John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7 part 1

Day 1 part 1 and part 2 , Day 2Day 3 and Day 4 part 1 and part 2 of this trial were covered in March, 2014 (write-ups by me at links).

Day 5 will be written up later, as writing it up may affect the trial…

Day 6 is here.

If you read the account of Day 6, you will have read that I struggled with traffic and lack of parking…

Well, today, on Day 7, I left plenty of time, altered my routes, but…  as the trial started later than yesterday, more parking lots had filed up!!!  As a result, I had to park even further away… and, if I may be blunt, I am not too good at walking.

I kept calming myself by the thought that in this particular court case, every morning, before any ‘real action’ starts, there are ‘procedural matters’ to take care of, so I was hoping not to miss much.  Yet, as I burst into courtroom #33 just a few minutes past 10 am where and when the court was due to resume, Dr. Baglow was already on the witness stand, being cross examined by ‘the CCLA guy’.

‘The CCLA guy':

‘The CCLA guy’s’  name is Steven G. Frankel:  and, despite having admitted during a conversation yesterday that he is 30 years of age, I maintain that he does not look a day over 15!!!  That is a statement on his youthful good looks – not his ‘presence':  when he opens his mouth, you can feel he is an alpha male, with all that this implies!  And brilliant!!!

If you are a fan of the legal ‘scene’, I would recommend keeping an eye on Steven G. Frankel – I predict that one day, he WILL head up the Supreme Court of Canada!!!

Here, I am going on both his presence in the courtroom and also from observing him in consultations with other, much older/more senior lawyers:  this guy is brilliant, quick and self confident.  Hands down, he is the most brilliant young lawyer I have ever (in my admittedly limited experience) seen!!!

Plus he is a fan of Zelda – just like my kids!!!  How much more awesome could one get?!?!?

Yesterday, during Day 6, when the self-represented Connie Fournier was having trouble phrasing a question properly, he just could not help himself, jumped up and, when the judge acknowledged him, offered a re-phrasing….  I think the judge really likes him, as he is intervening as a ‘friend of the court’ and in my never-humble-opinion, madam justice Polowin relies on his advice.  I suspect she sees in him the same brilliance I do….

But, I am getting ahead of myself!!!

As I got off the elevator on the 3rd floor, rushing towards courtroom #33, I could not help but be a little bit slowed down  by what I saw just outside the courtroom:  a whole pile of people, some sitting down with a protective hand on huge protective plastic crates, many others milling about nervously, wearing police uniforms – bulletproof jackets and all!

For a moment, I thought I had landed in alternate reality!!!

Note to self:  cut down on playing RPG games – it trains the imagination to go too far!!!

Then I realized that the metal detector ‘doorway’ and armed security guard was in front of courtroom #34 – not #33!!!

Later inquiry showed that in courtroom #34, Justice McKinnon was presiding over the criminal case of Regina (Crown) v. Ahmed, Misbahuddin (case # 10-30345) and that the hearing was in the 3rd of 8 scheduled weeks of hearings….

Is there not at least a touch of irony for this civil case, in which Dr. Baglow is suing everyone in sight for defamation for a 7-word exclamation that he was ‘a vocal supporter of the Taliban’, was being held right next door to the criminal case of a highly trained medical professional being tried for Islamic terrorism?

Back to the case in hand…

I burst into the courtroom with notebook and pen in hand, so as to cause as little disruption as possible.

Aside:  if, through reading my accounts, you have formed the impression that I have  difficulty being on time – you would be absolutely correct!!!  After all, I had started a small business and ran it for a decade  before my kids’ needs became great enough for me to sell it and become a stay-at-home-mom – the best, most rewarding career ever!!!!  But, I have been told that only people who completely underestimate how long ANYTHING will take would be foolhardy enough to start a small business….hence, I always underestimate how long it will take me to get anywhere….

Moments after I settled into a central seat (so as to offer me the best view of ‘everything’, I had shed my blazer.  it was warm -so warm in there!  The word ‘pressure-cooker’ came to my mind:  how much worse it must have been for all the lawyers and judge:  not only were they all clothed in black, they also wore the heavy woolen robes that differentiate lawyers, judges and court officials from the rest of us ‘unwashed masses’!

How glad was I of my plebeian status – I could shed my outer shell of clothing and reduce my heat-suffering…

While on the topic of clothing…

Connie Fournier wore a very feminine, short-sleeve blazer in spring green which was adorned by a broach made of the same navy-blue-cloth-with-tiny-spring-green-dots that her flattering dress was made of.

Mark Fournier looked fine in his blazer, black slacks and striped shirt/tie.  He was bristling with energy!

Dr. Baglow (by the way, his doctorate is in poetry – thank you, Dr. B., for letting me know) was elegant in his black suit, another open collared blue shirt and, of course, his signature spic-and-span riding boots!  A man in his prime.

