Ontario Court of Appeals ruling - Baglow v. Fourniers

[virgey]

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0407.htm

I cannot believe that single statement in the official court documents is the only cause for this court case. Now I am NOT in anyway implying that something is being covered up by anyone, but in my opinion, if that single statement could lead to a court case, then we are definitely in a police state. I was expecting to read something truly horrible, and despicable.

[Mark Fournier]

We've noticed evidence is being destroyed around the internet as we speak. It's too late, boys, we already have screen shots of everything you have so far deleted. You may think you are destroying evidence but you are actually creating more.

[Edward Kennedy]

Did these lefturd fools think people are so stupid as to talk about specific items without "preserving" them first?

[Mark Fournier]

The tiny Censorship Through Lawfare Gang has tried to paint us as the villians with these SLAPP suits. We have been honest and forthright throughout this entire process. Meanwhile the other side continues to maliciously defame us and now they are running around trying to destroy the evidence of what they have been doing.

One side or the other is trying to pull off a fast one on the courts. I'm willing to let a judge decide which side that is.

FDers have been taking the high road, let's continue to do so. It looks like the censors now have enough rope, all we have to do is sit back and watch them use it.

[Edward Kennedy]

For sure...

[Peter O'Donnell]

Canadians are really going to go ahead with this trial, eh?

That's just crazy. What a waste of time and money. I've already said these are just opinions and a rhetorical outburst that basically reflects what millions of conservatives think about the nutty politics of their progressive neighbours.

People are giving this a significance beyond anything reasonable. If I were going to defend my opinions in court, I would rather defend my thoughts about climate change or the morality of the gay lifestyle, things that I consider fundamentally important. But please note, I don't seek to pervert the use of our judicial system to make it a soapbox for Sunday afternoon orators. My chief protagonist would love nothing more than a chance to harangue and lecture the nation, working in memes and nuances the way a chef uses spices and herbs, and ultimately demand the imprisonment of the entire conservative blogosphere, the Harper cabinet, most of the provincial premiers, and even lady bloggers of the left who dared utter a contrarian thought.

He would have all of us in jail by New Years if he could, and thus do homage to his inspirations of the past, the men who designed the Gulag Archipelago, that necessary corrective for anti-Soviet hooligans and wreckers.

It astonishes me to read the c.v.'s of the three judges of the Appeals Court, they have so much education they need a U-haul to drag it around behind them, yet they most foolishly determined that one wise man (Justice Annis) was misguided and that Canada would be well served to allow internet food fights erupt into open court. Do we have that much spare time on court dockets that thousands of bloggers could come in to find ultimate satisfaction in their never-ending disputes? I don't think so. A most unwise decision has been rendered.

I face very severe practical problems -- to summarize, I am being asked to face a million dollar trial on pocket change. This will be the end of internet freedom if it goes much further. People seem eager to criticize me for not being a team player, but if the "team sport" is bungee jumping without a cord, perhaps there's a reason for that.

[Connie Fournier]

Pull yourself together.

[Blaze Pascal]

Agree WV and Julian and I think it's just a matter of looking at this whole sordid tale in pieces:

With regard to this particular case and Dawg's deplorable behaviour in actively setting POD and FD up, he should not be allowed to get away with having the courts ignore his actions as if they are irrelevant. They are completely relevant to the case at hand.

With regard to the bigger picture, it appears the courts want to use this (flawed) case to explore larger questions, and that is also unacceptable.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this.

I am not convinced that the judges will treat FD unfairly because they are conservative. I know we believe that there is a left wing bias, but in the cases I've seen lately my impression is that judges decisions are often unpredictable. Lately I have been surprised by quite a few rulings. Also, note that the first judge did rule in their favour. He could have piled on and declared libel. These appeal judges did not talk about the merits of the case. It is possible, possible, that when all is said and done they too will see it as a baseless claim. Maybe they will go even harder on the plaintiff than the trial judge did. Maybe they will take exception to his conduct. It's possible. I won't make a bet on what the judges will finally say. However, I think that everything that happened will be taken into account. I'm just saying that there's room for hope..

[wildernessvoice]

I don't think anyone has yet taken in the fact that I am not going to subject myself to this lawfare farce.

My citizenship has to remain invalid under the assumptions of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. There can be no question of Canadians setting themselves up to determine what my opinions should be. I am the sole arbiter of that process. If this is inconvenient for anyone, I regret that, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I will not be participating in any Canadian lawfare trials voluntarily, and if subjected to force, will remain silent.

This is the approach that should be taken by all conservative bloggers faced with lawfare. Our opinions are not subject to review by a politically correct elite. There can be no discussion or poking around the edges of this principle. If you don't get it, then you don't get freedom of speech. I will not appear anywhere to justify my opinions to anyone.

Something about your post has bothered me for a couple of days now. It is the part about remaining silent.
There seemed to be an element about your plan that felt wrong. Not your decision I don't blame you.
It finally came to me.
If Dr Dawg gets judgement signed against the three of you and Free Dominion then what happens next?
It dosen't matter if the judgement comes about by default or by a loss to a crooked court system.
Let's work our way through the worst case scenario.

The first thing is Dr Dawg and his legal snake wait for payment. They won't wait long.
The second thing that happens is Dr Dawg drags all parties into court for debtor examination. Here was the issue that I couldn't get a grasp on.
You are all COMMANDED by the court to appear with all your financial records, deeds, bank statements, pension info, if you own gold, stamps or art work, ownership info on cars, boats, cottages, land investment- the whole thing.
We live in the information age. You can hide nothing. Numbered Swiss bank accounts are now public. There is no place to hide. All property records are now online and available to one and all. There was a time you could hide assets in your spouses' name. I bet Dawg's legal snake is too sharp to let that go by!
Serious crap!
To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
All of you need to sit down with your spouse, if you are married or living common law. This is so so important! Don't fail your spouse if you have one!.
Matrimonial property can be a real problem. Connie, Mark and Peter O'Donald, or whatever your name is, have to look at your assets and liabilities.
Approach the problem this way with your spouse, imagine you are sitting down with your divorce lawyer. What your lawyer can grab from your spouse in a settlement is what Dr Dawg's lawyer will have an interest in.
There is no place to hide save the grave and then the claim goes against your estate.
In the back of my mind was a thread on Richard Warman where he got an old couples' house- I think it worked that way. I believe the lady had recently put the house in both names or something???
The three of you need to sit down with your lawyers and your spouses need to sit down with their lawyers. I read on this site where legals alone could be well north of $200,000.00. What of Dawg's lawyer fees, what he is suing for and any punitive damages.
I am not trying to be a Cassandra prophetess but prepare yourself for the end of this game.
Plan for the worst and hope like h3ll that I am all wrong. I'm just an old man that has no trust whatsoever in our court systems.
These bassturds will even ask you if you expect to receive an inheritance. Nothing is sacred.
It is the type of event that can destroy a marriage!
Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

[shiva]

Agree WV and Julian and I think it's just a matter of looking at this whole sordid tale in pieces:

With regard to this particular case and Dawg's deplorable behaviour in actively setting POD and FD up, he should not be allowed to get away with having the courts ignore his actions as if they are irrelevant. They are completely relevant to the case at hand.

With regard to the bigger picture, it appears the courts want to use this (flawed) case to explore larger questions, and that is also unacceptable.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this.

I am not convinced that the judges will treat FD unfairly because they are conservative. I know we believe that there is a left wing bias, but in the cases I've seen lately my impression is that judges decisions are often unpredictable. Lately I have been surprised by quite a few rulings. Also, note that the first judge did rule in their favour. He could have piled on and declared libel. These appeal judges did not talk about the merits of the case. It is possible, possible, that when all is said and done they too will see it as a baseless claim. Maybe they will go even harder on the plaintiff than the trial judge did. Maybe they will take exception to his conduct. It's possible. I won't make a bet on what the judges will finally say. However, I think that everything that happened will be taken into account. I'm just saying that there's room for hope..

That's a good point Blaze, as it does often seem that when these issues get to higher levels, sanity prevails. So, while I have some faith in that as well, I also think it is a weak case for them to bring these issues forward on which makes me think it feels like a witch hunt. We shall see though, as you say.

[Peter O'Donnell]

Thanks for the advice, WV but you must have missed the seven hundred posts where I mentioned having no assets (hidden or otherwise). I told the lawfare antagonists this fact early on, feeling that they should realize that they were playing at their own risk.

[BlawBlaw]

Thanks for the advice, WV but you must have missed the seven hundred posts where I mentioned having no assets (hidden or otherwise). I told the lawfare antagonists this fact early on, feeling that they should realize that they were playing at their own risk.

They don't want you, they want Mark and Connie, who stood up for you, which is why they are getting sued. The least you could do is participate in their defence.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I have co=operated fully in the defence to date, and have not committed to any new strategy although I have outlined what I think would be fair in terms of ending my illegal blacklisting. If that doesn't matter to you, I am not surprised, but here's a shocker, it matters to me. As to which of the parties is the actual target of lawfare, we all are. I don't agree that it is mainly the forum or the co-defendants. The law operates in such a way that we are equally impacted by the trial. You would know that if you were a defendant yourself.

[BlawBlaw]

I have co=operated fully in the defence to date, and have not committed to any new strategy although I have outlined what I think would be fair in terms of ending my illegal blacklisting. If that doesn't matter to you, I am not surprised, but here's a shocker, it matters to me. As to which of the parties is the actual target of lawfare, we all are. I don't agree that it is mainly the forum or the co-defendants. The law operates in such a way that we are equally impacted by the trial. You would know that if you were a defendant yourself.

For one, I hate the word "impacted" unless it refers to a tooth.

You have said yourself that you have nothing to lose in this case (monetarily) which puts you in a different mindset. You should be prepared to testify at trial. I am a bit rusty on this for Ontario, but that is about an hour of them asking you stupid questions.

[BlawBlaw]

And I have been a defendant in a lawsuit (before I went to law school to understand what was going on) as well as professional conduct complaints which are extra-judicial.

It really sucks, but you can stand up to them or hide in a cave and wait for their version of SEAL Team 9 to find you.