"Who are the real losers?"

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "The art of kicking ass!"

This man is happy because he has your number. He knows you will lose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for writing. Hope you don't mind but we replaced the capital letters of your original message with regular print. Internet etiquette dictates to do so is tantamount to shouting at someone. We're not deaf - yet. It's like people using 5 consecutive exclamation marks at the end of a sentence attempting to emphasize a point. It has the opposite effect detracting from what they're trying to say.

Below is a comment left by The Public Eye (Truth To Power - www.accesstoinfo.blogspot.com; vicpopuli1@gmail.com) October 9, 2009 on www.derrylsanderson.blogspot.com about the MMF's alleged defamation lawsuit against the now defunct www.CyberSmokeSignals.com:

What this means is that Pieuk is beating them at their own game. Anyone who knows anything about Metis politics knows that individual MMF Directors have been dreading this lawsuit going to court.....and it's their own lawyer who is sending them right onto the witness stand. Clare will have a field day cross-examining them on their criminal records. "Reputations" as community leaders, indeed!

Murray Trachtenberg should also worry about his own "reputation" as a tactician. It is unknown what role his advice has played in pushing this turkey of a lawsuit as far as it has gone, but to the extent that he hasn't been falling all over himself to encourage his clients to settle and end this ..... he has done his clients a grave disservice. After all is said and done, the role he has played in this debacle should be closely scrutinized.

Any lawyer who would push a defamation suit this far, without more aggressive attempts to settle, must be called to account. Derryl, this is why I emphasize that he has been paid "a hell of a lot more than $100,000," rather than your more benign formulation. The clients have to question what value they have gotten for their (taxpayer) money.

As I write this, I am pleased to report I have been in recent contact with Mr. Pieuk, who has given me a fascinating overview of the direction this case is about to take. I will simply say this: Folks, if you've enjoyed the last four years, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca

To which we'd add:

(1) Former Manitoba Legal Aid Lawyer Lionel Chartrand (now a Crown Prosecutor in Wetwaskiwin, Alberta) had agreed to serve as General Legal Counsel for www.CyberSmokeSignals.com when the site became aware it had been placed on a "defamation watch" by the MMF. We have black print (e-mail) clearly showing he wrote the material, sanctioned it's internet publication and at no time cautioned it could contain defamatory statement(s). He also requested his name not be associated with it

(2) Lionel Chartrand has never been named as a Co-Defendant. Why? It a fascinating story that will come out in open court

(3) Five Board of Directors are not Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ron Chartrand, Vice-President Winnipeg Regional Office, refused to participate from the get go. This is significant because the WRO's membership probably equals or exceeds that of the other six Federation geographical areas. Four more (Richard DeLaronde, Bonnie McIntyre, Darrel Deslauriers, Rosemarie McPherson) subsequently signed Notices of Discontinuance removing themselves from the suit. How can only part of a Provincial Board of Directors allegedly be defamed?

(4) Since the last Federation election (June 29, 2009) four Plaintiffs (Rita Cullen, William Flett, Joyce Langan, Darryl Montgomery) ceased to be Provincial Board of Directors yet remain as litigants. Their legal fees continue to be paid using Canadian taxpayer dollars

(5) This is clearly a classic, textbook SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) where the intent is to misuse the law in an attempt to threaten, harass, bully and intimidate unrepresented Defendants who have been critical of the MMF rather than address any damage the Plaintiffs may have suffered

(6) Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome Metis specific blogs will continue

(7) Manitoba's 1987 Defamation Act pre-dates websites and blogs. As such it may be flawed and open to a Canadian Charter challenge

(8) Finally, how much public money has the Manitoba Metis Federation spent over the years (beginning mid-September 2003) on this lawsuit? We estimate at least $150,000 - $200,000. To what end?

During this time how many Metis parents have been turned down for financial assistance (books/tuition) to help a promising son or daughter gain a college education? Purchase athletic equipment so their children can participate in school team sports? Fix a leaky roof? Buy firewood? Obtain medicine? Augment the income of seniors in need? The list goes on and on ...... at a time when our province's Metis citizens require a much better social safety net.

You are making a non-Metis lawyer wealthy so again we ask, "Who are the real losers?"

Finally, to Frank Godon we say, how many more deserving Metis Veterans or their survivors could be sent to Juno Beach this year for Rememberance Day ceremonies instead of the piffling three?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk