Maple City Star
October 20, 2018, 03:30:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lawsuit?  (Read 5011 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
iMAX62
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« on: June 01, 2009, 01:44:16 AM »

I found this site from a Google search after reading comments about a letter to the editor on another site. I'm wondering if anyone is allowed to discuss this lawsuit that's mentioned on here? I didn't hear anything about it in the newspapers and some of these articles hint why. Right now the optics don't seem very favorable to the person who did this. The way I'm reading this is that this site's owner posted something in the forum about a council meeting, and as a result, the mayor is having him sued, along with his sick wife and elderly father who didn't have anything to do with it What's going on with this? When is it from? Some of the stuff on here seems far-fetched, but I presume it's been carefully worded to avoid legal trouble? I mean, it's presented responsible if a little long winded. Why aren't the people of Chatham questioning this? How can somebody be sued for talking about a meeting of elected officials? This doesn't add up. I have a million questions about our city council now, and this site.
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2009, 02:37:44 AM »

As you can understand, this is a delicate issue. Everything I say has to be carefully worded and cleared.

There is indeed a lawsuit. It claims $1.1 million dollars in damages and an injunction to remove certain things from my site. This much I can say:

11. On April 2, 2007, an article/editorial which included a photographic image of the Plaintiff, thus visually identifying the Plaintiff to the world at large, was published on the Maple City Star web page to the world at large, bearing the headline, "LOCAL MEDIA SHELTERS MAYOR CRYDERMAN" referring to the Plaintiff who has not and has never been the Mayor of any municipality.

13. The Plaintiff pleads that the sting of the April 2, 2007 article/editorial is maliciously false and defamatory of and concerning him...

15. The Plaintiff pleads that the said article/editorial and the particular statements set out in paragraph 13 above, were published with express malice or reckless disregard for the truth and were calculated to disparage and injure the Plaintiff's reputation.

20. On June 29, 2007, the Defendant Austin Wright, submitted to the Clerk of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, an Application for Compliance Audit pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, with respect to the campaign expenses of each of Randy Hope and Mary Kay Lee, who were candidates for the office of Mayor in the Municipal election held November 13, 2006.

21. In the said Audit Applications, Austin Wright detailed his complaints and his assessment of the campaign expenses of the said candidates...

22. With respect to the Audit Application concerning Randy Hope, Austin Wright made the following defamatory statements...

23. With respect to the Audit Application concerning Mary Kay Lee, Austin Wright made the following defamatory statements...

25. Furthermore, to Austin Wright's knowledge, such agenda would be placed, and was so placed, on the Municipality's website and thus available and published to the world at large.

28. The Plaintiff pleads that the article/editorial in question and the particular words set out in paragraph 13 above, are defamatory of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has suffered damage in his credit, character and reputation and in the way of his business and have brought the Plaintiff into hatred, ridicule and contempt and the Plaintiff has suffered damages thereby.

32. By reason of the facts set out above, the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction...




...more
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2009, 03:02:23 AM »


The Defence states:


6. (paraphrased) Austin Wright's father, spouse, and two businesses had no involvement whatsoever in the publishing of the written materials which have been complained about by the plaintiff.

19. The Defendants deny that the words complained of, in their partial or full context, are defamatory.

20. The ordinary meaning of the words contained in the article "Local Media Shelters Mayor Cryderman" and in the letter of Robert B. were not defamatory of the plaintiff.

21. The words contained in the article "Local Media Shelters Mayor Cryderman" and in the letter of Robert B. do not bear and are not capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the plaintiff in the statement of claim.

22. The Plaintiff took sections out of the letter from Robert B. and the materials written by Austin Wright and cited them out of context.

23. In the alternative, in their plain and ordinary meaning, to the extent that the words complained of are statements of fact, which is not admitted but denied, they are true in substance and in fact.

24. To the extent that the words complained of are expressions of opinion, they are fair comment, made in good faith and without malice, based on the facts contained in the written materials complained of, on a matter of public interest, namely the actions and integrity of the plaintiff, a political figure and organizer in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

27. These statements of comment by Austin Wright were made on the following facts, which were true:
A list of 28 items follows, which they brought an unsuccessful motion to strike but I still had to pay costs to the Plaintiff.

45. An Application for Compliance Audit is an application available to the public from the Clerk of the Municipality pursuant to the Municipal Elections Act.

46. The Applicant is required to set out the factual basis for the request for an audit in the Application for Compliance Audit.

47. The defendant Austin Wright had reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff may have been responsible for or involved in campaign advertising for Randy Hope that was not properly attributed to the campaign expenses of Randy Hope.

48. The defendants plead that the statements set out in paragraphs 22(a), 22(b) and 23 of the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim were privileged as they were made in the Application for Compliance Audit.

53. The defendants are not responsible for the publishing of the Application for Compliance Audit on the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's website, or for the appending of the application to the Council agenda.




more...
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2009, 03:30:40 AM »


In Libel Law, you are presumed to be guilty, and must prove innocence. The Defence essentially states that whatever I posted was either true, or opinion made in good faith based on material I reasonably believed to be true. This kind of Defence allows the Plaintiff's known reputation to be admitted as evidence. There can be no question that my obscure little article did not cause $1.1 million in harm to the gentleman's reputation, so there must have been other motivations.

The Plaintiff's lawyer has stated that he has no evidence whatsoever that my wife, father, or two businesses had any part in publishing my article. He was instructed to go on a fishing expedition against Defendants that had no ability to defend themselves, but possessed assets. See paragraph 25 of the claim. He is suing all of us for the fact a privileged Compliance Audit Application is posted on the Municipal website, but he did not sue the Municipality, nor attempt to remove the offending applications. They are still there. The Application was thoroughly vetted and approved by my lawyer before it was submitted despite what Councillor Sulman said. The Plaintiff did not sue the internet host or provider. He made no effort whatsoever to sue the author of the letter I reproduced. He was very selective who he sued to ensure nobody was named that had the resources to fight back a costly libel lawsuit.

The Auditor was aware of the lawsuit, and coloured his report accordingly. He admitted being afraid of releasing the true findings, and his final report was marked "Confidential" contrary to the Municipal Elections Act. The media was aware of the lawsuit, and intentionally withheld details of the Audit from the public, and engaged in a smear campain to discredit me.

The article/editorial in question was a direct response to a debate during the council meeting of March 26, 2007, in which mayor Hope attempted to appoint a political advisor. Details of that meeting are at http://www.maplecitystar.ca/archive.php?article=20070328-council-denies-assistant.html. Council rejected the assistant, as they had been aware the mayor intended to reward his campaign manager with the position, and he was overheard bragging in council chambers that the mayor was going to give it to him.

On March 28, 2007, the Chatham Daily News published a letter by a friend of the Plaintiff that "suggested" that if the "rumour" was true that the Plaintiff had been considered in advance for the position of mayoral advisor, it would have been the best thing to ever happen. It went on to list the Plaintiff's many "benevolent" attributes. I found it outrageous that the mayor tried to circumvent due process to reward his campaign manager with a position of political influence exceeding that exerted by elected council members. The Chatham Daily News refused to publish any letters on the subject even though several had been submitted by various people who were also upset. One person forwarded me a copy of a letter rejected by Bruce Corcoran, citing the fear of legal trouble. I posted a responsible article that criticized the mayor and mentioned the Plaintiff, and it included the letter to demonstrate how free speech was being surpressed in Chatham-Kent.

I also ran an article questioning the mayor's election finances, and pleged to investigate since the newspaper refused.

The Plaintiff went legal without ever complaining or asking that the article be removed.

The lawsuit is still ongoing, so the original article cannot be disclosed.

They immediately brought a motion that, in the opinion of my lawyer, was designed to bankrupt us all and secure a default judgment without a trial. He estimated that at least $25,000 had been spent trying to keep me quiet. (Who would pay this, and why? Am I that dangerous?)

The Plaintiff's lawyer agrees that all lawsuit documents are a public record. There are over a thousand pages of evidence, and all kinds of things the Plaintiff has no idea that I have. Once these are disclosed, I have a long list of documents I expect the Plaintiff to disclose, and they better not be missing. By law, he has to disclose all email and notes relating to the mayor. I have been fighting to get all the materials used by the Auditor to let mayor Hope off the hook. Could get interesting.

Anything posted on this website has been carefully scrutinized to avoid problems. All statements of fact or opinion can be backed up with evidence and documents. Where facts are alleged, there is a reasonable amount of supporting evidence. My reputation and life have been put on the line trying to expose facts that our media is too terrified to publish, and I have to be awfully careful. So should you. My innocent family has been dragged into this to chill my public participation, and the Chatham Daily News won't publish my letters. Something stinks around here and it's not the ethanol plant.
Logged
MapleCityStar
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 23


« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2009, 03:37:34 AM »

Are you JC?
Logged
iMAX62
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 11:50:42 PM »

No, I'm not JC but thanks for the detailled reply. It makes me angry that anybody would do this in a so-called democracy. Like, this isn't China or Cuba! I believe the details posted on this site. Why isn't the local media ever investigating this stuff? Any time they mention you it is with extreme hostility. You'd think the Chatham Daily News would want to work with you to expose allthis municipal wrongdoing. I've been following this and thought maybe you were having an axe to grind, but it doesn't look like this is being made up.

In one of your articles it says:
Quote
It is a fact that other mayoral candidates report being approached by Mary Lee and John Cryderman and offered their full support, only to be requested just days before the election that they withdraw and endorse Randy Hope. It is a fact that Mr. Cryderman manufactured the media event boycotting the Chamber of Commerce debate, and fed the participating candidates with the reasons why the boycott was necessary.

I've also heard this and I know which candidate it was. Your story made me remember something. Somebody at work tried telling council about it. Then this Cryderman and Mary Lee showed up  at my work and threatened to sue the whole company if any employee opposed mayro Hope. They even had a phony lawyers letter! The company told him to take a flying leap or something but we all got a warning to not have any political involvement. It looks like these people were fixing to sue somebody, either to chill opposition to Hope or to try winning some money. I'll email you with anything else I can remember.

This story needs to be broadcast to the world so these corrupt people get  kicked from office. Keep up the good work and good luck.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!