For all his elegance, Dr. Baglow looked a bit flushed as I walked in – as I missed the bit that caused this, I cannot report on it – my apologies.  Mr. Frankel was in full swing!!!

Oh, how I wish I could have observed Mr. Frankel’s face as he worked his cross-examination!  But, the way the courtroom #33 is set up, there is one table for the attorneys/parties, and they sit with their back to the audience.  The judge faces us all, as does the witness, but the lectern for the attorney speaking is facing the witness box, not the audience…  Still, Mr. Frankel was dynamic and projected a presence that is hard to describe – just throw all the positive attributes you can think of at it and it will partially paint the picture.

As Mr. Frankel is intervening as ‘friend of the court’, he was suggesting different ways to help madam justice Polowin ‘get’ the blogosphere and message forums and the whole milieu.  Perhaps hooking up some visuals to the screens in the courtroom, demonstrating how things work (as madam justice repeatedly asserted she will never ever herself visit the blogosphere)…  Madam justice seemed quite happy about that suggestion and recommended this take place during the next block of days of hearings in this case.

Mr. Frankel was in full stride, getting the witness to explain the difference between blogs and a discussion forum, successfully describing in great detail just how many layers of menus one has to drill down through before one can actually see ‘comments’.  In my never-humble-opinion, this was groundwork for establishing just how nested – and difficult to come across accidentally – the ‘comments’ on various threads on Free Dominion were.

Jumping ahead – way ahead, to re-direct:  Mr. Burnet, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer, tried to  neutralize this during the re-direct (when the lawyer gets to ask his client questions to neutralize the cross examination):  Mr. Burnet went to ‘hyperlinks’ and just how easy it is to embed them into text – and that they will take you to the precise page, without all the nesting….  It took madam justice Polowin a lot to try to understand this – much back and fort, questions, answers from lawyer, plaintiff (witness) and all that – until Mr. Frankel pointed madam justice to a section in his own submission which deals with the jurisprudence on hyperlinks and explains the mechanism.

A bit of humour:  Mr. Frankel used the example of Montreal Canadiens hockey team for this – as a true-born Montrealler!  Madame justice responded that though she, too, is a born Montrealler, she is a Boston Bruins fan – as her longtime boyfriend was from Boston….  Yes, it was an illustrative example – but it also injected a bit of humanity into the hearing….

Much of the next bit of cross examination was designed to demonstrate to the judge just how internet forums worked.  The post ‘Yokels with pitchforks’ was used as an example…

 

More coming later today…

 

 

 

 

 

having technical difficulties

I have the write up of day 7 of the Baglow vs. Fournier, Fournier & Smith – but am having technical difficulties posting it….my apologies, I will try again tomorrow!

Leicia and The Jews

From an email I received from a friend (sorry, I do not know the author to credit…):
LEICA AND THE JEWS.
It’s a shame the Jews are still suffering today, and suffering a great deal from the EU, including UK.
It’s a crazy world we live in.
 
Hi Everyone. Here’s something very interesting about  Leica, a well known German company and
what happened to the Jewish people employed by it just before World War 2
LEICA AND THE JEWS.
The Leica is the pioneer 35mm camera. It is a German product – precise, minimalist, and utterly efficient. 
Behind its worldwide acceptance as a creative tool was a family-owned, socially oriented firm that, during the Nazi era, acted with uncommon grace, generosity and modesty. E. Leitz Inc., designer and manufacturer of Germany ‘s most famous photographic product, saved its Jews.
And Ernst Leitz II, the steely-eyed Protestant patriarch who headed the closely held firm as the Holocaust loomed across Europe, acted in such a way as to earn the title, 
“the photography industry’s Schindler.”
As soon as Adolf Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Ernst Leitz II began receiving frantic calls from Jewish associates, asking for his help in getting them and their families out of the country. As Christians, Leitz and his family were immune to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg laws, which restricted the movement of Jews and limited their professional activities. 
To help his Jewish workers and colleagues, Leitz quietly established what has become known among historians of the Holocaust as “the Leica Freedom Train,” a covert means of allowing Jews to leave Germany in the guise of Leitz employees being assigned overseas.
Employees, retailers, family members, even friends of family members were “assigned” to Leitz sales offices in France, Britain, Hong Kong and the United States, Leitz’s activities intensified after the Kristallnacht of November 1938, during which synagogues and Jewish shops were burned across Germany.
Before long, German “employees” were disembarking from the ocean liner Bremen at a New York pier and making their way to the Manhattan office of Leitz Inc., where executives quickly found them jobs in the photographic industry.
Each new arrival had around his or her neck the symbol of freedom – a new Leica camera. 
The refugees were paid a stipend until they could find work. Out of this 
migration came designers, repair technicians, salespeople, marketers and writers for the photographic press. 
Keeping the story quiet The “Leica Freedom Train” was at its height in 1938 and early 1939 ,delivering groups of refugees to New York every few weeks. Then, with the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, Germany closed its borders.

