Eric Brazeau: Canada’s honest-to-goodness political prisoner

Did you know Canada has an honest-to-goodness political prisoner?

His name is Eric Brazeau.  He is being held at a maximum security jail – Millhaven…for having had a politically incorrect conversation.

Recently, I have received a fundraising request fro the Conservative Party of Canada – and this is how I have replied:

To:  Jaime Girard

Director, Fundraising and Membership Services
Conservative Party of Canada

Dear Mr. Girard,

While I understand the importance of raising funds, us ‘regular people’ are dealing with a lot right now.
For example, are you aware of the plight of Eric Brazeau – Canada’s first honest-to-goodness political prisoner?
Mr. Brazeau’s private conversation was overheard by a third party, who was offended and made a criminal complaint.  Mr. Brazeau was arrested and is being held without bail until his trial on the grounds that if he were granted bail, he might again discuss his honestly held views.
The most troubling thing about his ‘no bail’ condition is that by the time his trial date comes up, he will have served longer in jail than the longest possible sentence for the crime he had been charged with!!!
I am not making this up – this is Canada today.  A person can be jailed for longer than the maximum potential sentence for his crime, without any conviction, for fear that he might express his honestly held opinions!
How is this possible – under Conservative rule?
Please, explain to me what the Conservative Party of Canada is doing to help Eric Brazeau and the travesty of justice his case has become.  Please, let me know your party’s policy on political prisoners such as Eric Brazeau.  If I approve of your party’s action plan to free Eric Brazeau and to prevent more political prisoners to be jailed in Canada, I will consider your request to contribute funds to your party.
SIncerely,
Alexandra Belaire
blogging as Xanthippa
P.S. This letter is being published and I will be happy to also publish any and all replies (or lack thereof) you may make.

Dr. Baglow Vs. Freedom of Speech: September 22nd, 2014

This is one in a long thread of posts, the full listing/ordering of which can be found in this header page.

Change was in the air on this sunny, crisp September Monday morning.  On the drive to the Elgin St. Courthouse in Ottawa, I heard the radio announcer say that fall will descend on us at 10:29 today (thought I have since learned she ought to have said 22:29).  The sun was trying its best to warm the day, but the wind was chilly and cutting.

Peter Burnet, the plaintiff’s lawyer, did not seem to mind the chill as he walked up Elgin Street just before 8:30 am:  he seemed preoccupied with what the day would bring!  And no surprise – he was the first one scheduled to give his closing arguments:  a lot of pressure, indeed.

Later, when I saw him (suited up in his black lawyer’s robes) in front of Curtroom #20, he paid a compliment to my ‘sartorial reporting‘ on this case.

Yes, I had to look it up:  which shames me a bit, my dear reader.  I really should have known that word!

When I was studying Physics at Carleton University, back in the late 80’s, I needed to supplement my income (I usually worked a few part-time jobs, but hourly wages were rather meager) because not only did I pay for my own education, my hubby (then fiance) and I had planned to marry and buy a house, so I needed not only to pay for schooling, but to also raise enough money for a down payment (well, my share) upon graduation.

To do this, I found an extremely fun and easy way to make money:  I started to design clothing.

No, I never built up any stock or anything – it seemed more prudent to me to just design one-off pieces only after I would receive an order for them.  I did a couple of things at cost for a few people, then word began to spread and soon, I could pick to fill only a few of the requests that came my way.  This was not only fun, but let me set a high enough price per piece to hire people to do the ‘making’ of the piece once I finished the design and bought the materials.

This was a truly fun aspect of the whole venture:  I had met a number of women from Muslim backgrounds who were thrilled to be in Canada, but whose husbands did not want them to work outside the home.  So, I would explain to them exactly what to do and how, and they could do it, on their own, in their homes – and earn a little money on the side (I was very fair, making sure the ‘maker’ earned exactly double of what my pay for the ‘design’ was – and the ladies knew and appreciated this).  It gave them a bit of independence, but in a way their husbands accepted.  And, they would whisper to me, it made them feel ‘more Canadian’!

The communications barrier was a bit high at first, but while I had been taking English as a Second Language classes, I had had the opportunity to learn few conversational phrases and words from dozens of languages, so, using this and practical examples, I could train the first few ladies, who would then train their friends – as need arose.

