Levant Coughs Up

Richard Warman notes:

Congratulations to Giacomo Vigna whom I understand has now completed collection of his $57,500 in libel damages and costs. The appeal?

Ezra Levant Out $32,500 In Costs

Full document here. Given the relatively unequivocal nature of the ruling, we can only assume that Ezra's appeal will fail and these costs will go up.

Vigna v. Levant: Ezra Decides To Go Another Round

The Dawg says, and the Dawg only says what he knows. Weird though, Ezra was starting to pull stuff down and I thought he'd surrendered. Maybe the strain of not bullshitting got to him after awhile. But who's writing the cheques? This guy?

Levant's Defamatory Posts Start To Come Down

From Vigna v. Levant:

So it looks like the posts judged defamatory in Levant Vs. Vigna are starting to be pulled from Ezra's website, or at least be altered to remove the offending material. He's been a bit sloppy about it; the cache of Even the human rights tribunal is sick of the human rights commission (original posting date March 20) still contains the defamatory comments, although they've been pulled from the amended version. Similarly, the defamatory material in a post entitled My Cousin Vinny (from May 18) has been disappeared, but is still there in the google cache. Similarly with Good Grief now Giacomo Vigna is threatening to sue me! (from April 28), but I won't bother linking to the cache. Similarly with the post from April 21st entitled Richard Warman misleads the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about "Jadewarr", under oath. Similarly with CTV's Mike Duffy Live (first posted May 21).

I note that the material in the March 26th post judged defamatory is still there. Interestingly enough, in that case the judge misread the phrase "bald-faced contempt" as "bold-faced contempt". Ezra appears to be capitalizing on this tiny error?

In any case, I think we can assume that Ezra won't be appealing Vigna v. Levant decision. I would also point out that it is possible to overwrite a google cache, so if Levant wants to sink this material entirely, he can do that.

PS. Paragraph 142 of the judgement orders Levant to remove "all defamatory blogs referring to Vigna from his website within 15 days". It looks to me that what he has done is not in compliance with the judge's instructions.

I Spank You, Ezra Levant, I Spank You Spank You Spank You Very Much!

Pearl Eliades on HRCs in the news:

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice ruled on Nov. 18 that Giacomo Vigna, a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had been defamed by blogger Ezra Levant. According to the Court, Levant was on a campaign to discredit human rights commissions.

While that was in itself not inherently problematic from the perspective of the libel case, seeking to achieve that goal by defaming others was not a lawful objective. The court said that Levant showed "reckless disregard" for the truth in publishing the posts in question.

This does not make the Superior Court of Justice a "censor." What it does is to remove the "rights-shield" from defamatory speech, thus protecting Vigna's rights and, for that matter, the rights of anyone similarly situated. The point, to borrow a phrase, is that people's reputations and rights should not become roadkill on the path to free speech.

It is completely unacceptable that commission staff in Canada and human rights defenders here or anywhere else should be harassed, defamed and threatened simply for doing their jobs. Having worked in and with commissions before (and, by the way, having also represented respondents), I am acutely aware of the foibles and limitations of these institutions. But this does not justify the inaccuracy and lack of fairness to which they and their staffs have been subjected.

And lets just repeat: the Vigna defamation case was triggered as a result of White Nationalists leaving him phone threats and following tribunal security staff to their homes after a Warman V. Lemire-related hearing. This was something that none of the reporters who covered the defamation case that followed even bothered to mention until the judge's ruling made it impossible to ignore.

There's a pattern here, also illustrated in NP's coverage of the "hacked wifi" incident. Any allegation against the CHRC, however ridiculous, was treated seriously. Any news that cast the HRC staffers in a better light was judiciously ignored.

Ezra Vs. Vigna: Picking Through The Ruins

A few morning-after thoughts. One of the big questions surrounding the whole Levant/Vigna affair has always been: what upset Vigna that day back in 2007? As you recall (because you are as obsessed by this stuff as I am, obviously), Vigna was participating in one of the Warman vs. Lemire hearings on behalf of the CHRC when, on the morning of May 11th, he told chairperson Athanasios D. Hadjis that he could not continue. It has occasionally been intimated that he saw the quality of Lemire's evidence and decided that discretion was the greater part of valour, but what actually happened is made clear from the Vigna v. Levant decision:
So a number of white nationalists, we may assume, associated with the Lemire camp, we may assume, threatened Vigna and thugged it up with some of the hearing's security staff. That would be enough to upset anyone, I should think. And, just as a aside, these facts came up during the trial but, oddly enough, Terrence Watson didn't mention them in his article on the topic. That must have been one the places where Terrence lost interest.

And another interesting thing. Take a look at this:

As truewest pointed out, Vigna represented himself, and Ezra still lost. That's gotta sting. And not good news for any of his co-defendents in the other cases.

Ezra Vs. Vigna: Ezra Loses Ass

I've written about this particular defamation case against Ezra here. I've got the entire ruling but have only scanned through it. If someone else hasn't uploaded the whole thing by tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. I'm especially interested in finding out whether it refs this post of mine. If it does, then next time I'm in Ottawa Viggy owes me a beer.

Just as a gloss, that Ezra was going to lose this case was obvious from the get-go. I would implore some of the other people who are getting sued because they listened to Levant and somehow thought he knew what he was talking about when he was talking about Canadian defamation law...surrender and do a deal now. He's like the piper leading you down the road to personal destitution.

PS. Here's a link to the whole decision.

Levant Vs. Vigna

The defamation case against Ezra, delayed back in Feb., starts up again today. The Ez seems to have been busy preparing.

