Comments on: But tell us how you really feel Ezra

By: truewest

truewest — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:23:13 +0000

Christopher,
Yes, I’m a lawyer. Yes, I’ve done defamation work. And if you think “a little verbose for my taste” covers it, I’d hate to see your pleadings.
One doesn’t have to dislike Levant to find the flaws in this document, which basically flings mud at Warman—people didn’t vote for him! we think he may have been fired by the CHRC —in hopes that something, anything might stick. Problem is that the mud they throw is so thin that Levants ends up as dirty, if not dirtier, than his target. This despite the silly, preening opening paragraphs. Indeed, the evidence that Levant improperly pleads, particularly the supposedly scandalous posts that Warman allegedly made under various pseudonyms (oh, sorry, “fake personas”) is so much milder in tone than the Cools post that lies at the heart of the litigation that they actually undemine his case.
As for strategy, most judges I know will see through this sad attempt to contrast Levant’s self-proclaimed virtue with Warman’s supposed deviousness.

By: jay

jay — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:42:45 +0000

Thanks Christopher.

Legal strategy is just that, a strategy. The pleadings are part of but hardly the whole of the strategy. But they do set out and confine the issues a party sees as relevant.

As I said in the original post, Ezra has recognized Warman’s claim for what it is – a political as well as legal enterprise – and he has answered it at both levels. To do that takes guts and very, very, good legal advice. (Just imagine what it lying on the cutting room floor on advice of counsel – I didn’t see a word about goats.)

By: christopher rivers

christopher rivers — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:20:37 +0000

As a lawyer, the pleadings seem a little verbose for my taste, but it’s a strategy and I can see their point. There are a lot of judgments to be made in this work, it’s never as objective as one might think. And truewest, are you a lawyer, or is all just theory to you? I’d suggest your judgment is compromised by your evident dislike of Ezra Levant, and your obvious and long standing desire to see this whole issue shut down.
I don’t know if this firm is amazing, but I guarantee their opinion is worth more than truewest’s.

By: James Goneaux

James Goneaux — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:13:13 +0000

I got that too, BCF. The only thing truewest can argue is that the law firm is incompetent, or that it knows it is drafting a lousy pleading and just taking Ezra’s money. Both are possible, I guess, but I find it highly unlikely that they said, “Sure, Ezra, whatever you want. Put in what you like, just pay us”.

By: truewest

truewest — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:36:41 +0000

“amazing team of Libel Lawyers”? “best libel lawyers money can buy”? That’s very funny. Aside from the Post’s counsel, who is fairly accomplished, your “Dream Team” are a middling bunc. As for Kulaszka, she appears to have been too busy acting for Nazis to do any defamation work.

By: Blazingcatfur

Blazingcatfur — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:23:34 +0000

Boy we should Tell Ezra to abandon the amazing team of Libel Lawyers that’s been assembled and get him to listen to renowned blog legal expert Truwest.

By: truewest

truewest — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:24:17 +0000

kg,
My apologies for calling you an ambulance chaser. It was unnecessary. But having said you have no training or experience in defamation law, you did go on to ponitificate on the subject, suggesting, for example, that in defamation cases “expansive defences are called for”. Do tell.
As for the deficiencies of the pleadings, while it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between pleading facts and pleading evidence, this is not one of those times. Pleading that Warman adopted certain false personas to make racist or controversial post on websites is a statement of fact. Clogging the Statement of Defence with examples of those post goes well beyond particulars into pleading evidence. (And it’s crappy evidence to boot, since most of demonstrates that, if Warman did post under pseudonym, he hardly posted the sort bile that was contained in the Cools post) Indeed, most of the posts are entirely irrelevant, as are the 26 self-serving paragraphs that Levant devotes to himself and huge swaths of the description of Warman.

By: Blazingcatfur

Blazingcatfur — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:08:28 +0000

I always thought this post by Mike brock interesting, it shows documents submitted by Warman to the tribunal that list the same IP addy as is disputed in the Cools post.

http://www.mikebrockonline.com/resources/blog/lemire-evidence-card.pdf

I wonder what a judge can or will make of this?

By: ebt

ebt — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:07:39 +0000

Trollwaste is not a lawyer and has no legal training. He has never seen a pleading in his life. As he demonstrates here, he doesn’t know proper pleading when he sees it.

This is proper pleading. Every paragraph, and virtually every line, is entirely defensible, and there won’t be any signifigant challenges or amendments to it.

By: James Goneaux

James Goneaux — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:38:03 +0000

KG: “Truewest states that a S of D should plead facts, not evidence, they are often the same. ”

Yes, I wondered what the difference is. Must be lawyer-speak, but to us mere English-speaking and -reading humans, it would appear to be a distinction without a difference.

Truewest:

KG was honest and upfront with his/her background and knowledge. Would that you were also…