So, it had been great fun as well as a source of income.  But, despite ‘exclusive offers’ from some ‘prestigious design houses’, I could not see myself happily existing in the world of the fashion industry, so, when I earned my Physics degree, I said goodbye to this chapter of my life!

Still, I should have learned the language…

Today, there were a number of students floating through the courthouse, reading what courtroom had what hearing, and choosing which ones to sit in on.  Two of them indeed chose to sit in on the early bit of this morning’s going on’s.

There was another observer in the courtroom as well – I have not met him personally, but he bears a striking resemblance to Robert Day. To court today, he wore a black shirt bearing ‘Networked Insights’ embroidery (I think) and brownish pants and shoes.

Connie Fournier wore flattering black slacks and shoes, a pretty blouse flecked with black, white and red dots, and the blood red cardigan with the shiny gold nautical-look buttons.  Her usual good cheer was there, as was her ready smile, but she looked pale and tired:  this is definitely taking a heavy toll on her health.  I just wanted to hug her and tell her all will be alright – but, I couldn’t because I really don’t know that…I felt so stupid and useless!!!

Mark Fournier, on the other hand, looked as steady as a rock.  That man’s stamina, optimism and faith in humanity has no limit!  He looked his charming self, smiling, joking, carrying heavy boxes as if they were nothing.  He wore his navy blue pinstriped suit with an open-necked burgundy shirt.

D. Baglow wore his flattering black suit with an open-necked black shirt, black boots and silver detailing (fixtures, watch, maple-leaf pin in the lapel).  He looked serious and somber.

Roger Smith is a deeply interesting man.  He has humble mannerisms, but his eyes betray a high intelligence and sparkle with humour – the kind of person whom you could trust with anything without worries, in the knowledge that he has both the integrity and the intelligence to do ‘right’ in every possible situation.  The more I see of him, the more I like him and the deeper my respect for Roger Smith grows.

Oh – yes – Roger Smith wore tan slacks, black-and-charcoal striped shirt with a blue pinstripe inside the charcoal stripe, and his blue blazer.  His hair looked very crisp, as if he had gotten a haircut to look sharp in court today.

The pretty young Court Recorder wore a pale cream, long-sleeved, fine-knit sweater and looked a little tired:  Madam Court Clerk (a bit of purple sleeves showing at her wrists under her black court robes) even joked that we were all keeping her awake!

Madam Justie Polowin breezed in at just before 10:10, looking bright-eyed and with subtle pearl earrings as the sole decoration I could see above her black robe, white collar and scarlet judges’ sash.  She was ready to go!

Mr. Burnet, the plaintiff’s attorney, was the first one to deliver his final arguments.  He passed some documents up (they are always passing some documents up – I just wish I could get me paws on them documents!).

Mr. Burnet stated that his argument would be broken up into 3 parts (and, of course, I am paraphrasing, as I could not possibly write all this down as it was said – the transcripts will be available soon, this is just to give ‘flavour’ of what went on:

  1. overview, nature of the case, statement of principles and applicable laws
  2. evidence
  3. law

Before he delved into the depth of his argument, Mr. Burnt handed out a sheet of paper with the name and URL of a prestigious Vancouver law firm that, he asserted, has all the relevant cyber law precedents listed in a convenient and easy-to-navigate manner.  Unfortunately, I did not get that sheet, so I am unable to direct you, my dear reader, to that site.  (IF anyone has that URL and is willing to share, please, do so in the comments!!!  Thank you!)

Mr. Burnet asserted that any time ANYONE is accused of defamation, they invariably ‘cry’ a three-fold defense

  1. Free Expression
  2. opinion not fact
  3. Charter rights!!!

Now I must interrupt my narrative to be a little bit descriptive of Mr. Burnet’s manner of argument.  As in, the way he speaks and what his body language is (which, please keep in mind, is coming from me, an Aspie – notorious for poor recognition of these very types of things).

When he speaks, Mr. Burnet is very expressive and animated.  He moves back and forth, side to side, he pulls himself up and leans forward or shrinks back at just the right times.  His voice is tailored to accentuate and give emphasis to his body language.  The tone goes up and down, the rhythm varies from a forceful staccato to a most annoying lazy drawl – and no, this is NOT a criticism:  I think he is doing this on purpose and doing it quite well, in a true ‘Matlock’ fashion.

