[Section 15] In and out: Not just about moving money around

If you don't yet understand the Conservative In and Out scandal (where have you been?), go read Cherniak's In and Out in 30 Seconds, then come back.

Now, Aaron Wherry over at Macleans has been doing the thankless task of reading the entire search warrant, and typing up the interesting bits for us to read. Here's one of interest:

From page 50:

"I note, in reviewing one such ad (Appendix 9), that the official agent for Mr. Don Gillis, the Conservative Party of Canada candidate for the electoral district of Cardigan (Prince Edward Island), is mentioned in the 'tag line' of the ad ... as having authorized media buy advertising. Mr. Gillis is not one of the 67 candidates identified as being part of the media buy. The Gillis campaign did not report to Elections Canada having financially participated in such advertising."

You see, if the media buy was not authorized by the local candidate, then the CPC can't argue that the media buy for that candidate was not for the central campaign, which is central to their argument.

From page 54:

"Based on the comments of Ms. Dixon (paragraph 75), I believe the alteration was carried out by the Conservative Fund Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada because it did not appear to conform to the appearance of the invoices issued by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada or Conservative Fund Canada ... with respect to the purchase of media airtime during the 39th federal general election."

And from page 23:

"As an example of the invoices filed with Elections Canada, I showed the representatives of Retail Media an invoice in the amount of $39,999.91 (Appendix 23) filed by the candidate for the electoral district of York South-Weston, who was one of the 14 candidates (paragraph 37) contacted by Elections Canada for additional information subsequent to the filing of Candidate's Electoral Campaign Returns following the 39th federal general election. Upon viewing the document, which bears the letterhead of Retail Media, Ms. Dixon speculated that this invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of the invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy."

From pages 55-56:

"Executives of Retail Media did not recognize the one invoice shown to them ... as coming from their company."

Do those read like developing allegations of forged invoices?

Now, this is just a search warrant, so we shouldn't make conclusions... except that there's a lot to wonder about here, which doesn't fit so neatly into the CPC's story that this was all aboveboard.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 10:33:00 PM

[Section 15] Leader-Post wrongly claims Crookes cases 'dismissed'

The Leader-Post, in writing about Kate McMillan's legal problems, has mistakenly claimed that the Crookes cases have been dismissed.

That's news to me!

I have responded with the short letter below.

April 21, 2008

Dear Editor,

Regarding Karen Brownlee's piece "Sask. blogger caught in legal bind" published April 21, as one of the defendants in the many Crookes lawsuits, I am in a position to correct the erroneous claim that Crookes' lawsuits have been dismissed. All of Crookes' lawsuits remain before the courts in BC. All that has happened so far is that a few defendants have managed to have themselves removed from the suits. Yahoo demonstrated that Crookes failed to prove that the private material was published in BC, Warren de Simone was dismissed from the very important OpenPolitics.ca case as he was found to not be a publisher, and a service provider (Domains by proxy) has seemed to have settled.

All the cases remain, with the critical OpenPolitics.ca case going to trial this October. If the OpenPolitics.ca case is lost, it is possible that providers will be held responsible for user generated content they did not have a hand in authoring. Such a finding will threaten every blogger, every wiki author, and every service provider in Canada. Even those abroad are at risk as you do not have to be a Canadian citizen or even be living in Canada to sue here.

Canada's libel laws are desperately out of date, and unless those fighting against Crookes receive financial support, our laws may become even more restrictive, just in time for Kate McMillan to spend her donated largess on a lost cause.


Mark Francis
Defendant, Crookes v. Holloway et al.
http://Section15.blogspot.com

Please donate to the OpenPolitics.ca case following the instructions on the sidebar.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 01:17:00 PM

[Section 15] Intrepid Wingnuterer agent chases Conservatives down fire stairs

The Wingnuterer managed to get one of its many agents into the Sunday "In-and-Out" briefing held by the Conservatives. Disguised as a balding fat white guy, the agent was able to deeply infiltrate the gathering.

This recording is of what happened after the Conservatives left the room, heading for some fire doors.

Wingnuterer Agent: Hey! Where are you going? You're splitting from your press conference!

Random Conservative: Quick! Someone yell fire!

Conservative Chorus: Fire! Fire!

Wingnuterer Agent: There's no fire! You guys are falsely yelling fire in a crowded room!

Conservative Spin Doctor: The room is not crowded because we have left it. We are also not in the room. And FREE SPEECH!

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: Don't make us sue you for libel. Don't print any of this!

Wingnuterer Agent: But it's true!

Conservative Chorus: HA HA HA!!!

Wingnuterer Agent: Doesn't that door say 'Fire exit only'?

Conservative Spin Doctor: We did yell 'Fire', you know, though not in a crowded room. And we weren't in the room. So we can use the doors.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: The 'Fire exit only' rule doesn't apply to conservatives, and, besides, all the political parties are using it.

Wingnuterer Agent: But the only ones using this stairwell are you guys.

Conservative Spin Doctor: That's because your coverage is unfair. You should be watching this door all the time to ensure not only conservatives are using it. Until you do that, you'd best not publish anything.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: We would hate to have to cut your access to the Hill.

Conservative Spin Doctor: And YOU are using the stairwell. You are clearly a Liberal Party mole. So it would be defamatory to say only conservatives are using the stairwell.

Conservative Spin Doctor: We'd hate to sue you for libel.

Wingnuterer Agent: Grunt! What are you doing?

Conservative Chorus: We are shutting the fire door behind us.

Wingnuterer Agent: But I'm trying to get through!

Conservative Spin Doctor: You should not be using a fire door.

Wingnuterer Agent: You did!

Conservative Spin Doctor: Yes, but we yelled 'Fire', you didn't.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: And you clearly aren't conservative, so you can't use the door unless there's a fire.

Wingnuterer Agent: But you yelled 'fire'!

Conservative Spin Doctor: Yes, but you didn't, and you clearly don't believe us. So we can use the door and you can't.

The door slammed shut. When our agent got the door open, there was no one to be seen. Only an intense smell remained – the stink of fear.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 10:30:00 AM

[Section 15] Bruce reactors restart to go overbudget

The cost to repair two nuclear power reactors in Ontario at the Bruce reactors site has -- surprise -- mushroomed.

The original costs were estimated at $2.75 billion (back in 2005), and now the costs are estimated at $3.1 to $3.4 billion.

That's a 13% to 24% cost increase from the original estimate.

The project is 60% complete, which means there is still time for the true costs to rise even more, which, keeping to the trend, could bring overruns to 18% to 34% of the original estimate.

Nice work.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/19/2008 10:21:00 AM

[Section 15] Don't like democracy? Sue for libel

Ever wonder how democracy can be subverted by libel law? Look no further: A group of lawn care professionals is about to sue an unnamed municipality for libel over a bylaw which affects their business.

I found this press release:

Lawn Care Companies Seek Damages from Activists and Municipalities

MONTREAL, April 18 /CNW Telbec/ - MREP Communications is a consulting
services firm that provides support through a network of companies in North
America and the EU on environmental policy and communications.

A group of lawn care professionals has asked us to review current and
pending bylaws that restrict or prohibit the use of registered lawn pesticides
in Canada. Our current focus is the by-laws in Ontario. We have just completed
the first phase of a three-part systematic review of these municipal bylaws in
Ontario and are looking forward to comparing our findings with those of the
Ontario Government's review. However, to-date, there has been no response to
our request for a meeting.

At this point, the onus on the lawn care professionals and related
industries is the mitigation of damages caused by these bylaws that prevents
the operation of their trade.

...Entrepreneurs, second and third generation family-run businesses have
been adversely affected by conjecture and rumor. These companies will no
longer tolerate any additional losses created by municipalities or activists.
The industry has taken a stand of zero tolerance for libel, slander of goods
and cyber bullying by activist or individuals.

Activist groups have indicated they will be targeting other aspects of
our industry, including golf, agricultural, forestry, aquatic and
industrial-site uses of pesticides and fertilizers.

On April 25, 2008, the first lawsuit for defamation and slander of goods
against a municipality will be filed. We will target municipalities that feel
they have to damage our reputations or educate the public by malicious
falsehoods in an effort to support their bylaws or influence provincial
policy.

It's not that I'm saying they don't have a claim under our crazy libel laws -- I have no idea.

I am saying that if there is a problem with any bylaws, this is not the way to fix things in a democracy.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/19/2008 12:19:00 AM

[Section 15] Strengthening democracy through lawsuits

H/t to Liberal Catnip, for letting us in on these pieces of fatherly advice.


Want to change these out-of-date libel laws? Donate to the OpenPolitics.ca libel defense fund. See the sidebar for details.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/17/2008 06:16:00 PM

[Section 15] Donate here to fight for Free speech on the Internet!

As promised, I have posted a Paypal link for those to donate to help the defendants in the Crookes v. OpenPolitics case. That case goes to trial this October, and is incredibly important to us all, as it deals with the liability of publishers, even when absent, for the posts and comment of others on a wiki.

Kate of Small Dead Animals is facing similar, if not the same, issues, as a defendant in the Warren lawsuit. Support Kate if you like, but the OpenPolitics case is likely to hit trial first.

You can also donate to my court case (Crookes V. Holloway) through the Cambridge Green Party Association by cheque.

Kate at SDA has just noticed the Crookes lawsuits.

More to come.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/14/2008 12:03:00 PM

[Section 15] How to support the Defendants against Crookes

There is no defense fund as yet, so if you want to donate, send me email and I will get back to you.

Email: markfrancis AT gmail DOT com

If you want to learn more about the Crookes cases, and libel law in general, please click on the Libel Reform label below and start reading.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/13/2008 09:53:00 AM