Ezra Backdates

The amazing Buckets has now confirmed Ezra Levant's back-dating of a post that may well prove important to the defamation case being brought against him by CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. Put crudely, Vigna has sued Levant for suggesting that he (Vigna) faked an illness to get out of a CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) hearing; in his "Correction" , Levant admits that Vigna was indeed able to secure a doctor's note for whatever ailed him, AND that he turned said note over to the tribunal. All of which Levant had asserted previously was NOT THE CASE.

In the comments to a previous post, lawyer Ted Betts speculated as to why Levant's correction might have been issued in the first place:

By back-dating a post, it does not appear in the blog aggregator, exposing it to the eyes of so many more people. Try it with Liblogs or Progressive Bloggers.

A defamation claim is about harm to one's reputation because of the publication of falsehoods. In a defamation suit, therefore an apology is important for two reasons.

First, if you lose, you can claim the penalty should be less since the harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation was eliminated or at least lessened by a retraction or apology in the same publication. i.e. anyone who saw the first falsehood would have seen the retraction and therefore the reputation was unharmed.

Second - and this is fairly new law - it is an important defence to show that, even if the facts you relayed were false, you were not acting maliciously but based on what you thought was true and the moment you found out your information was incorrect, you apologized or retracted. In fact, the failure to apologize, clarify or retract a known falsehood when given the chance can be taken against you.

Which makes the back-dating even more interesting since, by back-dating it and minimizing the number of people who see it, it defeats the purpose of publishing it in the first place.

And this comes out a day before the case is due to start! Damn that's raw!

Say, How DId That Happen... Part II

Yesterday, I suggested that Ezra Levant might have back-dated a post in which he retracted some of the false information he had been pushing re Giacomo Vigna, a CHRC lawyer that Levant will be meeting in an Ottawa courtroom tomorrow morning at 10:00 AM.

Buckets asked why somebody would care to back date a post? Well--and I am of course speculating here--when you have so many acolytes following your defamation cases, some of whom are also getting sued, often because they took your word as truth on some point or another, and you are forced to make an embarrassing factual concession to one of your legal opponents... Maybe you want to do so in a manner that will bring as little attention to the admission as possible. Stick your "correction" among week-old posts where most people are likely to miss it.

In any case, much of the evidence for back-dating came from the comments to this particular post. For one thing, there were only three there originally (plus one test comment I made yesterday) as opposed to the 30 or 40 a Levant post usually generates. Furthermore, while the post itself was dated January 18th, the earliest comment to it was from the 23rd, almost a week later.

Yesterday, sometime during the evening...those comments were made to disappear (as CC pointed out in my comments). By whom, I wonder? And to what end?

Cue the theme from The Twilight Zone!

Doo Doo Doo Doo
Doo Doo Doo Doo
Doo Doo Doo Doo
Doo Doo Doo Doo

...in the key of B minor.

Say, How Did That Happen

An interesting post from Ezra Levant dated January 18th. I say interesting because, well, I missed it at the time, which (if you know me) is a bit surprising. Also, such comments as were made in response to the post are all dated from January 23rd and later. The post's title: Correction, and in it Ezra retracts some false information he gave out re Giacomo Vigna, whose lawsuit against the Ez goes forward this week.

Wonder if there's any way to show whether or not the Ez wrote it later and back-dated it?

Ezra Regrets...

According to WK, Mr. Levant is looking to dodge his court date with Giacomo Vigna. Come visit Ontario, Ez. We got 2 way streets out here. Although, admittedly, February in Ottawa is damn cold.

To Know Him Is To Sue Him, Part Bazillion

Yesterday, CC pointed out that Khurrum Awan's defamation suit against Ezra Levant appears to be proceeding. In addition, I have been told that Vigna v. Levant (Giacomo Vigna is or was a lawyer for the CHRC) should get underway in February. Keep cranking out them books, Ezra. You'll need the funds, and anyway I'm sure "Oiled Up" will sell in the high double-digits (which may, incidentally, be enough to make it a Canadian bestseller).

Update: In related news, The National Post offers Warman a "satisfactory settlement agreement", and his libel action has been discontinued.

Are Ezra's Acolytes Threatening CHRC Employee?

Ezra's facing another lawsuit by CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna, and his fans are striking back. Here's one example:

just left Vigna a strongly worded message of disapproval (but NOT a threatening message) on his office voicemail. Others may wish to join me in pushing Vigna's fragile mental state further over the edge by leaving him a message at his office number in Ottawa at...

Here's another:

I can vouch for that 613 ph number.

now how would I know that?

I addressed him first as 'mr bilingual' and from then on as 'mr serene'. then told him to back off, that he was pushing his luck and that I was tired of the vendetta he has engaged in against Ezra.then I gave him MY ph # and invited him to return the call.

"Pushing his luck", eh? I wonder what is supposed to happen if he pushes it too far.

And, by the way, Ez, the precise term is "process server", not "private detective", as in:

Affidavit of Gaby Saliba, Process Server on behalf of the appellants sworn on 01-DEC-2006 confirming service of Notice of Appeal on the respondent...

You are such a diva.

And you should call off your fans. In fact, given your own problems with threats lately, I think you would be more clued in to what is and is not appropriate behavior.

Ezra And The Private Dick

I'm just guessing here, Ezra, but I imagine the technical term for the "Private Investigator" that visited your parents place is a "process server" (ie a person who serves (delivers) legal papers in lawsuits, either as a profession or as a government official). And I am just guessing, but I imagine the reason he visited your folks on behalf of Giacomo Vigna* is because whois gives your folks' address in the contact information for your website.

As for the rest...well...I'm surprised you didn't portray the guy as flying in on bat wings and chewing the head off the family pet.

(Please let me know if anything in the above is incorrect.)

* Giacomo Vigna is a lawyer for the CHRC.