(Sometimes, I worry just how much of our legal precedent is affected by who can afford what lawyer….for example, I don’t think Mr. Warman would be anywhere near as successful in the courtroom if he did not have the services of the brilliant young Mr. Katz as his lawyer!)

Mr. Burnet argued that the defendants made it seem like the tort of defamation was out-dated and in need of reform and that this is what this case is about – not so, according to Mr. Burnet!!!  He proposed that there is plenty of evidence on the record for defamation and internet and stuff.

Sure, he continued, the defense will claim that this is an important case where precedents will be set (d’uh) and which will shape the future of Canadian online discourse (of course!!!)…but, that is NOT SO!

This is just a ‘run-of-the-mill’ ‘dime-a-dozen’ defamation case which does not require much thinking and which will in no way affect the evolution of law with respect to emerging technologies.

If I may say so, Mr. Burnet sounded very persuasive indeed:  had I not been there for much of the trial itself, I might have been persuaded by him!  Madam Justice herself seemed to be nodding at times as if to assent – though, in my highly imperfect Aspie perception of ‘stuff’, she seemed rather disappointed and deflated at the prospect of doing all this hard work, all these lengthy hearings…adding extra time to extra time… and this not being a ground-breaking, precedent-setting case…  I can only suppose that judges would like to think that their decisions matter.

Mr. Burnet proposed that even the prestigious and highly respected CCLA had intervened in some of these cases and made presentations – even to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) – but all their lofty arguments have, ultimately, been rejected…so sad…

Aside:  there is a great deal of ‘ribbing’ going on ‘behind the scenes’ – that is, when the judge is out of the courtroom – between Mr. Burnet and Mr. Frenkel, the CCLA lawyer.  Today, for example, as we broke for lunch, Mr. Burnet ‘mocked’ Mr. Frenkel for being ‘teacher’s pet’ because of how much weight Madam Justice Polowin gives to the words of the strikingly brilliant Mr. Frenkel – and, in turn, Mr. Frenkel mockingly asked Mr. Burnet if he thinks him so stupid as to offer Madam Justice Polowin the same arguments which had previously been rejected by the SCC!  All done in the spirit of friendly competition, of course, but the barbs beneath the surface were ‘palpable’…

Mr. Burnet went on in much  the same vein for the rest of his argument that I was there to hear.  The context is secondary to the impugned words themselves,  it is not up to a ‘select audience’ but ‘the reasonable man’ to infer meaning, ‘expectations’ are not an issue – words themselves are, on and on and on.

It does not matter what Dr. Baglow said about the defendants or even what he re-published about himself – that has no relevance at all to what the ‘impugned words’ were and the impact in the ‘real world’ they could have.  If the defendants thought Dr. Baglow said bad things about him, they ought to sue him – ‘tit-for-tat’ does not matter.  He did not like their words, they say they want debate, not lawsuits, to decide who is right and who is wrong – which is irrelevant as the words themselves are the only thing that stands.

And if only 1 3rd person saw those words, damage must have occurred, so pay up!  It does not matter that MsMew was a sock-puppet, EVERYBODY could KNOW that Dr. Dawg is Dr. Baglow, so pay up!

OK – I am NOT trained in legal matters.  Not even a little bit.  But, it seemed to me that Mr. Burnet was arguing that Dr. Baglow was a well known ‘public figure’ – so well known, in fact, that a large portion of ANY audience would know that Dr. Dawg and Dr. Baglow were one and the same figure.  At the same time, it seemed to me, Mr. Burnet was arguing that Dr. Baglow ought to be extended the same legal protections that a ‘private individual’ gets rather than the much lower protections afforded to public figures in general.  For example, Jack Layton was frequently mocked as ‘Taliban Jack’ for much the same reasons as Dr Baglow was referred to by the impugned words….except that the impugned words were aimed at the ‘Dr. Dawg’ persona, not Dr. Baglow himself.  Either he is a public figure where people know both the names – and the ‘public persona’ high bar for defamation is set, or he gets the protections of a private citizen – in which case one cannot possibly expect the audience to link Dr. Dawg to Dr. Baglow.

At least, that is my perception of the matter.

We shall have to see what the judge thinks!

I’m afraid that, yet again, there were limits on my courtroom time!  I was there for much, though not all, of Mr. Burnet’s presentation.

I don’t know where things ended this afternoon, as I was unable to be there for that.

But, I do hope to be in the courtroom tomorrow and let you, my dear reader, know what I see and hear!

