Vigna wins!
In an preliminary bout, Mr. Sernity has won against Ezra. I commented at BCL:
An interesting decision in the sense that even the biggest loser lawyer can’t be called a “fibber”. Which, so long as he is in the capacity of lawyer before a Tribunal, makes a great deal of sense. Implausible as Vigna’s lovely claim of loss of serenity may be, Ez failed to prove that it was BS. Point to Vigna.It is a really interesting decision because it walks through the various defences which will come up whenever lucie mans up and pushes his many bits of litigation forward. It sets a very clear, but low, bar for “public interest”. It suggests that smart people will cross examine Stacey, his helpers, and Vigna on the question of Jadewarr. It pays attention to Grant.
Lots of room for appeal but, realistically, Ez was yellow carded for a minor foul. Time to suck it up and move on.
This sideshow is over. Vigna wins and remains a tool. In the main event lucie is trying reduce discovery by dropping back to the small claims court standards of simplified procedure.
The CHRC and the CHRT have entirely ceased attempting to prosecute or decide s. 13 complaints. The CHRA vis a vis speech is a dead letter.
There is, I fear, no joy in Mudville tonight. As Dawg puts it, the “Mighty Ezra” has struck out.
Tomorrow, however, is a very new day. A judge, of, admittedly minor authority, has ruled that the examination of aspects of the CHRC’s operations are in the “public interest”. While my leftie, Lucie supporting, fans are entitled to a victory lap, they might remember that the race is rather longer than this. The good judge has provided a roadmap of what must be proven and how.
Ez will, no doubt, either appeal (in which case he’ll need money) or pay the tariff (in which case he’ll need money.) So send him some!
November 19th, 2010 at 2:59 am
So the Johnny Bagalows get to do their happy dance?...well if Levant gives them a bit of relief from the grind so be it, they need something.
November 19th, 2010 at 3:36 am
Preliminary bout, my ass. Vigna won. Levant lost. And if there are grounds for appeal, you’ve failed to identify them.
November 19th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Perhaps this case illustrates that the blind can see.
November 19th, 2010 at 5:29 am
room mates…
November 19th, 2010 at 6:58 am
What this illustrates, Jay and Arnie, is that ham fisted attempts to “recklessly” use Vigna (or anyone) as a means to achieving the freespeechyism end is going to cost you. It’s a point some of us have been trying to make for some time: defamation is separate from free speech. It really doesn’t help the cause either. As Ezra loses more of these cases, and he will, proponents for the abolition of the HRC’s will be seen as loose cannons who can’t get their facts straight. Suggesting that people send him more money is irresponsible. You might as well as tell them to invest in swamp land in FL.
November 19th, 2010 at 7:02 am
It’s a Festivus miracle, I suppose.
November 19th, 2010 at 7:04 am
One could also interpret it as a case of a judicial establishment protecting the low-hanging fruit of their social engineering revolution despite clear signs that the public want no part of it and that larger, higher fruits will be falling to ground soon as they rot (or freeze).
November 19th, 2010 at 8:06 am
@Arnie “Perhaps this case illustrates that the blind can see.”
Perhaps (indeed, more likely) this decision presages the results in Warman’s suits against you and your wife. My condolences to Mr. Ashby. Must be a bitch to lose to a self-represented litigant, even if that litigant is a lawyer.
November 19th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Thou shalt not criticize the canadian civil service.
This is where the nasty blunt end of government happens, and how dare anyone mock, shine a light on it. It is sacred. No wonder Dawg loves this. Untrammeled government power is the goal, a veneer of respectability maintained by another blunt instrument.
Next time you are talking to a government official with any power, ask them if they have trammeled on the Charter rights of someone today. Not one who is inspecting you, too dangerous. Over a beer or something.
They will say with a laugh that the Charter provisions don’t apply to them acting in their administrative duties.
That is what Dawg loves.
This is a victory for the civil service. We all should celebrate.
Derek
November 19th, 2010 at 9:36 am
The cheering might stop when the libel lefties realize that now even “Officer Bubbles” may have a better chance in his law suit and he may have been right for as another “...officer of the court”...his reputation and career may have also been damaged.
November 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Next time you are talking to a government official with any power, ask them if they have trammeled on the Charter rights of someone today.
I, for one, would refuse to display such an inadequate grasp of English.
November 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
You can’t accuse a lawyer of lying in his professional capacity, unless he is actually lying and you have strong evidence that he is. That’s the bottom line.
November 19th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Honesty is the best policy…as thirty Helens will surely tell you.
November 19th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
In the main event lucie is trying reduce discovery by dropping back to the small claims court standards of simplified procedure.
One Zero too many…
November 19th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
I support freedom of speech before the first morning coffee. Trample, not trammel.
Of interest, one government official I know received death threats because of his department insistence on not being bound by Charter restrictions.
Derek
November 19th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Vigna v Levant; lawyer v lawyer; political activist v political activist. Those were the dark clouds, the thumder, the noise.
The lightning strike was the court’s acknowledgement of the CHRC’s corruption – the Jadewarr Absent doc – the falsified evidence. Court ruled that Ezra was aiming at the wrong target. Court noted that that fraud did indeed exist. Vigna – [read the transcripts] – also acknowledges the fraud existed, but but he didn’t recognize it at the time.
What we learned: Someone at the CHRC, cleverly hoodwinked Vigna, Beaumont, Fromm Warman, the Tribunal, Levant, the media, etc.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:32 am
Vigna – [read the transcripts] – also acknowledges the fraud existed, but but he didn’t recognize it at the time.
Are you sure this reference is correct ?
I didn’t gain that impression from reading the Vigna v. Levant Judgment.
Which transcripts are referred to here ?
November 20th, 2010 at 7:08 am
From The National Post:
“Many of Mr. Levant’s statements about Mr. Vigna were judged not to be libellous, in that they amounted to fair comment. These included Mr. Levant’s assertions that Mr. Vigna is a “buffoon” who “be-clowned himself” in front of the Tribunal, that he is a “three time election loser” and the CHRC is a “dumping ground for extremist politicians,” or that Mr. Vigna was a “bully” who sent “goons” to “harass” Mr. Levant’s parents, when in fact it was a process server trying to serve the libel notice.
Mr. Levant’s comparison of Mr. Vigna to Joe Pesci’s lawyer character in the film My Cousin Vinny, while “not flattering,” according to the judge, was similarly cleared”.
Thus ends the value of the suggestions from BCL that all others should “surrender” before “Lucy” as it also questions the actions of “An Officer of the Court” even before administrative tribunals
which most government lawyers restrict their practice to. Behavior considered prejudicial and designed to obstruct/pervert the course of justice are actionable. Thus, few internal departmental lawyers appear in real court as the Department of Justice/Attorney General will most often get experts. No disciplinary action seems to have occurred in regards to any legal or nonlegal staff of the CHRCInteresting, and our Associations are studying the ruling carefully for as in the case of “Officer Bubbles” and the DND General “N” – law enforcement officers and the Military (especially in Ontario) appear to be able to be slandered with words of “lying” “lying pieces of s**t” etc etc but Lawyers – even non-practicing ones – cannot be similarily criticized. They must have a lifetime immunity after they graduate even if they never did and have no prospect of making a living from practicing law in front of real judges and courts and not as civil/public servants.
If indeed Vigna now has an excuse for being not so serene – as we tell our trainees and officers – if something serious occurs within the time span of a court case to cause you to have your credibility questioned, this must be reported to a senior officer and to the Crown and Defence.
The fact that he only reported this situation and threats WELL AFTER the fact and during a Libel trial of his own making makes me highly skeptical. Why did the Bodyguards not take him home and stay with him if his life was in danger and what bodyguards allow themselves to be followed without “shaking the tail” and getting details. Who were these so-called bodyguards and who paid for them as the local police would have provided protection if there was a credibile threat?
An interesting case involving a Force member in Saskatchewan where his previous conduct was to be disclosed is evolving and I will report on it later via a link. He,nor the Crown did as it was in the past and unrelated to his testimony – and the case is in jeopardy. Again though, how many Lawyers must disclose previous misconduct or run-ins (including DWI) to the court?
This appears to be so odd that Levant must appeal.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:16 am
Ignore “Strike through” – as perhaps the KW ARA or their sister/victim version in Calgary is involved in free-speech mischief.
The link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/11/19/sk-impaired-trial-1011.html
November 20th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Maikeru: The transcripts from the Beaumont case show Vigna presented the swap docs as a “cleaner” copy to the Tribunal. The judgement in Vigna v Levant refers to Vigna’s testimony that he didn’t realize the significance of what those copies meant. Put the two together and a picture emerges. It wasn’t until Pacheco obtained the copies and they were laid side-by-side for more intense scrutiny, that the fraud could be seen. It took quite some efort by the likes of FD poster West Viking with a background in publishing, to extract how effectively the fraud doc was concocted. One has to ask, who had the motivation, opportunity and insight, to try to railroad Jessica Beaumont with the thorny crown of nazi love.
Open the Beaumont case files – we’ll see the cancer and that will trigger the dominoes.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:10 am
3 dots aligned form a straight line.
If not aligned, they form a triangle
November 20th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I’d like for Levant to have won, but I think the judge called it right when he pointed out that Ezra failed to seek clarification from Vigna before publishing. Seems reasonable to offer a person a chance to tell their side (no matter how improbable) before going to press, or in this case, spanking the post button.
November 20th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
It all reminds me of the lines from Dylan’s classic, “Desolation Row”:
“Here comes the blind commissioner
They’ve got him in a trance,
One hand’s tied to the tightrope walker
The other is in his pants.
And the riot squad they’re restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row.”
Judging from the comments above there’s the ongoing inability to see the bigger picture as per the ominous and obvious threat of the Sec. 13 legislation now being worked on behind the scenes by Harper’s advisers.
The Warmouse v Lemire appeal is still in progress and judging from the PM’s seditious statements to the Israelli apologists at the recent “anti-Semitism” censorship gathering in Ottawa he is obviously not planning to release Canada from this heinous piece of repressive legislation.
Isaac’s efforts notwithstanding the strategy by Levant and co. to discredit the CHRC totally and have it gutted, along with the only critical element (Sec. 13(1)), is typical of those who have more in mind for Canadians that merely saving them from a commission gone awry.
“TH”’s comments come closest to an understanding of the underlying strategy taking place in this case when they said: “As Ezra loses more of these cases, and he will, proponents for the abolition of the HRC’s will be seen as loose cannons who can’t get their facts straight.”
Too many people observing this drama unfold have still not grasped how the machinations of those who would deny Canadians their basic right to freedom of speech operate.
Sure, it saves their butts from any unwanted and nasty accusations and it provides endless grist for the grumbling and rumbling rumour mills, but it will never lead to the truth about who created this dangerous piece of legislation and why it was cleverly concealed, like the mark of the Beast, within the forehead of our CHR Act.
November 21st, 2010 at 1:22 am
...who created this dangerous piece of legislation and why it was cleverly concealed, like the mark of the Beast, within the forehead of our CHR Act.
John Lennon – and it was never concealed, cleverly or otherwise.
It was simply written in tongues requiring a law degree for interpretive analysis, to flesh out jurisdictional boundaries, applicable grievances and venue funding…
November 21st, 2010 at 7:47 am
“I, for one, would refuse to display such an inadequate grasp of English.”
Ah Dawg, always quick to pounce personally on style, but never so rapid, or vapid to prose on the topic.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:02 am
never so rapid, or vapid to prose on the topic.
As I said.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
The CHRC issue makes me see red, but my anger is focused on the managment not the players. There should be a public inguiry, I want to know who okayed the process of going online and allegedly bating people to haul before the tribunal? Why the secrecy, why isn’t one single politician asking the hard questions? What does the NDP, Libs and Con MPs know that keeps them unified in silence?
November 21st, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Rose: does chickenshit adequately describe Canadian politicians
Who authorized on-line spying:
Seems according to Dean Steacy`s testimony, that his superior did. Was that done in consultation with senior management – Recalling the investigative process conducted via Lemire, senior management obvioulsy knew about this on-line spying and entrapment as they tried to ulitize s37 Evidence to curtail any public questions into their scams and maybe protect their asses.
How do we find the rot
Close their doors
Open their files