prefatory remarks made by me in an article I had posted on the Radical Press website back on January 1st, 2013. He then hired the Ottawa law firm of Caza Saikaley to represent him and demanded that I remove the said article and commentary from the site and post an apology and retraction. After some reflection and knowing that I was ill equipped to take on another legal battle I had no option but to adhere to Warman’s wishes and do as requested. In addition to publishing the retraction and apology I also had to send Warman a money order for $500.00 to cover his legal expenses. That meant yet another frantic appeal for funds to those supporting my legal struggles. Thank God kind souls came to the rescue and I was able to pay the costs for which I am deeply grateful.

So for now I must complete the task of sending all the required information to the AG’s office over the next month or so and await my next court date of November 18th, 2013

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone, Everywhere.

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

P.S. I would once again please ask readers to consider helping me out financially with a donation if they can. Go to the top of the Home Page at https://www.radicalpress.com/ and click on the “PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICAL PRESS FREE SPEECH DEFENSE FUND” link where you will find all the information necessary to send financial help.

Thank you.


Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, British Columbia (BC) V2J 6T8