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.
