The NDP Mouth that Squawks is off to court

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Now we will see if they settle out of court- It could be expensive. And yes a Pension can be Garnisheed.

RackNine's lawsuit against Pat Martin going ahead - Politics - CBC News

An abject public apology by the NDP's talkative MP, Pat Martin, has failed to fend off a $5 million lawsuit by the president of Edmonton automated calls firm RackNine.

Asked Friday if the lawsuit is going ahead anyway, Matt Meier's lawyer, Justin Matthews of Edmonton, said, "Yes."

In a new court filing, Matthews cites what he calls "exceptionally inflammatory and sensationalistic" defamation and "ongoing malice" by the New Democratic Party and its much-quoted MP from Winnipeg Centre.

Meier's company, RackNine, wants the NDP and Martin to pay $5 million in damages for saying that "RackNine rascals" helped the Conservatives to mislead voters with bogus robocalls in the May 2011 election.

The calls purported to come from Elections Canada and told more than 6,700 voters in Guelph that their polling stations had changed, when they hadn't. It later emerged that the calls originated from a disposable "burner" cellphone bought under the fake name of "Pierre Poutine." The numbers called, according to Elections Canada court filings, matched those in a Conservative Party database of non-supporters.

When the story broke in February of this year, Martin, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, named RackNine, a telemarketing company in Edmonton, as part of a Conservative scheme to steal the election. While MPs are protected from libel claims inside the House of Commons, Martin stepped outside the House on Feb. 23 to denounce "hundreds of thousands of phony phone calls by the RackNine rascals."

Matt Meier responded that his company did not make the calls or even know of their content, but merely served as a phone company to carry the calls. In an embarrassing climb-down on April 16th, Martin, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, apologized and admitted that "statements I made insinuating Mr. Meier's and RackNine's participation in an electoral fraud conspiracy were wholly and unequivocally false."

Now, it seems, the apology did not work.

In a court filing dated May 30 and obtained by CBC News, RackNine's lawyer, Justin Matthews of Edmonton, claims "continued malice" by the NDP and demands a hefty $2.5 million in general and aggravated "damages for defamation," plus another $2.5 million in "special damages for loss of business income."

The pleading alleges an "unreasonable delay in offering an apology by the Plaintiffs."

In his statement of defence, the NDP's lawyer, Peter Jacobson, denies that RackNine "suffered any damage as a result of the words complained of" and calls the amount claimed "grossly disproportionate." Jacobson also denies that RackNine suffered any loss of income.

Jacobson's statement adds that Martin's public apology "was widely disseminated in the press...in mitigation of any damages claimed."

He calls the RackNine claim "ill-conceived and abusive as it is directed at a political party with the responsibility to speak on matters of significant public interest to Canadians."
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Sounds like lawsuits are always used to shut critics mouth off,best weapon in an imperialistic world.
if a car hit you,and the driver is/was drunk,and you sue him,the max yo'll get is a few thousands dollars,but say someone is a corrupt a-hole,he'll sue you for millions.
Louis Armstrong What A Wonderful World - YouTube

If I recall correctly Racknine offered Martin an opportunity to retract these comments- he refused. The courts in this case are not being used to shut down legitimate comment-
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
AWESOME!!!

I hope justice prevails.

I'm sure all Der Leaders supporters and defenders will be along shortly to voice their support for Meier. Especially the ones that supported Layton and the NDP legal troopers, when they threatened the Sun with legal action. For of all things, reporting the news.

Rascals? Gee I wonder if Froggy, Buckwheat and Alfalfa would be offended
It was an article from the CBC. They completely ignored the more damning commentary listed in the suit. Not to mention the patently false accusation that followed "Rascals".
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
In a court filing dated May 30 and obtained by CBC News, RackNine's lawyer, Justin Matthews of Edmonton, claims "continued malice" by the NDP and demands a hefty $2.5 million in general and aggravated "damages for defamation," plus another $2.5 million in "special damages for loss of business income."

The pleading alleges an "unreasonable delay in offering an apology by the Plaintiffs."

Really? $5 million in damages, but it would have been ok if the apology had been a little earlier? If the apology had arrived a week later would they be asking for $10 million?

Interestingly enough, they have messenger immunity from the liability of the phone calls because they are conventional telecommunications agency. Were they an ISP and the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act had been passed, they would be liable for not tracking the originator of the original message.

They should have messenger immunity; ISPs deserve the same treatment.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Really? $5 million in damages, but it would have been ok if the apology had been a little earlier? If the apology had arrived a week later would they be asking for $10 million?

Buddy had every opportunity to comply earlier and decided to stand his ground. This is the cost that he pays for opening his yap (very publicly I might add) without thinking first
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Poor ol' Pat.


 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Buddy had every opportunity to comply earlier and decided to stand his ground. This is the cost that he pays for opening his yap (very publicly I might add) without thinking first

No, this is the price he pays for not retracting his statement at an earlier time. My question is, how much less would the price be if he had retracted his statement the day before?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
No, this is the price he pays for not retracting his statement at an earlier time. My question is, how much less would the price be if he had retracted his statement the day before?


That's tough to say as Racknine would conceivably have experienced possible losses even if Martin had apologized immediately. In this case, Martin refused to comply to the remedy provided by Racknine and at that point, the damages became retroactive (wrong word).

In the end, the company will have to provide some form of logic to articulate their losses - how that's done, I can' say, but the # they came up with is one that they will have to justify if/when the suit gets to that point.

Also, the $5 million is split in 2 for general damages and for loss of income. I expect that this is lawyer-speak for strategizing on how to reap the largest settlement possible within the confines of the legal system.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
In the end, the company will have to provide some form of logic to articulate their losses - how that's done, I can' say, but the # they came up with is one that they will have to justify if/when the suit gets to that point.

Exactly! That's the weird thing about that statement. I do believe it has something to do with how the law works in Canada though. I believe you have to try to settle matters out of court before you can sue someone for defamation. They will have a hard time showing actual loss though, and likely they will open themselves up to all sorts of discovery challenges
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
No, this is the price he pays for not retracting his statement at an earlier time. My question is, how much less would the price be if he had retracted his statement the day before?
By the looks of it, $5million dollars less.

Your point isn't lost on me, but Martin made untrue, unsupported statements, that had the potential to adversely affected Racknine and slandered it's owner.

Martin has no defence...

It was untrue.

He had no absolute privilege.

He had no qualified privilege.

It was not a fair comment.

It was not in the public interest.

IMHO, I can make a case for my position on all, based solely on what is in the public purview.

In the end, the company will have to provide some form of logic to articulate their losses...
Not necessarily.

Both defamation and lander can be actionable, even without financial impact to your business.

In this case, the impact of the publicity and context of the accusations, were broad enough and egregious enough, respectively, to constitute defamation and slander.
 
Last edited:

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
To respond adequately to that I would have to go and find out what he actually said, which is much more than I care to do at this time.

I hope he doesn't settle out of court, although with those numbers, that might be the game plan of RackNine. I would like to see this one go down; I wouldn't place money on his success though.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
To respond adequately to that I would have to go and find out what he actually said, which is much more than I care to do at this time.
He basically accused Racknine and its owner of criminal activity.

Outside making a report to the authorities, without evidence to the fact, that is actionable.

I hope he doesn't settle out of court, although with those numbers, that might be the game plan of RackNine. I would like to see this one go down; I wouldn't place money on his success though.
I hope it goes to court as well.

Although I think the outcome will be different than your prediction.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
He basically accused Racknine and its owner of criminal activity.

Outside making a report to the authorities, without evidence to the fact, that is actionable.

I hope it goes to court as well.

Although I think the outcome will be different than your prediction.

You don't think he will settle?

Or you think that RackNine wants it to go to court?