By that time, hundreds of endangered Jews had escaped to America, thanks to the Leitzes’ efforts. How did Ernst Leitz II and his staff get away with it?
Leitz, Inc. was an internationally recognized brand that reflected credit on the newly resurgent Reich. The company produced cameras, range-finders and other optical systems for the German military. Also, the 
Nazi government desperately needed hard currency from abroad, and Leitz’s single biggest market for optical goods was the United States.

Even so, members of the Leitz family and firm suffered for their good works. A top executive, Alfred Turk, was jailed for working to help Jews and freed only after the payment of a large bribe.

Leitz’s daughter, Elsie Kuhn-Leitz, was imprisoned by the Gestapo after she was caught at the border, helping Jewish women cross into Switzerland . She eventually was freed but endured rough treatment in the course of questioning. She also fell under suspicion when she attempted to improve the living conditions of 700 to 800 Ukrainian slave laborers, all of them women, who had been assigned to work in the plant during the 1940s. (After the war, Kuhn-Leitz received numerous honors for her humanitarian efforts, among them the Officer d’honneur des Palms Academic from France in 1965 and the Aristide Briand Medal from the European Academy in the 1970s.)
Why has no one told this story until now? According to the late Norman Lipton, a freelance writer and editor, the Leitz family wanted no publicity for its heroic efforts. Only after the last member of the Leitz family was dead did the “Leica Freedom Train” finally come to light.

It is now the subject of a book, “The Greatest Invention of the Leitz Family: The Leica Freedom Train,” by Frank Dabba Smith, a California-born Rabbi currently living in England .
Thank you for reading the above, and if you feel inclined as I did to pass it along to others, please do so. It only takes a few minutes.
Memories of the righteous should live on.

Sorry about the delay…

For those of you who came here looking for the write up for days 4 and 5 of the Baglow vs Fournier, Fournier and Smith:  sorry to be so slow, but I am working on it.

Excuse of the day:  I had broken a tooth, then put off having it fixed so that I could attend the trial itself and take copious notes.  The tooth did not like this…not one little bit.  Finally, got it fixed today – and probably due to the neglect, it was not a particularly pleasant experience.  (It seems most unnatural to just sit there without moving while you smell your flesh being burned away….)   And while I have most of day 4 written up, I think I’ll edit it while not on dental pain killers before I push that ‘publish’ button.  So, forgive me, more is coming, I’m just a little too relaxed now to post.

 

Another quick note about ‘the day in court’

Today, was a lively day in court with a number of interesting twists and turns.

After court, I went home to check on my ‘little one’, then came back downtown and joined  Connie and Mark Fournier and Roger Smith for a most enjoyable dinner at Yangtze, one of Ottawa’s tastiest restaurants (and just a block away from ‘catsmeat-Kinsella’s’ favourite Ottawa haunt).  I must admit, we had fun discussing all kinds of things and relaxing after a most exhausting week.

I know, I am woefully behind in my reporting on the case – my apologies, but, it will have to wait a another day or so:  I want to do a good job and, right now, I am just a little too tuckered out to do it justice.  I do promise to catch up and do it sequentially, so, please, come back tomorrow evening for the next installment.

 

P.S.  Today, at one point during the afternoon, Madam Justice Polowin said:  OK, now I know what a SLAPP suit is – but, what is ‘lawfare’?

 

A quick note about the court happenings today

Today was a very exciting day in court, but, I have a bad tooth-ache and so I will be extremely brief…

Towards the end of the day, during Dr. Baglow’s cross examination, the term SLAPP came up.  The judge was puzzled.

Dr. Baglow explained that SLAPP is a commonly used abbreviation for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Madam Justice marveled at this concept, said she’s never heard of this before and busily scribbling notes, asked for an example.

Oh, and this afternoon, she also asked what a ‘thread’ is.

Excuse me, my tooth-ache just got worse…

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 2

All the caveats from part 1 (more or less forming most of part 1) apply.  Please read them….DLDR:  borrowed clunky tech and limited internet time, cannot highlight (thus link etc.) – will update once my computer is fixed.  Also, these are all jut my highly imperfect personal observations and opinions and ought not be treated as anything more than that.

An account of Day 1 can be found at The FreedomSite Blog.

I have been struggling with how to write up this part, because things got quite sensational at some points and I am quite terrified that if I repeat what I believe to have heard in court, I will open myself up to being sued because as I understand the current state of Canada defamation laws, truth is not a defense there, either, as a person is presumed to be guilty and malicious and if the words are ‘spoken maliciously’ then their truthfulness is irrelevant.

In my online persona, I have chosen to emulate Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates and THE proverbial nag:  I am good at nagging, so I thought I’d go with it.  But, as Xanthippa, I try my best to channel Xanthippe with all her vitriol and sharp tongue – that’s part of the fun of creating an online persona:  it is not you you, but that persona you, so you can say what the you you might, but in a different way, more in line with the persona you are attempting to channel.  (Remember, if it were not for anonymous speech, the Federalist Papers could never have been published and the USA would still be a Crown possession.)

Something that Xanthippa says with the persona-appropriate vitriol which defines her and signifies no more than a reflection of her nature could, quite easily, be misinterpreted as ‘malicious’ when all I am doing is role-playing…presenting my opinion, but with a satirical twist.  And satire does not come across too easily in the courtroom!

Aside:  there will be more personas I am developing in a different, non-written online project, but more about that later.  (But, if anyone has an old but nice wig they’d be willing to donate to that effort, I would be eternally grateful.)

Back to the trial:  first on the order were some legal tidying-up thingies and once these were out of the way, Madam Justice Polowin esplained that she is a bit of a luddite and barely knows how to use email…and has never ever read a blog.  A ‘clean slate’ she called herself.  I am not convinced this is the best background for this case, as it may get very technical, but (and I am jumping ahead in time somewhat) she took copious notes of everything and whenever she needed to understand a point, she not only asked for a clarification, she actually repeated her understanding of the point and asked for confirmation that it is accurate.  That, in my never-humble-opinion, is a good thing.

Another point of interest was that  motion was introduced that any potential witnesses are to be excluded from the courtroom until after their testimony and cross examination, so as not to be influenced by what they hear and see before they testify.  All parties agreed and a nice-dressed gentleman (Mr. Bow, Dr. Baglow’s IT guy) got up and left the courtroom.

Now the opening statements.

Mr. Burnet, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer, went first.  He seems like a competent lawyer and he assumed that reasonable, avuncular style that must be effective because it is affected by so many lawyers (good and bad).  Personally, I find that particular form of arguing patronizing and irritating at best because the Aspie in me considers it to be a form of manipulation.  And we, Aspies, are very allergic to being manipulated:  we see such manipulation as using a subtle form of shaming in order to disguise the lack of convincing evidence.  This opinion of mine was only strengthened by Mr. Burnet’s nervous habit of scratching the inside of his left ear with the arm of his glasses.

But, that is my perception of his mannerisms and not a reflection on Mr. Burnet’s case because a lot of lawyers affect that style – and a lot of lawyers will try to act as if they have a weak case in order for their opponents to underestimate it and not prepare adequately.  And I am sufficiently poor judge of human body language that I would never venture to guess if he was really nervous or pretending to be nervous as part of his courtroom strategy.

If I understood Mr. Burnet’s opening statement accurately, it boils down to a few major points (and I am paraphrasing, at times quite heavily, as my notes are incomplete and I cannot but channel Xanthippe – so, any vitriol you detect below is ‘satire’ and, at times, dark sarcasm, and not malice whatsoever in any way, shape or form):

  • he anticipates that the defendants will try to defend themselves by trying to suggest that there ought to be one set of laws in real life and a different set of laws on the internet and that this is wrong:  the same laws should apply the same way to everybody, for a person’s a person, no matter how small or virtual
  • his client is a retired civil servant, openly and proudly (sic) left wing, enjoys political discourse and enjoys being a blogger in order to promote intelligent (sic)political debate in the public sphere and that while his blog is the primary vehicle for this, he also does so on other blogs and in traditional media.  He engages with people with differing political views.
  • the defendants’  site is ‘extremely right wing’ and their political views are ‘extremely right wing’ which makes them offensive, which is why his client did not usually engage at Free Dominion, but he did engage in a discussion with Mr. Smith on a different blog…

Aside:  up to this point, Mr. Burnet had very considerately explained all the technical terms and jargon patiently answered the many detailed questions the judge had asked.  He kind of got into the habit of talking for a bit, then looking up and asking if any explanations were needed.  So far, so good.  Now, Mr. Burnet delved into how Mr. Smith and his client had gotten into a heated debate about Mr. Baglow’s glaringly hypocritical position* on the re-patriation of Omar Kadr…and he looked up to the judge and asked if she had heard of Omar Khadr.  Madam Justice Polowin smiled amusedly and said that even though she may be a luddite, she does read the papers…

  • His client learned about the offensive comment on the Free Dominion site from somebody else, contacted the Fourniers and demanded a takedown and an apology, but got none.
  • Articles with his client’s negative views of the Taliban were freely and publicly available and clearly contradicted that statement, even though his client continued to vociferously support Omar Khadr in his efforts at repatriation
  • his client may have used caustic and vulgar language against his opponent – including the defendants – while on the blogosphere but that does not give them the right to do the same to him (implying, though never quite stating, that if they did not like it, they could have sued him like he is suing them)
  • the defamatory comment never caused his client any harm, financial or otherwise, but the Canadian defamation laws are so flawed that this does not matter, he can still get money out of this and so he should (the proper legal term Mr. Burnet used, I think, was ‘damages at large’, demanding there not be a breakdown of what were damages and what were penalties, so that the ridiculousness of this situation could more easily be glossed over
  • Mr. Burnet stressed very vigorously that under our current Canadian defamation laws, guilt and malice are PRESUMED and almost impossible to disprove, so they should just win by default
  • facilitating putting something onto an obscure and unread spot on the internet = PUBLISHING and having editorial control
  • this is NOT a Charter challenge because the proper notices have not been filed (with the implications that what the defense is demanding is nothing short of a ‘Charter challenge’  (the judge raised her proverbial eyebrows at this)
  • this is not a SLAPP suit (methinks the lady does protest too much)
  • this is NOT a case of limiting freedoms of citizens  or (I could not help but chuckle at just how sincerely Mr. Burnet managed to deliver this one) libel chill, freedom of speech, blah blah blah…they’re not being silly bunnies or anything like that…..
  • just because the internet is evolving does not mean that the tort of defamation ought to evolve with it, to keep pace with emerging technologies is a silly bunny thing to do and any0ne who says otherwise is a snotling-fondler (Please, google ‘snotling-fondler’ for definition as I cannot currently link:  it is defined as a vulgar insult and not an actionable term of defamation….’snotlings’ are the lowest form of goblins, which are fictional, so this cannot, by definition, be actionable. And, yes, these are obviously not the actual words Mr. Burnet used, but, in my never-humble-opinion, they capture the ‘spirit’ in which this particular point was offered.)
  • (and I think I got this argument’s wording down closely to how it was presented, with a saintly hallow hovering over Mr. Burnet’s head) The tort of defamation is the SOLE LAW that underpins civil discourse & keeps it from descending into a cacophonous, vitriolic shouting match dominated by those with the loudest & most strident voices….  (The reason I think I got this one down relatively closely to what was said is because the judge asked for the statement to be repeated and commented amusedly on the terms used.)

It is not exhaustive nor, obviously, word for word, but I hope this captures the spirit of the opening statement by the plaintiff’s lawyer.

Next up was Barbara Kulaszka, the lawyer representing Mark Fournier.

Honest declaration of bias:  I have met Ms. Kulaszka and observed her in the courtroom.  In person, I think she is brilliant and very, very nice.  I have read some of her writings and been deeply impressed by them – insightful, well researched, documented, eloquently phrased and any other praise you wish to heap upon her head.  I have, however, been less impressed by her past verbal performance in the courtrooms:  that Barbara Kulaszka, however, did not show up today!

I saw passion and fire – and it was excellent!  Not just in her opening statement (sorry, jumping ahead again), but she was up on her feet, objecting, arguing passionately and eloquently.  In other words, I liked what I saw!

Anyhow:  re-focusing!!!

I may not have captured everything, but here are some of the highlights of her opening statement (again, as with the rest of all my writing, paraphrasing, satire, sarcasm, hyperbole and all that, are in play)

  • pseudonyms not the same as the people who use them (quite right – I may have similar opinions as Xanthippa – but I would not express them in the same way that, as Shakespeare calls he, ‘the proverbial shrew’ would!!! – ok, back to Xanthippa’s voice)
  • Dr. Dawg called Connie Fournier ‘his worst cyber enemy’ – superhero analogies  (In my never-humble-opinion, Connie Fournier IS a real-life super-hero!!!  Please, don’t ask me what that would make her cyber-opponents…I don’t want to get sued!)
  • the argument started on the Jay Curry blog  (Aside:  I like his new blog much more than his old one.)
  • heated argument, August 2010, Omar Khadr…election year…
  • argument started on Jay Curry’s blog, went on to Dawg’s Blog, then there was 1 post on Free Dominion where Roger Smith put up an op-ed type of a post
  • Omar Khadr, Canadians getting killed – back to Dawg’s Bawg ‘They dare call it treason’…
  • traitor, treason. +++ – John Baglow does not find being called that ‘objectionable’ (unstated implication: is he proud of those epitaphs?  Just what kind of a cat is this ‘Dawg’?)
  • For his support for Omar Khadr’s repatriation and opposition to the was in Afghanistan, Jack Layton earned the nick-name of ‘Taliban Jack':  this is the same thing!  A vocal supporter of the Taliban-linked Omar Khadr’s propaganda message gets tarnished with a Taliban-linked position….logical and natural – and not actionable.
  • her client, Mark Fournier, had never wrote or approved those words, Roger Smith did – so he should not be liable for them
  • Mark Fournier never repeated those words (though Dr. Baglow did re-publish them on the internet, several times)
  • Mark Fournier never received any complaint about those words or any request to remove them – at any point, as the plaintiff only contacted Connie Fournier, never Mark.
  • WIC Radio vs Simpson, Hill vs Church of Scientology (precedents)
  • not a Charter challenge, ‘incremental changes’ to the law
  • ‘publication’ should not be found for something anonymous 3rd parties posted in an un-moderated medium
  • Cost of freedom of speech is getting too high, chilling effect, need legal guidance
  • words were not capable of defamation in that context
  • test is contextual, interactive…quoted justice Labelle in the Simpson case (thick skin quote)
  • political rhetoric…
  • words do not carry the meaning assigned them by the plaintiff…
  • public interest
  • malice? – ‘comment’ = editorial comment = hyperbolic language
  • comment may not be fair, but that is not what ‘fair comment’ means
  • Dr. Dawg had means to refute, used Miss Mew as a sock-puppet
  • 3rd of April, 2011 – 10’s of thousands f comments suddenly disappeared, denying Mark Fournier access to information needed for his defense
  • justice Annis found the words were not defamatory
  • her client is being sued for his political positions and how people react to them, then 10’s of thousands of comments he could have used for his defense disappeared…

There may have been more, but this is what I ‘caught’.

Next came Connie Fournier’s opening statement.

I will not report on what it contained because I am not as brave as Connie and I am afraid that if I told the truth of what was said in public court, I would get sued and loose the family home and my ability to provide a home for my children.  Let it suffice to say it included allegations of statements made by Dr. Baglow regarding justice Annis as well as several other, un-named judges which made the judge’s jaw to, quite literally, drop.

Next came Roger Smith’s opening statement.

He was extremely eloquent and, in  my never-humble-opinion, totally  brilliant.

First, he explained that while his legal name is Roger Smith, his birth name is Roger O’Donnell  and he is widely known under that identity in  professional circles, specifically in the weather forecasting circles and in Ireland.

Next he explained (to a ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’ head-nodding of the judge) that by defining his client as ‘proudly left wing’ and the Free Dominion forum as ‘extremist right wing’, the plaintiff (through his judge) had made this a case that is NOT about defamation, but about one’s position on the political spectrum…and, in his opinion, the court of law is NOT the appropriate place to rule on which political opinions are permissible and which ones are not.

By the plaintiff’s lawyer’s opening statement alone, this case is not about defamation of an individual but about which political opinions are legally permissible and which political opinions are against the law…

He was, by far, the most  eloquent of the bunch  – so much so that I stopped taking notes and listened to him (regardless of the judge’s annoying interruptions) with ever growing respect and admiration (and I do NOT say this lightly!!!).

Next, the judge asked the CCLA lawyer, who did not have the ‘right’ to make an opening statement, to briefly sketch what the CCLA position is, which is what he did, in 5 points:  all of which boiled down to ‘we want the law to evolve with freedom of speech in mind and something as ludicrous as this case ought to be tossed out of court…

Actually, it was quite brilliant:  the young man (oh, I feel so old) argued their position logically and eloquently and really, really well, bringing in some of the phrases Dr. Baglow’s lawyer used and demonstrating just how ridiculous and absurd those arguments were, without needing to resort to any manipulative means or methods.

I think I love the CCLA!

OK – this is MY highly personal and admittedly prejudiced perception of what went on in court – please, do not treat is as anything more than my highly imperfect and admittedly ignorant opinion of the proceedings.

 

*   *   *

*  I consider this position to be highly hypocritical because I cannot believe that an intelligent man, with a doctorate to boot, could possibly honestly think that using a colloquial definition of some words which are identical to a ‘legal jargon’ label with a very, very narrow and specific legal meaning, applying them in the colloquial sense to a person who glaringly does not qualify for the legal definition of that term, and then, wrapping himself in the tattered cloak of self righteousness, demanding the legal protections for that person for which he would only qualify had he satisfied the ‘legal definition’…and branding anyone who fails to buy in to his glaringly flawed argument as evil and unfeeling and somehow less than human.  Sorry, the man I see in front of me seems much too intelligent not to grasp exactly what the difference between the colloquial and legal definition is, and how Omar Khadr does not qualify for the UN legal definition of ‘child soldier’.  Sure, some of the ‘unwashed & uneducted masses’ could have fallen prey to such glaringly obvious propaganda, but not an intellectual with a doctorate!!!  In the absence of stupidity/ignorance, the only other possible explanation, in my never-humble-opinion, is hypocrisy…for partisan political ends.

 

 

 

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 1

Today, Monday, March 24th, 2014, was the first day in the ‘FULL TRIAL’.

First, a few caveats:

*       My computer has died and I am sending it in for service:  this means I have borrowed equipment (my long suffering hubby’s tablet) and this is NOT the ‘ideal’ blogging medium under any plausible definition… so, instead of highlighting or bolding, I will have to capitalize for emphasis.  I am not shouting, just emphasizing  – my apologies.

*       Due to this really, really slow machine with none of ‘my stuff’ on it (and my limited access to it, as I get to ‘share’), I don’t have the quotes/links to previous/cited cases and so on.  I could get them, if I had the time online, but, currently, I do not.  I may – time and technology permitting – re-visit this post and insert quotes and/or links at a later date when time and internet access are more under my control.

*        Due to me being me – and a certified Aspie to boot – my observations are very, very limited.  They are limited both by my lack of legal training (my area of education is Physics, not Law) and my linguistics (while I may have beecome fluent in 5 languages by the age of 13, I have never mastered ‘legaleese’).  I cannot highlight it this mchine, so I cannot link:  please check out ‘Asperger’s on Wikipedia to understand my limitations in abilities to ‘get’ some of the nuances of what went on:  however, if you are ble to correct me or explain any of my observations more accurately than I, please, I TRULY BEG YOU:  COMMENT!!!  Help others get a better, more accurate picture of what is going on,  I would much rather be corrected than go on in ignorance at any time, on any topic, so, please help me and anyone else reading this get a more insightful picture of the situation, if you possibly can.

TLDR: this will be  a condensed, highly personal and highly imperfect account of my admittedly falliable observaions of this first day of the FULL TRIAL of this particular defamation case.  If you can correct me and/or are willing to add to it, please, do!  As I have borrowed and klunky tech, I cannot highlight or link or spellcheck – sorry…

Background:

Connie and Mark Fournier are the operators of Free Dominion, oldest and longest running political forum in Canada until it was sued into silence by Richard Warman.

Roger Smith, aka Peter O’Donnel (and not just online), is a member and frequent content supplier on Free Dominion and elsewhere on the blogosphere.

John Baglow, aka ‘Dr. Dawg’, aka ‘Ms. Mew’, is a guy who is a retired civil servant and unionist, a self-proclaimed leftist activist, an avid blogger, a Richard Warman groupie (imnho), and a guy with a pechant for black riding boots with the most adorable little silver trimmings.

Please note:  all my own dealings with either John Baglow or ‘Dr. Dawg’ have been very amicable and positive.  I have, in the past, asked him to get me in touch with another progressive blogger I have crossed swords with amicably in the past (I may hold many of the so called ‘progressive views’, but disagree with most of the so called ‘progressive metods’ of achieving them) and he had done so very quickly and courteously.  I was seeking some help/publicity for some Tibetan refugees to Canada and Mr. Baglow has provided it and been very nice to me throughout – and, by extension, to them.

I have found him to be pleasant and charming when ever I have interacted with him.  In fact, I find him quite charismatic.

And, I find it admirble that he has brought a young man I presume to be his step-son to the courthouse to observe civic cases:  it is imperative that we get the next genetration interested in our civics, and I give praise to all who do.  Kudos to him for that!!!

Yes, I bash when bashing is due, but I also give credit when that is due, too…so, please, don’t sue me!!!

This particuar ‘flame war’ started on the blog of Jay Curry and bled over to a number of online spots, including Free Dominion, where the 7-word phrase this courtcase is about was posted by Roger Smith.  I am afraid to report what those 7 offending words were, because from the Richard Warman legal precedent, if I, as a private person, publish the ‘public’ documents of what had been filed at court, I, too, might become liable for ‘re-publishing’ those ‘defamatory’ words.

Yes, it is a matter of ‘public record’.

And, yes, it is ‘factual reporting’ of a ‘public document’….or what was said on public record in a court of law and thus apart of ‘public record’…

BUT!!!

Afte the latest Warman vs. Free Dominion and John does decision, that is no defense:  if the factual record is, at some later point in time, found to be defamatory, the factually reporting on it on the internet is considered to be ‘re-publishing the defmatory statements’ and it would open me to liability.  So, my reporting of tody’s events will necessarily be highly constrained.

The subject of the ‘flame war’ was Omar Khadr, his inaccurate (as per UN’s definition) characterization by ‘Dr. Dawg’ as a ‘child soldier’ and the implications of willfully promulgating this demonstrably inaccurate legal description.  Peter O’Donnel’s opinions complied with the UN’s legal definition (thus leaving Omar Khadr outside of the protections UN grants to ‘child soldiers’) while Dr. Dawg attempted to draw the moral high ground by inaccurately describing the Taliban terorist as a ‘child soldier (in the legal, not colloquial, definition) and then demanded the legal protections for Omar Khadr that are only available to UN-defined ‘child soldiers’….a demostrable and rather glaring hypocrisy which ‘Peter O’Donnel’ pounced and opined upon.

In many online spots.

On Free dominion, he opined so in 7 words which I dare not repeat.

These 7 words that ‘Peter O’Donnel’ posted – and which, he asserts, are his honestly held opinon, shared by some 8 million Canadians (according to his opening statement), are the ‘basis’ of this lawsuit.

It was originally dismissed as a frivolous and a vexatious lawsuit. (And, I reported on it – oh, how I wish I could link!!!  The more I use it, the more I loathe this borrowe tech!!!)

Then, it was appealed – and several judges agreed that internet ‘flame wars’ were ‘legally uncharterred terrtory’ and that some ‘precednt-setting rulings’ need to be made here.  Just so us iternet folks would know where the actual boundaries lie…you know, so we could stay within the lines, the lines are your friends…..(OK, old commercial – but applicable!)

Thus, we have a ‘FULL TRIAL’

TLDR:  trial, ruling against Baglow (frivolous), but no legal rules for ‘internet flam war’ so FULL TRIAL to set ‘legal precedent’.  Baglow:  cute guy, charismatic and nice, wrong side of argument here.

OH, MY – OVER A K OF WORDS AND I HAVE NOT STARTED ON TODAY’S EVENTS YET…..deepest apologies, just trying to get the parameters in before I start today’s observations, as I honestly cannot afford to get sued…

FACTS:

These are the facts as posted outside the courtroom #24 at the Elgin St. Courthouse on the 24th of March, 2014:

Justice:          Polowin, J.

Plaintiff:        Baglow, John

Lawyer:          Burnet, Peter Francis

Defendant:     Smith, Roger

Unrepresented

                 Fournier, Connie

Lawyer:             Kulaszka, Barbara

                 Fournier, Mark

Lawyer:            Kulaszka, Barbara

Mr. John Baglow turned up as well groomed as ever:  a dark suit, a blue-collar shirt and them cute riding boots with the adorable silver trimmings he has become so well known for.  He knows what he looks good in and uses it well!

Connie Fournier wore a classy, slim-line dark skirt with a gray pattern, a pretty blouse with a multi-red abstract pattern and a red blazer that accented the blouse perfectly – with an understated, classy gold/gold-tone diamond/rhinestone necklace (sorry – I am not knowledge-able enough to tell the two apart…it was ‘understated’ and ‘classy’ at the same time and I wish I could pull a similar look off….Connie looked smart and classy and – well, we have words for women like that!!!).

Roger Smith wore a blue blazer and khakis – understated, yet elegant.  With his silver-kissed hair, he was easily the most attractive person in the courtroom.

The charismatic Mark Fournier wore a tweed jacket and slacks and, despite his bigger-than-life persona, tried his best to stay in the background.

In addition to the people listed above, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association were interveners in this case – as friends of the court – on the side of the defendants.  The lawyer sent to represent them was a young man named Steven Frankel – and while he had a wedding ring on the ring finger of his left hand, he looked younger than either of my sons.  OK – I officially feel old now….but, when he spoke, he sounded really, really smart!

And, of course, the judge…

Madam Justice Polowin, J., presided over the case.

She looked sharp, with her pale hair cut short-ish, slicked back at the temples and wonderfully fluffy on top, she wore understated light stud earrings (pearls?) and her judge’s robes flowed playfully about her slight frame.  She self-admitted to being a luddite (knowing how to send and receive emails – but nothing else on the internet) and asked for every bit to be explained, internet technology and jargon and culture included.

I see now that it is way late, and I plan to be back in court to observe tomorrow – so I must suspend my narrative here.  Let me just state that, at the end of the day, Madam Justice Polowin stated (at the end of the day) that even though the trial had been scheduled for Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday, she sees no way they’ll get through it all (while doing a proper and thorough job of examining the underlying issues, as the appellate court had directed) by the end of this week and so participants ought to alter their travel plans accordingly…

MORE LATER!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slow blogging

This  week, until about Wednesday nex week, I am on a family getaway.

While I planned to blog all along (lik mentioning that yesterday, in Pi-day, the Exploratorium had free admission and was uber fun), my new computer  chose this time to stop working…so, not only am I away from the everyday, I can only sneak online in few tiny snippets…

Consequently, blogging will continue to be light for the next severall days!

 

Having technical difficulties

Yet  again…sorry, but hope to have it cleared up soon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers