Wednesday, March 22, 2006

The world premiere of "The MurrayGate Tapes!" - Part III. Good use of our taxpayer dollars? Not! Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching! Ca-Ching!

71. Q: No. I am asking you if you understand. It's not a trick question, Mr. Pieuk.

A: Of course not.

72. Q: The Motion was brought so that the court would grant permission for Mr. Niederhoffer to withdraw as solicitor of record. That's what the Notice of Motion says. And your Motion hasn't been heard yet, has it?

Mr. Niederhoffer: If I can interject. This is not an objection but he is a layman and I'm not sure he would understand the court process.

Mr. Trachtenberg: I just want him to tell me if he understands that the Motion is brought because you are solicitor of record for this person or persons.

By Mr. Trachtenberg:

73. Q: Do you understand that?

The Witness: Are you the solicitor of record for

By Mr. Trachtenberg:

74. Q: Are you saying you don't know if he is or not today? Don't ask him, just answer my question. Do you understand he is or is not?

A: My understanding is that he is not.

75. Q: He is not. So why is this Motion being brought?

A: Well, didn't Mr. Niederhoffer attempt to withdraw as counsel for

76. Q: There is a Motion before the court for that. That's what you swore your affidavit in support of.

A: You'll have to excuse me, Mr. Trachtenberg if my memory isn't 100 per cent accurate because there have been well over 60 court documents filed in this case. So sometimes it's hard keeping track.

77. Q: Let me show you the Notice of Motion. Do you want to see that? Would that assist you?

A: It may.

78. Q: Here it is. The Notice of Motion, uncontested Notice of Motion filed by your counsel. It's dated August 26, 2005 page 2 where it says what the Motion is for. And I'm showing you number 1. And there is a reference to Mr. Niederhoffer being the solicitor of record for the person or persons as metis_mom." An Order that Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer be granted permission to withdraw as solicitor of record for the defendants Terry Belhumeur and the person or persons using the e-mail address"

79. Q: Right. So you understand that this Motion is asking the court for permission as set out in the paragraph you just read.

A: That's right. That's what it says.

80. Q: Right. And in support of that, all those affidavits that we identified earlier have been filed, including your affidavit, correct?

A: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

81. Q: Okay, all right.

A: Although didn't we go to a hearing on November 9th, was it, where six documents couldn't be found, had been temporarily misplaced in the court system?

82. Q: That was an earlier one and those documents were found and they were the affidavits including yours, Mr. Charette's, Mr. Dumont's that we identified, parts of which have now been struck out by Master Cooper. Remember that? You were in the courtroom.

A: Yes, I remember six documents.

83. Q: Yes.

A: There was an adjournment because they had temporarily been misplaced.

84. Q: That was before Master Ring at an earlier date, Sir.

A: That could be. There's been so much filed in this case by counsel for the plaintiffs that I have trouble keeping up with it at times.

85. Q: Well, so be it. But I think we've got your evidence now. Your Motion that we're dealing with here deals with several things, and we've gone over it at the start of the cross-examination. We've just gone over one of them again. That is the request that you are making for Mr. Niederhoffer be allowed to withdraw as solicitor of record for the person or persons at correct?

A: Correct.

86. Q: All right, good. Now you identified for me the person using this hotmail address Would you confirm for me that your co-defendant Mr. Belhumeur, he has been aware since January 28, 2004, maybe even at an earlier date, but certainly that date, he is aware that person acting as a petition coordinator using the e-mail address was in fact the lady you've already just identified a moment ago, Ms Vanessa Everton; is that correct?

Mr. Niederhoffer: I object. What Mr. Belhumeur knows is not part of this cross-examination.

Mr. Trachtenberg: Sure it is.

Mr. Niederhoffer: It's simply in relation to Mr. Pieuk's affidavit and what he knows.

By Mr. Trachtenberg:

87. Q: You refuse to answer? Your counsel is nodding to you so you should say yes.

88. Q: Okay. At one point, you posted on cybersmokesignals an article indicating that the only way you and Mr. Belhumeur would provide the identity of would be if the court ordered you to do so. Do you remember doing that?

A: Our website has been online since - well, it first came on May 6, 2000. and during that time, we have had literally thousands of postings. So honestly I can't remember.

89. Q: Let me see if I can assist you. I'm showing you two pages with dates from April 15th, April 16th, 2005. Are you able to identify these articles as they appear on these two pages as articles that appeared on on or about those dates, Sir?

A: It certainly appears to be someone has downloaded directly from our website.

Mr. Trachtenberg: Let's mark this then, please, as the next Exhibit.

(Exhibit 5: Articles that appeared on April 15, 2005 and April 16, 2005).

By Mr. Trachtenberg:

90. Q: Now if you turn to page 2 of Exhibit 5, Sir, at the top, "Dear Wondering," and then there's a paragraph that concludes, "this is the only way we would provide such." Am I correct that's a response to the inquiry from this person using the e-mail or name "Wondering Metis" that appears right above that, correct?

A: Correct. It should also be placed on the record when we made that statement -

91. Q: Well, I haven't asked you about the statement, I just asked you if that's the response.

A: It clearly states that we have no legal training.

92. Q: I understand that. But this response under "Dear Wondering" down to the words "provides such" that we just identified, that's a response that - firstly, is it you, Sir, who prepared that, and then posted it?

A: The "Dear Wondering?"

93. Q: Yes. The response that starts off, "Neither Terry Belhumeur nor I," and concludes with the words "provides such," that paragraph?

A: It's a response to "Wondering Metis."

94. Q: Right. It's a response that you drafted and you posted on the website?

A: Correct.

95. Q: Correct, good, thank you.

A: You're welcome.

96. Q: I'm showing you again the Notice of Cross-Examination, Sir. And in paragraph 7, this made reference to copies of all written communications including but not limited to e-mails, letters, faxes between yourself and/or and the person or persons using the e-mail address as at January 29, 2004 with respect to Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer acting as counsel of record for such person or persons in this action and with respect to your Motion seeking permission for Jeffrey J. Niederhoffer to withdraw as solicitor of record for such person or persons. And you've indicated that no such materials have ever existed, correct?

A: Correct.

97. Q: Have you had any verbal communications with Ms Everton with respect to Mr. Niederhoffer withdrawing as solicitor of record?

A: No, Sir.

98. Q: Let me show you four pages starting with the date Friday, November 11, 2005. And I'm wondering if you are able to confirm that these four pages refer to or reflect postings on the website as at that date?

A: On cursory examination, it certainly looks like someone has downloaded directly from this material.

Mr. Trachtenberg: Okay. Let's mark that as the next Exhibit, please.

(Exhibit 6: Four pages of postings on the website dated November 11, 2005)

99. Q: Now if you want to just keep that in front of you, Sir, what we've marked as Exhibit 6.

A: And Exhibit 6 is this document before me?

100. Q: That's right. Here, you can have the original marked Exhibit 6.

A: Thank you.

Stay tuned for riveting Part IV of "The MurrayGate Tapes!" coming to a website near you. Watch as the Plaintiffs allow Murray to burn more taxpayer dollars which could be put to much better use improving your people's housing, health care, youth opportunities and employment creation!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home