 

Baglow v Free Dominion has become an Internet test case!

From Connie and Mark Fournier:

 

New news in the Baglow Trial

The court has now appointed an expert witness (that the parties have to pay for), and the “three-day” trial that turned into seven, now has seven additional daysscheduled in September!!

It is obvious that the court is serious about wanting to make case law regarding internet defamation, and that Baglow vs Free Dominion is now the test case.  We are doing our best to make sure that the decision is one that will help put an end to frivolous internet defamation lawsuits for good!

We’ve started a fundraiser to help pay for the court-appointed expert and for the additional court days.

You can help us by making a donation and/or by sharing our fundraiser link on your social networks!

The outcome of this case is important to all of us!

We can add offline donations to our fundraiser total now, so, if you prefer:

You can use PayPal by clicking this link:  Donate
 
or

If you feel more inclined, you can also help out using an Interac Email Money Transfer to connie@freedominion.ca .

Alternatively, our mailing address is:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd
Elginburg, ON  K0H 1M0

As always, your thoughts and prayers are appreciated more than anything else!  Thank you so much for your faithful support! 

Fondest Regards,
  
Connie and Mark

 

Bill Whittle on The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness

Political Correctness, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School…this blog has covered Cultural Marxism many times (most notably in this awesome,  detailed guest-post by CodeSlinger).

Yet, it seems that there are many people who are still unfamiliar with the history of this cancer on our society.  Therefore, I bring you a quick refresher:

 

Pat Condell: Is this helpful?

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7, part 5

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 was going to be written up later, but….  As I was writing up the background needed to accurately portray the events of day 7 (parts 4 and up), I realized that I am describing much of the material that came out on day 5 and that a separate write up would be redundant.

Day 6 is here.

Day 7 part 1 is here, part 2 is here and part 3 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly.

Part 4  left off just as Dr. Baglow explained that he had produced email communication for discovery from the period that he believed ‘the comments’ had disappeared from his old blog, but not the period that the defense claims the comments ‘had been disappeared’, because he simply thought they were not observant enough to notice that the materials they need for their case had disappeared months earlier…

This had actually come out on Connie’s cross of Dr. Baglow on day 6 – but the background had to be explained in order for my report on the events of day 7 to make sense.

As a result of the now defined and testified to difference between the two time periods under discussion, Connie Fournier asked the judge to direct Dr. Baglow to produce the emails they had actually asked for instead of the ones he thought they ought to have.

Which the judge did.

…and which Dr. Baglow had indeed produced – on the morning of the 7th day in court….long after Mr. Bow’s cross examination had finished so he cannot even be cross examined as to the content within them. And Dr. Baglow cannot testify to anything about Mr. Bow’s side of the conversation, as he is not Mr. Bow.

Nice, non?

OK, so Dr. Baglow had finally disclosed the emails from the requested time period on the morning of the 7th day of court….and he even visibly hedged when describing the emails, saying these are the emails from this time period ‘that he thought were relevant’ – immediately raising in me the question whether there were others that the defense might deem relevant but he did not  and so they would not have been disclosed…but I guess that is just my literal Aspie mind!!!

It was during Dr. Baglow’s cross examination by Connie Fournier regarding these late-disclosed-emails (which she had only 50 minutes to review before having to cross examine him on them!!!)  that I reflected on Dr. Baglow’s past as a high-ranking member of PSAC (that’s pronounced P. S. A. C. – Dr. Baglow is not fond of the usual ‘Pee-sack’ pronunciation and testified so in court earlier), a behemoth of a public sector union.  I could juxt picture him in labour negotiations, sticking to his line, appearing reasonable and affable (he can be incredibly charming), and making the most unreasonable labour demands sound like reasonable, middle-of-the-road compromises.

Aside:

This is, again, my literal Aspie mind at work here, but…it seems to me that if a group of organizations has to specifically be exempted from being charged under the racketeering laws, then they are (by definition) a form of legalized racketeering.

 Now had we had a market system (instead of the fascistic crony-capitalism system we actually have now – and I am using the word fascistic in its core meaning:  the collusion of government, big business and big labour against the rest of society), this would be self-correcting in the private sector:  if the labour unions raise labour costs to an unsustainable level, the company goes bankrupt and a correction occurs.

But, in the public sector, unsustainable labour costs get passed down to the taxpayer until the society itself becomes bankrupt and collapses.

That is why I consider public sector union to be the cancer which is weakening our society and hastening its demise.

And, I say this as someone who had been a member of both a private and public sector unions…I’ve see the rot from the inside!!!

In my defense, I was young and when I learned the truth, I took a lower-paying non-unionized job…and felt the cleaner for it!  After all, we Aspies like the laws to apply to everyone equally… As my favourite philosopher of the 20th century once said:  a person’s a person, no matter how small!

In other words, I was admiring Dr. Baglow’s self control and ability to be completely non-pulsed and to appear relaxed even as clear contradictions to his sworn testimony were pointed out.  I could certainly not handle it with such grace…

But, not Dr. Baglow!

Cool as a cucumber, he stuck to his line that all the comments had disappeared in November 2010 and he was positively baffled that the defendants could access them as late as March and/or April 2011!  Not only could he not explain that discrepancy to them, he would have been glad had someone could explain it to him – after all, he testified, he is technologically quite ignorant…

 

When Madam Justice Polowin had a question about IP addresses, Dr. Baglow was very helpful to the court and correctly explained in great detail some very technical aspects of how the internet protocol worked – he spoke with the ease of an expert going over familiar ground and I was very impressed.

But, I digress…

Once the comments had stopped being visible (for whatever reason and at whatever time period) on the internet, the defense had asked for them in disclosure.

From what I understand, after a lot of hum-ing and haw-ing, a TEXT file with tens of thousands of comments, interspersed with code and completely devoid of context (i.e. missing such details like which posts they were in response to, other comments in their thread and their position in that thread – these had been completely stripped out).

As it was a text file, it was not possible to convert it to an actually usable format….

Dr. Baglow explained that they had submitted the comments in that format ‘in order to help the defense’…

Aside:  an unimportant observation… Whenever Dr. Baglow is about to say something particularly patronizing or obfuscating – especially to Connie Fournier – he takes a moment, tilts his head back, glares down his nose at Connie, and only then speaks.  I have no idea why, but it is a definite pattern…

It seems that Connie Fournier had not considered this to ‘be helpful’ and thought it an attempt at sabotaging the defense – and she objected to it.

From what I gather, she objected most vociferously!

It then (if I understood Dr. Baglow correctly) still took Dr. Baglow/Mr. Bow a couple of weeks to produce the comments in a format that was sortable and workable with.  Indeed, Connie Fournier had produced a sample page showing how the comments (as Disqus files) were sortable and searchable.

Now that I have explained a little bit about the background of ‘the comments’, I can return to Connie’s cross of Dr. Baglow.

Connie had singled out one email in particular – dated, if I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am), April 3rd, 2011 – that appeared to be a ‘test comment’….since the word ‘test’ or ‘testing’ appeared on it and it had the identifier of having come either from Dr. Baglow himself or from someone who had his administrative identifiers.  Once she established the date of the comment, entered the content, and demonstrated the identifier, Dr. Baglow claimed to have absolutely zero idea of how this could possibly have happened.

He was positively baffled – and looked up to the ceiling as he asserted so.

Well, well, well…

It seems that in one of the emails between the two of them – but only disclosed on the morning of the 7th day of the originally 3-day court hearings – Dr. Baglow had sent Mr. Bow his administrative id and password.

And the email came just before the time/date stamp of the ‘test comment’ from, I believe, April 3rd, 2011…

Now, if the plaintiff and his IT guy were testing the appearance of comments in 2011, why would they believe them to have disappeared in November of 2010?!?!?

As they say – the plot thickens!!!

Before the significance of the ‘gotcha’ could sink in on all present, Dr. Baglow laughed heartily and in a jovial manner informed all in the courtroom that he had since changed this password!

Madam Justice Polowin smiled indulgently and assured him that she has no intentions of using that password to access his blog…

I must admit, the deflection was skillfully executed – and again, in my mind, I was picturing Dr. Baglow sitting at a labour negotiations table.

Let me end here.  There is very little more to come – some more of my observations and, perhaps, something about the pleasant conversations Dr. Baglow and I have enjoyed during some of the breaks.

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7, part 4

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 was going to be written up later, but….  As I was writing up the background needed to accurately portray the events of day 7 (parts 4 and up), I realized that I am describing much of the material that came out on day 5 and that a separate write up would be redundant.

Day 6 is here.

Day 7 part 1 is here, part 2 is here and part 3 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly.

Following the break (more about that later), Connie Fournier had a chance to cross examine Dr. Baglow regarding some emails he had JUST disclosed to her that morning.  If this seems confusing (given that this has been dragging on for years), let me back up a lot and paint the situation:

One of the ‘bones of contention’ – and a source of huge frustration to the Fourniers – was the disclosure of emails between Dr. Baglow’s technical specialist, Mr. Bow, and Dr. Baglow during the time period when the comments from his old blog had disappeared from visibility on the internet.

Even more background information is needed, or this will not make any sense.  And, I admit freely that my understanding is limited and I apologize for any errors I make.  If you spot them, please, let me know and I will publish the correction!!!  I’d rather be corrected than stay in error any day!!!

Dr. Baglow used to have ‘blogspot’ host his blog – which meant that the word ‘blogspot’ would appear in the middle of his blog’s address.  Online, he had befriended Mr. Bow, who does some IT stuff as his hobby – and Mr. Bow eventually convinced Dr. Baglow to have his blog moved over to Mr. Bow’s server.  Not only would he get a better service, Mr. Bow would get him an address for his blog that would not contain the server name on it.

Aside:  why he would go about it in such a complicated manner is beyond me. All he had to do to get a domain name for his blog without the word ‘blogger’ in it (a few dollars a year) and use a pointer, so that the ‘non-blogger-name-displaying address would be visible and the ‘blogger’ bit be hidden:  no migrating or headaches from lost comments necessary!  But, of course, that would not bring Mr. Bow income for hosting the site, so, perhaps, he might not have mentioned this easy alternative…

For quite some time after Dr. Dawg’s blog had been ‘migrated over’ to the new server (with all the posts but without the old comments, which were in a difficult format), the old blog and all the comments for the posts were still visible on the internet.

According to Connie Fournier, that is – something Dr. Baglow bitterly disputes.

Connie Fournier and Barbara Kulaszka (BK), Mark Fournier’s lawyer, were looking through these comments on the old blog because they believed that much of the material they needed for their defense was contained in these very comments.  According to my understanding (highly imperfect) of what Connie Fournier claims, she and BK were in the very process of looking at them one fine day in the spring of 2011 when suddenly, all these comments went ‘poof!’ and disappeared.

Or, perhaps, were disappeared…

If they ‘had been disappeared’ by the plaintiff or his agents at his direction (as opposed to just ‘disappeared’), it seems to me that this would be a very bad thing indeed….  Something called ‘despoliation’ – or, if I understand, willful destruction of evidence.

Dr. Baglow, of course, most vigorously maintains that the comments had NOT ‘been disappeared’ but simply were not visible on the new site due to a technical glitch and, as far as he is aware, they had also disappeared (not ‘been disappeared’) from the old blog, which he insist on calling ‘the transitional blog’ but admits it is identical to the old blog, except for the colourscheme…..and, of course, it lacks the comments.

As Dr. Baglow had had his blog moved from blogger to Mr. Bow’s server in November 2010, he insists that all comments also disappeared (due to said technical glitch – which was endlessly gone over and over on day 5 of the case – and since I am explaining it here, it now seems redundant to write that day up separately…) in November 2010.

Ms. Fournier insists she was browsing through them online in the spring of 2011.  I am not certain of the exact dates, but the 30th of March and 3rd of April 2011 kept coming up as the timeframe when the comments were visible online and when they disappeared.

Or were disappeared.

Not my call….

So, in discovery, the defense asked for all the emails between Dr. Baglow and Mr. Bow from this time period to be disclosed (I am not certain of how it was phrased, but, I cannot help but have an impression that spring 2011 was specifically mentioned).

Dr. Baglow had indeed disclosed a slew of emails between himself and Mr. Bow – but from November/December 2010.  When questioned about why he had disclosed emails from the wrong time period, Dr. Baglow became nastily condescending and said (and I am paraphrasing) that he just thought  the defendants were too stupid to realize when the comments had disappeared, so he had thought to help them and provided them with the emails from the ‘right’ time period.

And he stuck to that line.

At least, that is my most humble recollection  and my most imperfect understanding of the events and the testimony regarding them.  If I got something wrong, it is not intentional and I would respectfully request that if you can, please do let me know so that I may correct my posts.  Thank you.

More coming soon!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers