"Allegedly" and "presumption of innocence!"
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "I'm coming for you!"
If you say that Lionel Chartrand drafted this petition but blame him for not telling you that it is defamatory, then is that not an acknowledgment by you that it is defamatory? My Google search says that you are guilty as a party if you simply post something, even though you did not write it, then you are negligent as to whether it is defamatory, so why are you re-publishing the defamatory petition? I may be missing something here but I don't see how you can have it both ways after your suers have made their claim that it is defamatory. Seems to me that you either:
1. Say oooops - sorry about that - it's all Lionel Chartrand's fault I trusted him and thought it was not defamatory. Now that I think it might be I will not post it anymore, please discontinue your lawsuit; or
2. Say, "Take a hike Murray!" I am convinced from my own knowledge that it is NOT defamatory and I will keep on posting it for the whole country to see!
I haven't read all your articles and maybe missed your explanation but it seems to me that you keep contradicting yourself and want it both ways - agreeing that it is defamatory - but who cares - Lionel Chartrand wrote it so sue him and also claiming that it is true and will prove it in court?
Oilfield Michif
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Oilfield:
Thank you for writing. Quite surprising you are missing something very fundamental to our judicial system in that you're talking like Murray Trachtenberg. Are you familiar with the work "allegedly" and the term "presumption of innocence?" Perhaps you can tell our readers when the trial was held and the outcome?
As for your Google search, did it tell you that Co-Defendant Terry Belhumeur at all material times was the registered owner of the website controlling access to it through the use of Usernames and Passwords? As such, he had primary responsibleity for everything published on it?
Regarding your point (1), sadly you haven't bothered to do your homework so are not as intricately familiar with the details of this case which is why we're no longer prepared to spend time trying to explain everything to you - again. Suffice it to say, over the years several attempts have been made to settle this case out of court but have subsequently been rejected.
We're dealing with a pathological litigator and his Plaintiffs who have unlimited access to Metis tax-dollars so why should they negotiate in good faith it's not coming out of their pockets? For David Chartrand it all about control and winning no matter what the cost. "Please discontinue your lawsuit" - HA! - with all due respect, my goodness are you naive!
Your point (2) makes no sense whatsoever isn't that exactly what we're, in fact, doing?
Finally, you last sentence is completely wrong because you're right you haven't read our articles and have missed our explanations. The contradictions are on your side! Please show our readers where have have agreed the statements are defamatory? Further, even you noted in an earlier e-mail we raised the possibility of a truth based defence when we had the incriminating MMF internal documents before we were forced by Court Order to return them.
You should also note a Motion could be filed by the Defence asking the court to name Lionel Chartrand as a Co-Defendant so he's by no means out of the woods.
Unfortunately, because of our growing backlog of unanswered e-mail this is all the time we can spend discussing the case with you.
If you say that Lionel Chartrand drafted this petition but blame him for not telling you that it is defamatory, then is that not an acknowledgment by you that it is defamatory? My Google search says that you are guilty as a party if you simply post something, even though you did not write it, then you are negligent as to whether it is defamatory, so why are you re-publishing the defamatory petition? I may be missing something here but I don't see how you can have it both ways after your suers have made their claim that it is defamatory. Seems to me that you either:
1. Say oooops - sorry about that - it's all Lionel Chartrand's fault I trusted him and thought it was not defamatory. Now that I think it might be I will not post it anymore, please discontinue your lawsuit; or
2. Say, "Take a hike Murray!" I am convinced from my own knowledge that it is NOT defamatory and I will keep on posting it for the whole country to see!
I haven't read all your articles and maybe missed your explanation but it seems to me that you keep contradicting yourself and want it both ways - agreeing that it is defamatory - but who cares - Lionel Chartrand wrote it so sue him and also claiming that it is true and will prove it in court?
Oilfield Michif
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Oilfield:
Thank you for writing. Quite surprising you are missing something very fundamental to our judicial system in that you're talking like Murray Trachtenberg. Are you familiar with the work "allegedly" and the term "presumption of innocence?" Perhaps you can tell our readers when the trial was held and the outcome?
As for your Google search, did it tell you that Co-Defendant Terry Belhumeur at all material times was the registered owner of the website controlling access to it through the use of Usernames and Passwords? As such, he had primary responsibleity for everything published on it?
Regarding your point (1), sadly you haven't bothered to do your homework so are not as intricately familiar with the details of this case which is why we're no longer prepared to spend time trying to explain everything to you - again. Suffice it to say, over the years several attempts have been made to settle this case out of court but have subsequently been rejected.
We're dealing with a pathological litigator and his Plaintiffs who have unlimited access to Metis tax-dollars so why should they negotiate in good faith it's not coming out of their pockets? For David Chartrand it all about control and winning no matter what the cost. "Please discontinue your lawsuit" - HA! - with all due respect, my goodness are you naive!
Your point (2) makes no sense whatsoever isn't that exactly what we're, in fact, doing?
Finally, you last sentence is completely wrong because you're right you haven't read our articles and have missed our explanations. The contradictions are on your side! Please show our readers where have have agreed the statements are defamatory? Further, even you noted in an earlier e-mail we raised the possibility of a truth based defence when we had the incriminating MMF internal documents before we were forced by Court Order to return them.
You should also note a Motion could be filed by the Defence asking the court to name Lionel Chartrand as a Co-Defendant so he's by no means out of the woods.
Unfortunately, because of our growing backlog of unanswered e-mail this is all the time we can spend discussing the case with you.
In one of your previous letters, which we've yet to get to, you bravely noted you are not afraid of being sued by Murray Trachtenberg. Well, we'd respectfully recommend you suck up the courage, self-identify to Counselor Trachtenberg and ask him any remaining question you may have.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
P. S. We suggest you visit the Manitoba Justice online Court of Queen's Bench File Registry and have a good read. The File Number is: CI05-01-41955.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 2:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home