Free Dominion files its defence against... Warman's lawsuit

[J.B. Stone]

.....

Let's say that if I were an unpricipled jackal and wanted to use the Internet to frame people on otherwise unfounded charges and utilized a persona that made it seem that I was a one-person, limp-wristed personification of a sociopathic parasite....I'd think twice after reading such a brief and perhaps reconsider before I had a mind to drag anyone into court in the full light of day, claiming that I'd been somehow damaged because reasonable people thought ill of my scurrilous activities.....!!!

But, I'm not.

[backhoe]

Wow that brief was a joy to read, I laughed out loud several times because her responses to Warman's whining were so funny. I think she enjoyed writing that brief.

Connie she's going to give you all she has and then some, great choice for legal counsel.

I had the same impression. Seeing Barbara Kulaszka's name on that Statement was a pleasant surprise.

I trust all the diabolical and devious minds on this site will download the PDF and go over it with a fine-tooth comb.

[Dacre]

Glad to hear it all sounds encouraging. Let's pray that success is at hand and the wrongs will be righted.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I like the provisions that seek to establish that an internet forum is a spontaneous and free-flowing marketplace of ideas, if only because the court would be reluctant to rule against this concept for fear of creating an easy recourse to appeal.

What one calls hyperbole, however, another might consider as pearls before swine.

[styky]

Wow that brief was a joy to read, I laughed out loud several times because her responses to Warman's whining were so funny. I think she enjoyed writing that brief.

Connie she's going to give you all she has and then some, great choice for legal counsel.

I had the same impression. Seeing Barbara Kulaszka's name on that Statement was a pleasant surprise.

I trust all the diabolical and devious minds on this site will download the PDF and go over it with a fine-tooth comb.

I Downloaded it and now waiting for my pizza to be delievered. I'm of the opinion that when I think of this man I should be holding junk food.

[fourhorses]

I can hear that <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HihOo3YxOAQ>lonesome</a> whistle blow ...

[cinyc]

Ms. Kulaszka did an excellent job on the statement of defence. I LOVE the failure to mitigate argument - Mr. Warman could have lowered his damages by crawling out from underneath the rock he's been hiding under and posting what he believed to be the truth on the Internet. He didn't. He sued.

Instead, I believe that Warman's buddy Warren Kinsella decided to goad those writing about the Cools post to try to increase the number of parties to and damages sought before filing this lawsuit (but only up to $50,000, of course, lest there be *gasp* disclosure - we wouldn't want that to happen). I think Kinsella all-but-admitted doing that on his blog.

I don't know if the court will buy the duty to mitigate argument - but it's certainly innovative.

[WestViking]

I can hear that <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HihOo3YxOAQ>lonesome</a> whistle blow ...

Yeah, or maybe <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1xSt7iganA>this one</a> is appropriate.

[WestViking]

Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion have now filed their Statement of Defence against Richard Warman's defamation suit.

That has to be the most ballsy defamation defence in the history of British legal annals. Kulaszka has shot Warman so full of holes he can moonlight as a colander IF he is foolish enough to pursue his action.

The words complained of in Warman's Statement of Claim are innocuous, mild and mannerly compared to the devastating biography contained in the Fournier Statement of Defence. Warman's strategy of maximum disruption looks more like he decided to stick his private member in an operating wood chipper. The results of continued litigation will be painful and ugly. Worse, as I recall, the contents of a court document cannot be used to launch a further action.

I suspect before long Warman will have a new <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQRtbLvw1sE>theme song.</a>

[WestViking]

I don't know if the court will buy the duty to mitigate argument - but it's certainly innovative.

I suspect that Warman's record of posting to forums for his own purposes will weigh into any decision. He can hardly maintain that posting a defence and protest was something he was unable to carry out.

[fourhorses]

Instead, I believe that Warman's buddy Warren Kinsella decided to goad those writing about the Cools post to try to increase the number of parties to and damages sought before filing this lawsuit (but only up to $50,000, of course, lest there be *gasp* disclosure - we wouldn't want that to happen). I think Kinsella all-but-admitted doing that on his blog.

I don't know if the court will buy the duty to mitigate argument - but it's certainly innovative.

Two interesting observations ...

With insurance, there is a duty to mitigate.

Goading to increase the damages - interesting

[cinyc]

Instead, I believe that Warman's buddy Warren Kinsella decided to goad those writing about the Cools post to try to increase the number of parties to and damages sought before filing this lawsuit (but only up to $50,000, of course, lest there be *gasp* disclosure - we wouldn't want that to happen). I think Kinsella all-but-admitted doing that on his blog.

I don't know if the court will buy the duty to mitigate argument - but it's certainly innovative.

Two interesting observations ...

With insurance, there is a duty to mitigate.

Goading to increase the damages - interesting

Here's Kinsella's <a href="http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080222-100622">too-cute-by-half </a>post on the goading issue. (And no, I didn't write the e-mail to him).

No comment? Then why bother putting it on your blog in the first place, unless you agreed with it?

[cinyc]

BTW - isn't Kinsella a party to this lawsuit, too?

[Connie Fournier]

BTW - isn't Kinsella a party to this lawsuit, too?

No, that is a separate one against just Mark and me. We are fighting three maximum dispruption SLAPP suits at the moment.

[Pauly]

I don't know if the court will buy the duty to mitigate argument - but it's certainly innovative.

Two interesting observations ...

With insurance, there is a duty to mitigate.

Goading to increase the damages - interesting

There is a general duty on plaintiffs to mitigate the damage in all actions. Where Ms Kasluzka (sp?) is on the right track is that prior to the interwebs there was little a complainant could do to mitigate the damage.

The goading is part of legal doctrine, basically you're not supposed to use the legal process to further injure a person's reputation. What is normally covered by that is you can't assert things you know to be untrue to be part of your defence. To make goading work as a plaintiff you have to prove
1) The assertions are false
2) The defendants know that the assertions are false
3) The defendants repeat the assertions despite knowing they are false

With the Rogers' internet records that could prove Richard Warman to be innocent of the Cools post gone Warman has long row to hoe if he wants to get goading up and working for him. Interestingly in his Claim he presents no proof of his innocence of the Cools post, only his word - which as demonstrated by the Fournier's defence isn't something that you can take as carved in stone.