Dr. Baglow vs. Freedom of Speech: September 23rd, 2014 – Roger Smith aka Peter O’Donnel

This is reporting on a real-life (unfortunately) court case, the whole narrative of which is indexed in Dr. Baglow vs Free Speech - and listed at the top bar of this blog.

As I left off, Barbara Kulaszka, the lawyer representing the defendant Mark Fournier, had finished her closing arguments.  It was now Roger Smith’s (known online as Peter O’Donnel) turn to make his closing arguments.

It is difficult to describe Roger Smith in a few words because he is quite a complex person.  Even my short exposure to him made that clear.  So, what I write, can only be a very tiny glimpse of this unique (in a very good way) and highly intelligent man.

Roger Smith is of a similar age as the plaintiff, Dr. Baglow, and both have silver hair – but that is where the physical resemblance ends.

Where the extroverted Dr. Baglow is expansive, speaks loudly with expressive body language (his doctorate is, after all, in poetry – so some theatricity ought to be expected) while the introverted Roger Smith is shy and humble in his demeanor, speaking softly and gently.

So, one has to listen carefully when Mr. Smith speaks – not just because he is soft-spoken, but also because he makes many little jokes under his breath!  And his jokes are well worth straining one’s ears for.

Even Madame Justice Polowin seems to enjoy his jokes – her eyes sparkle and she has even, a couple times, rewarded Mr. Smith’s humour with the kind of smile usually reserved only for Mr. Frankel.  (At least – in this courtroom…..though Connie has, at times, earned it as well.)

I will be paraphrasing a lot, but, to the best of my understanding, Roger Smith’s defense revolved around the following points:

Firstly, he asserted that the impugned words were actually not defamatory – and urged the judge to find that way.  After all, the fact that the late Jack Layton was referred to as ‘Taliban Jack’ not only did not cause him any defamation, it seemed to actually help his electoral success!

Madam Justice was nodding her head in assent.

Secondly, he (RS) did not mention the plaintiff by name – Roger Smith’s online pseudonym called Dr. Bglow’s online pseudonym a name.  But, pseudonyms are not the same as real-life names and, as even the court’s own expert had testified, people often build a very different, unique persona for their online pseudonym – one which intentionally differs in tone and perhaps even opinions from their real-life identity (for various legitimate reasons).  Thus the two ought not be conflated:  Roger Smith did not call Dr. Baglow anything – Peter O’Donnel called Dr. Dawg a name, that’s all…

In addition, the context of the debate – ongoing, skipping around all through them interwebitudes from blog to blog to discussion boards and back again, over a number of days – had reduced the defamatory potential of the impugned words to exactly zero.

Since that debate did bounce around from one online place to another, it is not the easiest thing to follow the actual real-time sequence in which the various comments were made because some were time/date stamped in one time-zone, some in another.  In order to make it easier for Madam Justice to follow the timeline, RS had taken the pains to sequentialize them in Appendix A.  Madam Justice was much less interested in this at that point in time than Mr. Smith was, but, in my never-humble-opinion, she will find it a useful tool as she reviews the evidence.

Which she will – she made that abundantly clear!

For the duration of the trial – and even in the communication that was not publicly visible, like the various emails that form the voluminous body of the exhibits in this trial and tribulation, the plaintiff and his lawyer, Mr. Burnet (who had, actually, commented as a ‘guest’ on the Warman trial coverage on this very blog in the past), had referred to Roger Smith as an old crank, a wingnut.

This, I believe, was the very word that Madam Justice Polowin used extensively when questioning the court expert on online media and communications – and he assured her that once a person has acquired an online reputation as a ‘wingnut’, nothing that person says will be taken seriously by anyone else and his commentary will either be skipped right over or simply seen as humorous interlude…

But, I digress…

Throughout this whole ordeal, Peter O’Donnel had been referred to as a crank, a nut, a wingnut…and his writings were referred to as ‘incoherent rambling’ and ‘woolly essay’.  In other words, ridiculed and dismissed.  There was even one email read into evidence from Dr. Baglow to someone (Jay Currie, I suspect, but am not certain) where Dr. Baglow dismisses Peter O’Donnel as an inconsequential crank, saying he’s probably not even going to bother suing him because coming from him, the impugned words ‘mean nothing’:  it was the Fourniers he was going after for having provided a forum for this speech to be uttered.

So, RS continued, he was surprised that in his closing arguments, Mr. Burnet had promoted Roger Smith to an intelligent man, a deep thinker … and his writing was promoted to ‘well-composed prose’!

It was at this point that Roger Smith earned one of Madam Justice’s impish smiles and her cheeks even flushed a bright pink, as I suspect she was working hard to stifle a fit of giggles…apparently, this ‘promotion’ had not gone unnoticed by her!

Working on his momentum, RS continued building his defense, recalling the plaintiff’s words (which Dr. Baglow regretted and apologized to ‘our agricultural workers’ for having used) ‘yokels with pitchforks’ and re-classified Omar Khadr and his ilk of terrorists (the subjects that evoked the impugned description of Dr. Dawg from Peter O’Donnel) as ‘super-yokels with rifles’.

And, a substantial number of Canadians (59%, if I understand it correctly) do hold the belief that lending moral support to Omar Khadr is indeed ‘giving moral support to the enemy’…it would, in very real terms, enhance their geopolitical struggle on the other side of the world if their members were receiving moral support from some people over here, undermining our political will to continue in the armed struggle.

RS asserted that leftists often make common cause with terrorists in their regional struggle.  (Indeed, I would have taken this further, pointing out that many leftists believe that their utopian end justifies any means and that supporting (directly or indirectly) the enemies of our Western society, based on civil liberties, will bring our civilization down faster, which will help them build their tyrannical dystopia that much faster.)

The judge interrupted RS at this point, saying he need not belabour this:  she understands that he means that ‘support’ is more than just money or direct fighting…

During this bit, Dr. Baglow was leaning back from the table, his long legs elegantly crossed in front him in a classical ‘power pose’ – but he was very fastidiously studying his manicure.

Mr. Burnet was using the index finger of his left hand to tap his ear, listening carefully to every word and undoubtedly preparing for his rebuttal at the end of the day.

Indeed, RS continued:  support can be passive, like supporting ‘carbon taxes’…I suppose the climatologist in him cannot be suppressed! (By the way, according to the brief discussions we had during breaks, our scientific conclusion on ‘Global Warning’ are pretty similar.)

His essay (within which the impugned words were contained) covered a number of topics – from Steven Harper to long-form census (something that was VERY HOTLY debated in my own family:  one of those instances where my brilliant economist father-in-law, who had been a special economic adviser to 4 different Liberal Prime Ministers – two as PM’s, two while Ministers of the Crown who later went on to seize ‘the brass ring’, well, he and I battled long and loud over the souls of the next generation of our family over this issue! I think it was the next generation of our family that won:  they were forced to consider the issue from all possible angles and reach a conclusion of their own (not that they’d tell us what that is)!!!  Which, really, is the point…  Though my hubby and my mother-in-law tried throwing things at us (figuratively!) to change the topic….it seems not everyone appreciates a heated, no-holds-barred political discussion at the dinner table!  Which reminds me – I must get something awesome prepared for the next family holiday….) Re-focusing!

The essay covered things as diverse as the ‘beer and popcorn’ fiasco and lamented the hypocrisy of calling conservatives ‘yokels with pitchforks’.  RS admitted freely that it was a poorly written essay, and that it rambled a lot and would not have won any essay contests!  Indeed, it was so poorly written that the thread was virtually unread…until, that is, this whole thing erupted!  Then Streisand effect took over….once Dr. Dawg and MsMew sank their teeth into it (my words, not his).

OK – I must admit to you, my dear reader, that I have mangled both the wording and the timing of the various arguments.  I am working both from memory and my notes – and when I see something touched on, I keep writing – spilling the whole scoop to you, even when it ought to have just been foreshadowing…then, I read on and find the full argument I described 300 words ago only happened now.  Please, forgive me my sloppy reporting – I just wish someone better at it than I would have been in the courtroom to present another accounting of the events.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that throughout the trial, different people did drop in for a bit here and there.  Today, for example, Mr. Frankel’s sister-in-law, who is a law student, dropped by the courtroom to watch the closing arguments (and got to have lunch with Mr. Frankel to boot!).

He-who-must-not-be-named (on pain of legal action)  also dropped in every now and then, though not today.

And Canadian Cynic, known in the blogosphere for his knowledge of Linux (good) and for hurling misogynistic slurs at conservative women (sad, so very sad) on the internet (at least, that is what a quick Google search suggested), also popped in a few times:  I even saw him chatting with Dr. Baglow in the hallway, but no matter how hard I tried to establish eye contact, I failed.

On this last day of this case, there was also a youngish man with a mop of blond hair, a gray tweed jacket, light open-necked shirt with a subtle stripe and blue jeans.  I approached him during the lunch break and sked if he were a reporter.

“Sort of” he smiled as he slid over a copy of Frank magazine.  “I’m with them!”  I saw him later chatting with Canadian Cynic.  Funny thing is – Frank magazine’s name did actually pop up in the trial earlier, as an example of how different print media have differing ‘standards’ for ‘discourse’…as in, one would not expect as colourful a language in, say, CTV or CBC or ‘Globe and Mail’ as one would from ‘Frank magazine’…  And demonstrating that different segments, even wihin the same ‘print media’ would have different levels of discourse and expectations of the way language is used is at the very heart of this court case: the plaintiff asserts that once published, even to one person, the ‘language’ must be ‘standardized’ and it really is of no relevance whether this is a scientific treatise or a tabloid or a shock-jock-thingie (WIC radio case)….while the defense is claiming that in different platforms, the participants are performing for different audiences and that the expectations and understandings of the particular audience of their message board is of paramount importance because it is the perceptions of that segment of the citizenry who will be exposed to the impugned words, so, how they perceive will define their defamatory potential.

OK, I have been generalizing again – but I think that this is important because conveying the ‘flavour’ of the differing sides is so core to this very case….

Thank you, my dear reader, for having indulged me thus far.

I have attempted to capture both the substance of Mr. Smith’s defense as well as the atmosphere in the courtroom.  But, let me return to it, in my most imperfect manner.

Roger Smith explained to the judge that he truly and honestly held the belief that what Dr. Dawg had posted in his comments constituted giving aid and comfort to the terrorists and enemies of Canadian Armed forces in Afghanistan – and that while he held these beliefs about the words posted by Dr. Dawg, he did not harbour any personal malice against Dr. Baglow himself … but that the evidence bore out that, sadly, this was not true in reverse.

RS pointed out that while Dr. Baglow had reached out to Connie and Mark Fournier, asking them to settle out of court, he had not presented any such opportunity to Mr. Smith himself.  Not once had Dr. Baglow extended Roger Smith the courtesy of even contacting him…

Any reading of the discussion, as it evolved over the 7 or so days, will reveal deeply vitriolic comments made by Dr. Baglow – much more so than by RS.

‘Begly’ (the name that the defendant, at this point, thought was Dr. Dawg’s meat-space name – not even being aware of the proper name of the pesky paintiff who thinks himself so important that ‘everyone’ knows him, yet he should not have to meet the ‘higher bar’ for defamation set for ‘public figures’ – he’s the only ‘public figure’ who should have the ‘private person’ protections against legitimate political criticism), Zyklon B, pot-calling-the-kettle-black…you get the picture.

At this point, Mr. Smith became unsure if pointing out just how much of a chill a ‘guilty’ verdict would cast over the interwebitudes and just how cluttered the courts would become with defamation cases if the bar were to be set this low…  Being a principled person, he wanted it judged on the merits of this case – which he honestly thinks are insufficient for the finding of defamation.  But, this is where he was, in my never-humble-opinion, torn:  he wanted the court to be aware of the potential real-life implications of setting the bar this low, without appearing to ‘fear-monger’ or some such thing.

Madam Justice Polowin found this rather endearing:  she assured Mr. Smith that the so called ‘floodgates argument’ is not without merit and is, at times, successfully employed by real-life lawyers at court so he, as a self-represented citizen, ought not be ashamed of raising it.  And she smiled…

I know my words do not do justice to this moment at court but I’d like you, my dear reader, to know that this was a ‘Moment’ with a capital ‘M’…if you excuse the expression.

At this point, Roger Smith concluded his defense by saying that he cannot afford a fancy lawyer and that it would probably have been wise not to fight this battle, but, that he was not fighting it just on his own behalf but also on the behalf of the many Canadians who cherish their freedom of speech and exercise it, including on the internet, and that he felt that it was his moral obligation to our society to fight this battle!

In her right, Madam Justice Polowin seemed to understand this – and appreciate the kind of sacrifice it took Roger Smith to go on and fight for all of us!!!

She beamed a wonderful smile at him, and assured him that, for a self-rep, he had done an admirable job, that he was respectful of the court rules and, along with Connie, they had been some of the most professional self-reps she had ever had the pleasure to preside over.

 

The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery

Overview:

1. Electronically stored information is discoverable.
2. In any proceeding, the parties should ensure that steps taken in the discovery process are proportionate, taking into
account (i) the nature and scope of the litigation, including the importance and complexity of the issues, interest
and amounts at stake; (ii) the relevance of the available electronically stored information; (iii) its importance to the
court’s adjudication in a given case; and (iv) the costs, burden and delay that may be imposed on the parties to deal
with electronically stored information.
3. As soon as litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties must consider their obligation to take reasonable and good  faith steps to preserve potentially relevant electronically stored information.
4. Counsel and parties should meet and confer as soon as practicable, and on an ongoing basis, regarding the
identification, preservation, collection, review and production of electronically stored information.
5. The parties should be prepared to produce relevant electronically stored information that is reasonably accessible in terms of cost and burden.
6. A party should not be required, absent agreement or a court order based on demonstrated need and relevance, to
search for or collect deleted or residual electronically stored information.
7. A party may satisfy its obligation to preserve, collect, review and produce electronically stored information in good
faith by using electronic tools and processes such as data sampling, searching or by using selection criteria to collect
potentially relevant electronically stored information.
8. Parties should agree as early as possible in the litigation process on the format in which electronically stored
information will be produced. Parties should also agree on the format, content and organization of information to
be exchanged in any required list of documents as part of the discovery process.
9. During the discovery process parties should agree to or, if necessary, seek judicial direction on measures to protect
privileges, privacy, trade secrets and other confidential information relating to the production of electronic
documents and data.
10. During the discovery process, parties should anticipate and respect the rules of the forum in which the litigation
takes place, while appreciating the impact any decisions may have in related actions in other forums.
11. Sanctions should be considered by the court where a party will be materially prejudiced by another party’s failure to meet any obligation to preserve, collect, review or produce electronically stored information. The party in default may avoid sanctions if it demonstrates the failure was not intentional or reckless.
12. The reasonable costs of preserving, collecting and reviewing electronically stored information will generally be borne by the party producing it. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the parties to arrive at a different allocation of costs on an interim basis, by either agreement or court order.

The full (2008) document may be found here.

Dr. Baglow vs Freedom of Speech: September 18, 2014 – Part 1

This is a continuation of a prolonged court, the earlier bits of which are here:  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 is more or less covered by days 6 and 7.…  Day 6 is here.  Day 7 part 1 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up into short little bits, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly… part 2 is here.

Dr. Baglow’s impression of my coverage of the court hearings, as per Twitter, is here.

September 15th, 2014 account is here.  Roger Smith presented his side of the story (defense) and was cross examined.

September 16th, 2014, was the second day of the trial phase where the defense gets to present their case.  Today was the day that, as Minister Jason Kenney referred to her, ‘the famous Connie Fournier’ took her place on the stand.

September 17th, 2014, the third day of this phase of the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer finished his cross examination of Connie Fournier and Mark Fournier took the stand to both testify and be cross examined.

Today, the 18th of September, 2014, was a most tantalizingly interesting day in  court!!!  Today was the day that the court-appointed ‘internet expert’ was due to testify!!!

I must admit, I was terribly curious to meet this ‘political blogosphere expert’!!!

If you have been following my reporting on the legal encroachments on our unalienable freedom of speech for a while, you may note that over the years (!) of my observations in the courtrooms, this will have been the first time ever to hear ‘expert testimony’.

Exciting indeed!

So excited, I completely forgot to note down what shirt Roger Smith was wearing today – and as the days bled together, all I can swear to is that he wore tan slacks and a blue blazer (I could see those even from behind…).  My apologies.

Connie Fournier wore charcoal trousers with a narrow pinstripe, sensible square-toed shoes, a pretty tan blouse with bright red poppies and a matching blood red cardigan with shiny gold nautical-style buttons.  For jewelry, she wore a simple, elegant circle of tiny diamonds and pearls suspended on a golden chain.

She and I entered the courtroom a little early (the air was thick with expectations – you can’t blame us!), about 20 minutes before ten am when the court was due to reconvene.  Madam Court Clerk was already at her post, busily getting things ready for the day.  (We were back to the original Court Clerk – the same lady from the Spring who tried to persuade Dr. Baglow that he should like cats and who didn’t want to be blogged or Tweeted about.)

Our entry into the courtroom was an intolerable intrusion into these preparations.  Chastised, Connie and I took the hint and extramuralized velociotously.  This seemed to put Madam Clerk into a good mood, as later, she happily joked about tossing out somebody’s cigarettes and chattered about her background, both legal and pre-legal.  Mr. Frenkel turned on his boyish charm and Madam Court Clerk just melted!

Oh, yes – Mr. Frenkel from the CCLA was back in the courtroom and no longer stood in for by the nice young woman (I hope this is an OK turn of phrase).  He wore the traditional lawyer robes, but differed from the other lawyers present in that he wore very crisp gray pants, instead of the traditional black ones.  His youthful face was framed by glasses with serious, dark frames which added gravitas to his appearance.  He really is a brilliant young lawyer – a heavy hitter by any means of assessment!

Dr. Baglow sported a cream, opened necked shirt which contrasted strikingly with his black suit and his ubiquitous riding boots, also black, with adorable silver trimmings.  His watch was also silver, while the frames o his glasses looked to me a gun-metal coloured more than silver.  In the left lapel of his suit jacket, he wore a silver pin – perhaps some abstract maple leaf?  Dr. Baglow truly is a very handsome man, at the height of his strength.

The charismatic Mark Fournier wore his navy, pin-striped suit with a navy shirt.  His chiseled cheekbones were flushed with expectation and, when they thought nobody was looking, he and Connie held hands.  Sorry, ladies, this one is hopelessly in love with his wife!

Jeremy, a frequent spectator at these hearings, was back in the courtroom and everybody – on both sides of this lawsuit – was happy to see him.  Dr. Baglow even chatted with him shortly (they are both history buffs) and, I am afraid I must report that in the courtroom, Dr. Baglow used the ‘B’ word:  the one word which is still beyond the pale in the civilized parts of the Universe.  Luckily, the judge was not yet in and nobody else seemed to notice that word (or, perhaps, its signifacance)…

Now, Otawa is the Capital of Canada.

If it were up to Justin Trudeau, Ottawa would be the weed Capital of Canada.

As it is, our esteemed Mayor Watson and his eco policies have turned Ottawa into the ragweed Capital of Canada.

And, right now, we are at the height of the ragweed season.  Thus, everybody who has to speak for any length of time is struggling not to wheeze and cough all over the place.  This requires frequent sips of water and everyone is struggling to have a fresh supply of cough-suppressant candies, the consumption to which Madam Justice Polowing had excluded from the usual food/drink ban in the courtroom.

Which brings me to another little detail in the courtroom:  all the tables have an ample supply of silver carafes of water and everybody (well, the important people at the front of the room) has access to white styrofoam cups from which they can sip this water.

Except, of course, the judge.  She (or he, as it may happen) always has a classy tall glass filled with ice water on her high table!

This is yet another reminder of the status in the courtroom:  the ruler from on high gets the civilized glass cup, the courtiers up front (if you excuse the pun) get to sip the nectar from the styrofoam cups … and us peasants in the gallery don’t.

Interesting observation:  Dr. Baglow sits at the front table (which faces the Judge, the Court Clerk and Recorder and witness box) with his lawyer, while Mark Fournier, equally a participant in this, lets his lawyer represent him at the table and humbly sits in the spectator are with the rest of us peasants.  I have long wondered why this is so…and why this seems unquestioningly accepted by everyone, even when there was not enough room at the front table…

Oh, my – I’m rambling.  My apologies, my indulgent readers!  Let me get right down to the court expert!!!

The expert turns out to be none other than Dr. Greg Elmer.

A quick google search shows he is quite well known and respected, as you can see here (with a ‘roguish-grin’ picture), here, here and here.

Dr. Elmer looks to be in his early-to-mid forties, a competent, intelligent and gentle man.  His hair is cropped very short, according to the latest ‘almost bald’ style and his eyes are quick to smile, the rest of his face following quickly.  His handshake (yes, I introduced myself when he looked at me inquiringly as I looked him up-and-down and scribbled on my notepad (a new one, on sale at Staples – with red lines and a pretty shell-design in one corner – I am a sucker for stationery and have been, from my earliest childhood…and mid-September, one can get awesome deals on stationery!) furiously – so I thought I’d better say ‘Hi!’) was cool and confident.

His clothing was very dark and classy and blended harmoniously.  A black suit (and shoes and socks, of course), the shirt was a deep blackish-blue and his tie was ever so slightly brighter/warmer blackish-bluish-purple.  The overall effect was very pleasing and classy.

At the start of the day, Dr. Elmer looked a little apprehensive – as if he were not quite sure how all this was going to go down.  Don’t misunderstand me – he did not seem worried or scared  - just apprehensive and vigilant as intelligent people tend to be when they face a situation new to them:  trying to drink it all in and analyze it and do their best in a new situation.

Madam Justice Polowin breezed into Courtroom #20 at approximately 9 minutes after ten am and worked hard to put Dr. Elmer at ease.  (Madam Court Clerk recognized her footfall right away, as soon as the staccato of her high heels became audible, and alerted us to her coming from ‘behind the scenes’.)

She looked crisp and fresh – in her billowing black judges’ robe, crisp white collar, her look is accentuated by a red sash that marks her out as a judge.  And when I say ‘sash’ I mean a diagonal thing like ‘Miss America’ or ‘Miss Universe’ would wear – but red, substantial-woolen-looking and with no words on it.  Today, her look was accentuated by delicate pearl stud earrings instead of the earlier delicate gold ones.

Madam Justice Polowin seems to like Mr. Frenkel – who is from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which, in turn, is an impartial intervenor in this case – and she relies quite a bit on his advice.  No, not all the time, but the Judge seems to trust him, as he is not part of either side in this debate and so he can be more impartial, his only goal being a good and just legal precedent in Canada, with no financial or otherwise vested interest in one or the other party winning.  Plus he comes across as an incredibly intelligent man, wise beyond his years.

Thus, Madam Justice Polowin entrusted Mr. Frankel with the admin bits of entering Dr. Elmer’s CV and particulars of how he had been engaged to come to court into the record, then jumping through the necessary legal hoops of having him formally qualified as ‘a court expert’.  It started out slowly, but, once done, Madam Justice was pleased to tell Dr. Elmer that now, he can add to his CV that he is a qualified court expert (the exact wording of his ‘expertise’, as per Madam Polowin, was so convoluted only a real-life-lawyer could get it and I most certainly could not wrap my pen around it, but it was something like expert…blogosphere…social…media…communication…political…plus-plus-plus…).

The upshot of all this was that Dr. Elmer knows his stuff, is good in ‘new media’, internet, blogs, message boards etc. with special focus on politics and Canada.  He studied it, lives it, teaches it and researches all aspects of it.  He gets to be a TV ‘expert’ on it – plus he has published a lot, including in ‘peer reviewed’ thingies.

Big Dog!

The only bit about him I did not like was his casual use of the word ‘collaborative’/’collaborate’.  Where I come from, ‘collaborators’ are lined up against the wall and shot – and the ‘normalization’ of this word necessarily includes the normalization of the practice of ‘collaboration’…something that ought to be avoided by moral people everywhere….  Aside from this (and I know I am bucking the trend here – but I AM RIGHT), I liked this court expert a lot!

Aside:  Dr. Elmer testified that, ‘in collaboration with others’, he created a ‘scraper tool’ – a bit of technology that collects data about people from social media sites – my ‘NSA warnings’ went off on that….think ‘Person of Interest!’

The next bit of questions/answers (between Mr. Frankel, the Judge and Dr. Elmer) was about the specifics of this case.

Did Dr. Elmer look through the Free Dominion site and Dr. Dawg’s Blawg?

No, he did not – not specifically.  Because he thought it would have been prejudicial – so once notified, he avoided them, even if he was aware of them before.

The judge regretted that, a it limited her questioning to the ‘general’, not ‘specific’ bits….but agreed that for the optics, this was likely better.

A bit of back-and-forth, but, eventually, it all got worked out, Dr. Elmer’s report got accepted as evidence and ‘fact’ without needing to be read and all that kind of good stuff.  Which, in the legal order of things, brought us to the cross examination of the expert witness.

Mr. Burnet, the plaintiff’s lawyer, got the first crack at Dr. Elmer.

Now, I must qualify this:  as at mid-day every day for the next few months, I have an obligation – and so I had to leave at 5 to 10 minutes after 11 am.  I return to the courtroom as quickly as I can, but, it does mean that today, I only caught the beginning of Mr. Burnet’s cross examination, as well as all of Ms. Kulaszka’s (Mark Fournier’s lawyer) and Connie Fournier’s cross examinations.  For this, I do apologize – but, obligations do intrude on my ‘court time’! The best I can do is tell you, my dear readers, what I saw and heard.

Mr. Burnet started the cross examination ‘softly’, but got ‘tough’ rather quickly.  If I ‘got the drift’ of where he was going with his questions, it seemed to be about people being able to find things out about people who post opinions, etc., online.  As in, employers or potential employers often ‘google’ their employees or potential empoyees….can get into trouble, loose a job or not be offered one.

Dr. Elmer agreed – but in a qualified way.

As in, one can track if someone is tracking them online – but they would have to actively track it, have purchased metrics services, etc., which not everybody does.  Thus, some people may remain unaware of who searched them up on the interwebitudes and what they found – and may use the info.

As I absolutely had to leave, Mr. Burnet was just getting started on the Rehtaeh Parsons sad, sad story and trying to use her tragedy to ‘score points’ – something I found rather distasteful and a bit ‘cheap’.

[Edit:  I took out the last clumsy sentence, as it was speculative.]

 

 

 

 

Invite: 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa Court House, Sept 4: 9.00am, Court Room 7

Earlier in August, I watched an interesting case be argued (though very briefly) in Ontario Court.

I even started writing it up – though, thanks to a fever, I did not yet finish (it is far too complex for me to try to accurately report when I am still a bit feverish – please, forgive me the delay, it is in the name of accuracy).  However, what I have written so far about it is here:

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

In Part 4 of this series, I sketched the atmosphere that morning and wondered at the difficulties our wonderful civil servant had in telling everyone – the plaintiff included – where the hearing is to be held.

Well, even before I can write up the last bit, the next chapter is being written.  The plaintiff, a concerned taxpayer (CT), is going sent me the following little invite:

 

 

Invite: 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa Court House, Sept 4: 9.00am, Court Room 7

On August 18, the Judge ruled that Applicant may bring proceeding against the Ontario Government, and the Crown must delegate authority to intervene to the Federal Director for Public Prosecutions. A concerned taxpayer brought the motion and it will be heard on Sept 4 at 9am. The issue is the threats by former MTO Minister Kathlynne Wynne to force TTC and OC Transpo to breach the Federal AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade) and Federal Gas Tax which has cost taxpayers up to $0.5 billion enrichment for private interests at taxpayers expense.

If you’re in the area and can spare the time, I hope to see you there!!!

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

 

Palestiinan Envoy to UNHRC: Israelis Warn Civilians Before Attacks, We Don’t

This is the big difference between the Palestinian terrorist of Hamas and the law-abiding Israeli Military:  The Israeli military warns civilians to get out of the region they are about to attack so that non-military people, civilians, will not be caught in the crossfire and injured or even killed…while the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas are telling the innocent Palestinian civilians to stay, so that they will be hurt and killed and they, the terrorists, can use the civilians’ suffering in a propaganda war!

Yes, I have been saying this for years – but now, even the Palestinian Envoy to the UNHRC is daring to speak this truth:

If you still don’t believe that the ancient hatred of anti-Semitism is the same beast in a new cloak, styling itself  as ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘reasonable’ criticism of the country of Israel, just listen to the venom of the ‘anti-Zionists’ and their unbridled Jew-hatred:

 

 

 

 

Ezra Levant – Assault at Palestine House

More on Thursday’s anti-Semitic violence in the Greater Toronto Area:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers