But tell us how you really feel Ezra

Kathy Shaidle
#1. July 30th, 2008, at 1:54 PM.

Dude, I am so loving getting sued for (among all the other shit) something YOU wrote

You owe me!

Blazingcatfur
#2. July 30th, 2008, at 1:55 PM.

Yup regardless of outcome, the Freedom 5 will gain in stature, only Warman & The CHRC stand to lose. Imagine that Warman has also filed 2 complaints against Ezra with the Law Society, the man has no shame - even for a lawyer that is low.

dcardno
#3. July 30th, 2008, at 6:51 PM.

Bcf - I hadn’t seen that Warman has complained about Ezra to the Law Society; do you have any of the particulars?

EBD
#4. July 30th, 2008, at 7:23 PM.

Warman has admitted under oath — reluctantly in some cases, after apparently regaining his memory in the face of irrefutable evidence — to being the pseudonymous author of numerous, undeniably racist posts on different sites, including VNN and Stormfront. His co-workers have also admitted under oath that he was the author of such posts.

Now, his lawsuit seems to rely heavily on the so-called “Cools post” which he denies writing. Question: If someone who is known — proven — to have robbed dozens of banks, say, is described as having robbed a particular bank, based on some solid evidence, but it can not be proven with 100% certainty that he robbed that particular one, would he have a legitimate legal case in claiming that this one unproven allegation harmed his reputation?

I can’t see that he would, but I’m not a lawyer. I can see him calling it a false accusation, but could he be entitled to damages on the basis that it harmed his reputation? Anyone out there know the answer to that?

truewest
#5. July 30th, 2008, at 10:21 PM.

Jay,
A “very professional piece of legal work”? A prolix piece of self-serving verbiage is more like it. At 38 pages and 145 paragraphs - including 27 paragraphs of self-aggrandizement passed off as identification of the defendant — it is overlong, unfocussed and embarassing (in the legal sense). As has been pointed out elsewhere, about 80% of it should be struck. And likely will be.
The notion that the sheer verbosity of Levant’s counsel provides some basis for taking this out of simplified procedure is laughable. As is the notion that the fraudulent five will emerge from as heroes while Warman and the Human Rights adjudication system will be discredited in the eyes of all right-thinking people. Perhaps you folks in the right-wing blogosphere should spend a little less time smelling one another’s farts. The air smells a little different out here in the real world.

Blazingcatfur
#7. July 31st, 2008, at 5:36 AM.

Dcardno Ezra made reference to the law society complaints in the Statement of Defense. I can say no more;)

Rumour has it others a pending from a cast of the usual suspects, but I can not confirm that of course.

PS truwest, answer Jays questions;) Hmmm truwest’s paralegal education v the best libel lawyers money can buy, gee what a choice.

the lone stranger
#8. July 31st, 2008, at 6:06 AM.

Ah, the counter attack has begun. Both “Special K” and Bigcitylib have the same National Post about Grant Bristow on their Blogs - of the disasterous “Operation Governor” - Heritage Front Affair fame. They almost call him the Bravest Man in Canada but don’t as Warren reserved that accolade for Warman in a Ottawa Citizen article last June.

Everyone to their opinion but they plus Ti-gi (in typical Marxist lanquage) use this as a starting point to rehabilitate and resurrect Bunny Farber’s reputation and of course slam Ezra for all the evils in the world. Lucky Ezra is Jewish as they would also likely use the anti-semetic slur for good measure.

Now after going over the SIRC report - the ex-CSIS informant never struck me as terribly literate so I can only speculate as to who wrote the glowing endorsement of the CHRC? Odd timing.

truewest
#9. July 31st, 2008, at 6:26 AM.

Ah, so you meant that “this was a very professional piece of legal work” except for the 80% of it that was crapulous nonsense that was improperly pleaded? I should have guessed.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but apart from the geeks and wannabe lawyers who have been yammering on about this document, pretty much the only people who read pleadings are lawyers and judges. And unlike geeks and wannabe lawyers, the latter understand that you plead facts, not evidence. And that you don’t use 27 paragraphs of your pleading to blow smoke up the judge’s ass about your personal accomplishments. Especially if you are the DEFENDANT in a defamation case.
It is commonly understood that every defamation plaintiff puts his reputation into play — and himself on trial — and Ezra is certainly allowed to plead that Warman’s reputation is undeserved (although I suspect the award from the CJC is going to weigh pretty heavily in his favour when stacked up against the accusations from, oh, Stormfront). In this case, however, the vast majority of what is pleaded in the Statement of Defence is evidence — which will be struck.
As for this being an “entirely political action” - horseshit. The defendants claimed Warman did something vile, something he had denied doing. They printed it as fact and refused to retract. Some, including Levant, continue to claim that he did do it. How demanding that someone to stop telling lies about you makes this a “political action” is not clear, unless you mean that this is politics by other means and that Levant chose to drag someone’s name through the mud because he can’t persuade his pals in the Conservative Party to change a law he objects to.

James Goneaux
#10. July 31st, 2008, at 9:04 AM.

I think I’ll wait until we get a third opinion.

We have Ezra’s that its a pretty righteous piece of work, but maybe that’s just the ego talking.

We have truepest’s belief that its not quite so much.

Any other legal types around?

Kathy Shaidle
#11. July 31st, 2008, at 2:12 PM.

Truewest, the legal expert…

The reason Levant lists his personal accomplishments is because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WARMAN DID in his initial Statement of Claim.

Except of course that his weren’t as numerous

kg
#12. July 31st, 2008, at 3:21 PM.

In response to Goneaux’s invitation to have another lawyer pontificate (because that’s what we do best) on the worthiness (or not) of Ezra’s Statement of Defence, I offer the following:

First, while I am a lawyer in B.C., I deal primarily in the field of personal injury law (from the defence side for the most part) and have almost noexperience of training in defamation law. secondly, it should be said that I am very much pre-free speech, pr-Ezra, Steyn and the gang and anti-Warman, Steacy, Kinsella and their gang. That said, I like to think I can still be objective about things like whether a Statement of Defence (s of D)is drafted well or poorly. I am of the view that Ezra’s S of D is very well crafted. While it is certainly long, I do not think a court would, on application, strike much, if any, of it. A good S of D tells a story and Ezra’s S of D tells a story. It puts the issues clearly in focus. One often sees S of Ds’ that are just a blanket denial. They are nice and short, often only one page, but they tell the almost nothing. As well, defamation actions are very much a different animal and, at the end of the day, concerned about reputations. As such, expansive defences in defamation actions are often called for. While Truewest states that a S of D should plead facts, not evidence, they are often the same. EVERYTHING any one says in the witness box at a trial, and every piece of paper filed as an exhibit is evidence. Evidence becomes fact when the trier of fact accepts the evidence as such.

Warman now knows the exact nature of the defence that Ezra will be presenting and that means his S of D has done its’ job.

Is everyone asleep yet?

kg
#13. July 31st, 2008, at 3:27 PM.

O.K., before anyone else says it, I have to learn to proof read my comments before hitting the send button. Line 3 in the second paragraph should read “no experience or training” and the 4th line in the second paragraph should read “pro-free speech”. I do proofread actual letters before they go out. Honest.

truewest
#14. July 31st, 2008, at 10:47 PM.

Would one of you “legal experts” care to explain to Five Feet of What the F#@k? the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant in a defamation action? Because, frankly, I can’t be bothered to offer anything resembling free legal advice to someone who begs for money by misrepresenting the nature of the claim against her.
kg,
nice to hear what ambulance chasers think about defamation law.

Peter
#15. August 1st, 2008, at 2:42 AM.

truewest:

Thanks for our little “irony of the day”. I’ve seen a lot of folks defend Richard Warman, but you are the first to have the chutzpah to accuse one of his detractors of being an ambulance chaser.

The claim is well-crafted, but it’s a high-risk strategy and I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the strategy sessions. Perhaps they felt it was necessary to get around the simple procedure Rules, but he has pinned his colours to the mast very early and he had better hope he draws a certain kind of judge. But whether it was wise or not depends largely on the evidence he has in the file to back him up, and folks, none of us are going to know about that for a very long time.

If I were a betting man, I would bet they may be preparing to concede the libel (which is surprisingly easy to establish) and focus on making Warman appear so unsympathetic that his loss-of-reputation claim goes nowhere. Then they will submit a confidential nominal offer just before trial (which Warman must beat or he will pay Ezra’s huge costs), look at him with steely Clint Eastwood eyes and say: “Ask yourself. Is this your lucky day?”

Blazingcatfur
#16. August 1st, 2008, at 5:10 AM.

Truwest, are you implying you are in fact a lawyer? Gads that profession has sunk lower than imagined then.

kg
#17. August 1st, 2008, at 5:24 AM.

Wow, truewest, so much hostility. Why are you so angry? I gather you are a lawyer? what is your field of practice? How many defamation cases have you tried? What were the results? I note you didn’t actually express any disagreement with what I said in my email (the free exchanage of ideas) but resorted to name-calling. Classic.

James Goneaux
#18. August 1st, 2008, at 6:38 AM.

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…

ebt
#19. August 1st, 2008, at 1:07 PM.

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.

Blazingcatfur
#20. August 1st, 2008, at 1:08 PM.

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?

truewest
#21. August 1st, 2008, at 9:24 PM.

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.

Blazingcatfur
#22. August 2nd, 2008, at 5:23 AM.

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.

truewest
#23. August 2nd, 2008, at 12:36 PM.

“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.

James Goneaux
#24. August 2nd, 2008, at 3:13 PM.

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”.

christopher rivers
#25. August 3rd, 2008, at 1:20 PM.

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.

truewest
#27. August 5th, 2008, at 5:23 PM.

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.