Ste. Rita citizens - soon you'll be able to sign the petition under your "favourite sign!"
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Please support the petition!"
Hi there,
When is the petion going to be ready to sign? Will there finally be a audit done on the MMF if there are enough people who participate? I know the good citizens of Ste. Rita are willling to back this petion just give us the word!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anonymous:
If you get thousands and thousands of signatures how can governments ignore them? Remember, the petition will be open to ANY taxpaying Canadian.
When will it be ready? From the anonymous hotmail messages CyberSmokeBlog has received to date, the people behind it are very determined, sophisticated and articulate. An educated guess - approximately two weeks before it has been defamation proofed and is ready to go online, as well as, hit the streets. They're very close!
Hi there,
When is the petion going to be ready to sign? Will there finally be a audit done on the MMF if there are enough people who participate? I know the good citizens of Ste. Rita are willling to back this petion just give us the word!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anonymous:
If you get thousands and thousands of signatures how can governments ignore them? Remember, the petition will be open to ANY taxpaying Canadian.
When will it be ready? From the anonymous hotmail messages CyberSmokeBlog has received to date, the people behind it are very determined, sophisticated and articulate. An educated guess - approximately two weeks before it has been defamation proofed and is ready to go online, as well as, hit the streets. They're very close!
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:06 PM
2 Comments:
** NOT FOR POSTING **
Clare:
Below is reproduced the deemed-undertaking section of the QB Rules.
As I interpet the Rules, which are self-explanatory, the deemed undertaking sections works both for and against you. You CANNOT reproduce on the internet evidence YOU obtain by way of discovery of documents/written interrogatories/exams for discovery. This means, for instance, you cannot post Everton's letter or, essentially, any document you receive from MT as part of discoveries that does not go on to become a publicly-filed court document.
Fair enough. This is black-letter law, standard operating procedure for dealing with evidence received during discoveries. But that's the key word: evidence YOU receive. If you were the one yesterday asking questions of one of the plaintiffs, you would be disallowed from publishing their answers on the internet (or a transcript of such answers, at least until it's filed, in whole or in part).
However, the Rules also work in your favour. They do not disallow you from publishing an account of the evidence gathered FROM you - evidence that Murray received during the exam for discovery, or indeed anything at all pertaining to yesterday's proceedings.
My conclusion is that, while the Rules stop you from posting documents/evidence/information YOU RECEIVE, there is nothing stopping you from posting an account of the evidence given by you to Murray. In short, in my opinion, you can post all you like in re the questions posed of you by Murray at the exam for discovery or indeed anything else that went on during the exam. You can also post any and all correspondence both sent from you to Murray and vice versa, provided that any such correspondence does not refer to evidence and documents that were provided to you during discoveries.
All of the above is naturally subject to two important exceptions (one of which I have already mentioned and one of which you certainly know about by now):
(i) Documents disclosed to you at the hearing as part of discoveries - ie., Everton's letter, or anything else you receive from Murray that does not become a publicly filed document;
(ii) The law of defamation - As if you already don't know about this one! Of course, you can publish anything and everything you want about your perceptions of what went on - but be truthful and cautious, erring on the side of understatement. Obviously, don't be gratuitously insulting in your descriptions of Murray; and obviously, have a factual basis for any factual statements or comments you make.
The above comments in re deemed undertaking are themselves subject to an interesting exception, which we can talk more about later. Take a look at Rule 30.1(4), which essentially allows you to publish any evidence you receive with the explicit consent of the party disclosing the evidence. Although I'm not being naive (the plaintiffs would be idiots to consent to your posting their evidence and I would never seriously expect them to), there are interesting implications arising from this that we should talk about at some point.
I hope that's helpful.
====
Application
30.1(1) This Rule applies to
(a) evidence obtained under
(i) Rule 30 (discovery of documents),
(ii) Rule 31 (examination for discovery),
(iii) Rule 32 (inspection of property),
(iv) Rule 33 (physical and mental examination of parties), and
(v) Rule 35 (procedure on interrogatories); and
(b) information obtained from evidence referred to in clause (a).
M.R. 43/2003
Where Rule does not apply
30.1(2) This Rule does not apply to evidence or information obtained otherwise than under the rules referred to in subrule (1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.R. 43/2003
Deemed undertaking
30.1(3) All parties and their lawyers are deemed to undertake not to use evidence or information to which this Rule applies for any purposes other than those of the proceeding in which the evidence was obtained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.R. 43/2003
Exception — if consent
30.1(4) Subrule (3) does not prohibit a use to which the person who disclosed the evidence consents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.R. 43/2003
Exception — if filed in court or given during a hearing
30.1(5) Subrule (3) does not prohibit the use, for any purpose, of
(a) evidence that is filed with the court;
(b) evidence that is given or referred to during a hearing; and
(c) information obtained from evidence referred to in clause (a) or (b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order that undertaking does not apply
30.1(8) If satisfied that the interests of justice outweigh any prejudice that would result to a party who disclosed evidence, the court may order that subrule (3) does not apply to the evidence or to information obtained from it, and may impose such terms and give such directions as are just.
====
terry behumeur is a big chicken. i know what's happening with this lawsuit and i know he's weasaled his way out. he's absolutely pathetic him and his friend lionel who hels been palling around with
Post a Comment
<< Home