Yet another former member of the group “100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team” has stepped forward to offer evidence of logical inconsistencies in the statements of Jeromie Williams. Wray Smith, of Calgary, Alberta — a province that Mr. Williams describes as a “red neck province” — was banned from the Facebook group on Nathan Kotylak after he questioned Mr. Williams’ sources, especially in his latest articles.
Now Mr. Smith, an amateur logician, has pointed out that in Mr. Williams’ last appearance on Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network (now featured prominently on Jeromie’s CV on his site), on November 2, 2011, he made a serious of potentially contradictory statements:
A) Nathan Kotylak has been charged, but only with participating in a riot (not arson). [FALSE]
“The fact that he walks away with a simple participating in a riot charge is mind-bloggling at best.” (1:07-1:15)
B) This information did not come from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), but from someone else. [TRUE]
“In fact the Vancouver Police Department weren’t the ones that who confimed the fact he has been charged. That came from another source.” (3:10-3:17)
C) Nathan Kotylak’s community service in the summer was voluntary. [TRUE]
“He chose to work 70 hours at two places of his choosing working in a kitchen…” (5:58-6:05)
D) He has been discussing this case with US immigration authorities. [FALSE]
“The imigration of the US I mean the US immigration athorities are looking at this case … and I have been discussing that with them.” (6:09-6:17)
E) Nathan Kotylak has not yet been charged, but will be removed from the US when he is. [TRUE (on November 2)]
“If a charge is actualy laid against him, he’ll be yanked out of California back to Canada.” (6:18-6:25)
Contradiction #1: E ⇒ ~A
Nathan Kotylak could not have been both charged, and awaiting charges, on November 2. Within five minutes, Jeromie made two statements that could not both be true.
Next, Wray notes that:
F) The VPD announced the latest round of charge recommendations (not charges) on October 31. [TRUE]
G) However, no charges were approved until one month later, on November 30. [TRUE]
H) The VPD also announced, separately, on December 27, charges of participating in a riot and three counts of arson against a “Lower Mainland teen” who was 17 at the time of the riots. This young offender was part of the “first round of 60 charges recommended to [the] Crown.” [TRUE]
I) The first round of 60 charges recommended to the Crown, way back on June 20, included a “17 year old youth from Maple Ridge with no previous criminal convictions,” facing charges of participation in a riot and of arson for allegedly lighting a police car on fire in the 100 block of West Georgia.” [TRUE]
J) Lastly, story H was reported in the Maple Ridge Times along with pictures of Nathan Kotylak. [TRUE]
Contradiction #2: G ⇒ ~A
Nathan Kotylak could not have been charged on or before November 2, because no charges were approved until November 30. Note that if you assume, based on H, I, and J, that Kotylak was the “Lower Mainland teen” charged on December 27 (with participating in a riot and arson), which we will label X (and neither confirm nor deny), then X ⇒ ~A as well, because he did not escape with a single participation charge, as Jeromie stated on November 2.
Next, Wray has concerns about Jeromie’s Examiner story, on December 22, in which he states that:
K) Jeromie was in direct contact with a USCIS source. [FALSE]
“A source within the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has confirmed Thursday exclusively with this reporter…”
L) The USCIS source told him there was a deal to allow Kotylak to escape serious charges. [FALSE]
“…that Nathan Kotylak, poster boy of the Vancouver riots, has struck a deal with with the Vancouver Police Department and the Crown that will see him serve no jail time and carry no permanent criminal record for his actions during the riots.”
M) Kotylak’s 70 hours of community service in the summer was part of the deal. [FALSE]
“Information given by a government employee at the California branch of the USCIS who wished only to be identified as Officer Tony, detailed that a letter supplied by Nathan Kotylak’s lawyers prior to his entry into the US assured American authorities that Kotylak had reached an agreement with the Vancouver Police and the Crown that he would not be charged with a serious crime, and that he had completed 70 hours of community service as part of the deal.”
N) The VPD has not recommended charges against Nathan Kotylak. [FALSE]
“After waiting over four months for charges to be laid against suspects in connection with the Vancouver riots, on October 31st, 2011 Nathan Kotylak’s name was left off the first list of 60 individuals recommended to have charges brought against them, despite the numerous videos and damning evidence against the Water Polo Canada player.”
O) He was never in contact with the USCIS. [TRUE]
“Kim Johnston was, and still remains, the only connection between this column and ‘Officer Tony’ and at no time did the Canada Headlines Examiner column have any contact with this officer if he does in fact exist.”
P) His real source was private citizen Kim Johnston, who he called his “verified informant.” [FALSE]
“Information supplied by a government employee at the California branch of the USCIS who was named as Officer Tony by an informant…”
Q) Johnston misled him. [FALSE]
“President of Nature’s Firewall misleads media with false information, claims Vancouver rioter reached deal with Vancouver Police and will not face charges for torching police cars.”
R) Johnston was trying to “discredit” and “maliciously prosecute” Nathan Kotylak. [FALSE]
The article below was based off of information and testimony given by Nature’s Firewall LLC president Kim Johnson, after she supplied false and misleading information in an attempt to discredit and maliciously prosecute Nathan Kotylak.
Now, Wray raises several logical inconsistencies here:
Contradiction #3: O ⇔ ~D, ~K
In the same article, Jeromie claims both that his source for plea bargain story is an Officer in the USCIS, and that he was never actually in contact with the USCIS. Obviously, both cannot be true. If, as Jeromie now claims, he was never in contact with the USCIS (O), then he also lied during his last appearance on Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network, when he said that he was discussing this case with US immigration authorities.
Contradiction #4: O, X ⇒ ~L
Given that Jeromie later confirmed that he was never in contact with the USCIS, they could not have informed him of a secret deal that would allow Nathan Kotylak to escape charges. Additionally, if Nathan Kotylak was charged on December 27 (X), then he has obviously not escaped serious charges, having been charged with three counts of arson.
Contradiction #5: C, G ⇒ ~M
The 70 hours of community service in the summer could not have been part of any plea deal, based on the facts that, as Jeromie himself said on the Sun News Network, it was entirely voluntary (C), and that there were no charges approved (thus no deals) until well after the end of the summer, on November 30 (G).
Contradiction #6: I, X ⇒ ~N
If you believe that the 17-year-old individual from Maple Ridge described by the VPD on June 20 was Nathan Kotylak, then the VPD recommended charges against him as early as five days after the riot on June 15.
Contradiction #7: L ⇒ ~P, ~Q, ~R
Given that Jeromie claimed his source was an officer in the USCIS, it could not have been Kim Johnston, who is (obviously) not an officer in the USCIS. Thus it was not Kim Johnston who was trying to mislead anyone, or “maliciously prosecute” Nathan Kotylak. (Wray also notes that it is unclear how concocting a false story about a plea bargain, allowing Nathan Kotylak to escape serious charges, might constitute “malicious prosecution.”)
Mr. Smith suggests an alternative explanation, based on Occam’s razor: Jeromie Williams, who has changed his story several times throughout this process, has tried to mislead us all, first by concocting a false story about a plea bargain that never happened, hoping to get back on TV, and believing that his lies could not be refuted because of the YCJA’s publication ban.
Then he has tried to mislead us all by pinning the blame on someone who was entirely innocent, Kim Johnston, presumably because she refused to send him free “Dirty Boy” facewash products for his parties in Montreal, among other things.
However, we invite readers to suggest alternative explanations.