Punished In The Great White North

Steve is too kind to mention the person's name . . . one can only wonder which kind hearted liberal would be the libel chiller.

Maybe Steve should hire Kinsella . . . those Martanistas are on his Kill-Bill list.

SLAPP suit
Strategic Lawsuit Against Political Participation

Who is doing the suing?

Who is it?

Actually thats quite a good idea, Fred. Kinsella and Janke have both expressed mutual respect for one another - at least on a professionsl level. Kinsella would probably enjoy sticking a Martinite so much he might even do it for a reasonable fee.

Angry has done a lot of good work. I'm going to send funds.

I figure it has something to do with Abotech, which Janke spent a considerable amount of time unearthing and connecting over the past number of months. Just my speculation, though.

Makes me wanna Herle:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/217544.php

McClelland (cough *sshole) says it's Herle. Hit Steve's tip jar everyone. I just did.

Janke deserves his fate. You guys called "all liberals" thieves, crooks etc. That hyperbole was bound to piss somenone off. Nor is it fair comment. There were some who fit this title but not most. If you use this sort of exaggerated political attack then you should pay the consequences.

If the article is truthful then there should be no problem ....

"Janke deserves his fate. You guys called "all liberals" thieves, crooks etc. That hyperbole was bound to piss somenone off."

You are correct.

The truth hurts and it pisses "Somenones" off.

Somenone Lieberals are all lawyers and the honest people stand NO chance because the JUDGES are "Somenones" as well.

When is the last time a liberal did something honest/respectable?

Martin is likely ponying up the money for the mystery boy's legal bills.
Herle, Reid, whoever, all the same credentials, Liberal flunkies.

Touche turtles those Liberals, always on the defensive at the slightest sideways glance, real or imagined. How dare anyone criticize a Liberal, they're perfect, if your talking A**holes.

With Blowbag Williams and Forlorn Calvert suing, looks like it's catching on. There's a whole lotta suing going on.

We really must help Janke for sure.

Donate? Done and done!

I tried to go to his site and it shut down on me. Maybe the censors are at work.

Hmm, looks like somebody wants the peasants in their place. Sing the MSM song or SHUT UP.

Gee, wonder if I'll be voting for that party? Ever?

Steve is a class act. Made my way to the jar and will help any way I can.

we need to out the thug and then put Herr Thug under the Blog microscope.

Any ideas how to shed light in this Liberal infection ??

Then we can make it Steffi's problem as well . . . cool, politics was getting boring :)

The first link works, its the php link that doesn't. Odd that.

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

Herle, Herle Herle, Herle

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm its time.

Davie boy, you have no idea what you have done.

Suck it boy, your time is coming.

I believe David Herle is the architect of the "demonize" Stephen Harper campaign.

Remember the Stephen Harper is 'unfit to be Prime Minister' nonsense.

It appears the Canadian electorate thought otherwise.

Perhaps in future campaigns David will focus on issues rather than ad hominem attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Herle

One of the Earnscliffe boys.

Of course now they have 'earned the electoral cliff'.

Gee its nasty out there when your client Paul Martin is out of government and can't redirect some of the $227 billion in budget dollars to the LIEberal friendly personages and captive clientele.

Yep we didn't want a winter election but Canadians are hardier than the Earnscliffer's had imagined.

Remember the wheel coming off the sleigh?

Priceless isn't it?

Now that you mention it, one of the criticisms of the Democratic campaign in the US was that the strategists made money from media buys. It meant there was incentive to overbuy in certain places as well as put ads on the air that werent necessarily right or well timed.

To be clear the fact that there is money in placing the buy shoulldnt be a surprise to anyone. Thats how ad firms make their dough. So would it surprise me if that practice made it north of the border....not sayng it did but it would not be a stretch of the imaginaton to believe that this questionable practice came up here with similar consequences.

Janke plays fast and loose with defamation laws all the time. He regularly passes off rumours as truth and then in subsequent related posts makes assumptions that all he previously wrote was at least partially true. In this way he builds a house of cards.

I don't know whether this particular case crossed the legal line or not, and that will all come out in court I suppose. But in the interests of serving partisan ends and a strong desire to be "break" a great news "scoop", he is all too often all too content to post innuendo and repeating unconfirmed guesses. I've warned him about this a number of times, especially when he has gone after non-politician private citizens who happen to be Liberals.

Liking his conclusions or hoping that they are true doesn't make it less libellous.

I don't care one way or the other. From what I hear, Steve is a decent guy in person despite what he writes on his blog. But I am not in the least bit surprised that someone has finally sued him for defamation.

As I wrote in a short defamation primer some time ago, bloggers are technically publishers and so the very old laws of defamation should be and are equally applicable to bloggers as to anyone else.

Posted by: aa at June 18, 2007 8:47 PM - "You guys called "all liberals" thieves, crooks etc."

aa --We're going to have to sue you for the defamatory comment. Please provide your full name, address, phone, fax, email and SIN, and we'll get the ball rolling.

Thanks, we look forward to your timely response.

Have just Paypalled Steve, wish I had more to give.

Hans, sleds don't have wheels, but you're right.

Keep up the good work Angry, your blog & Kate's give this old geezer hope in the good fight.

Sorry, must have typed in the link incorrectly.

Here it is again: canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2006/02/bloggers-and-defamation-law-short.html

I wouldn't worry about him. Legally, he must evince control of his faculties to be culpable.
Signed
You say LIEBERAL, I say LIABLE

I would tell that turd gobbling liberal moron that I would see him in court.

If you look at any political blog, forum, or even published opinions in the MSM...you will frequently see liberals being assessed as liars, thieves and cheats. Nobody is immune; the conservatives and the NDP get the same treatment.

The judge will throw the lawsuit out.

Ted, I frequently don't agree with your comments, but the defamation page is a nice summary - thank you (see, we can play nice too...:)

I also agree with Ted's summary of Janke.

I always thought that he went a little to far and knew he was doing it prefacing comments with "I'm not sure if it's true but..." and other such outs.

Lately I find him threading into tin foil hat territory as well with some of his endeavours. He might be onto something in some of the campaigns but I find some of the hyperbole lately a tad over the top.

Tat said, I sent him a donation. He's best when he's unearthing liberal corruption instead of being scared into toothpaste capers.

Are we being attacked by revenge of the Loons or revenge of the Goons?
Revenge has a boomerang side, it isn't always sweet.

Done.

He doesn't need any money; if he didn't do anything wrong, he has nothing to worry about, right? That's the typical Conservative response to ANYONE ELSE'S problem with the law, so why is everyone so indignant now?

Screw him. Good luck with the lawsuit.

Let's face it, the Liberals want to nail Janke since he has been a thorn in their side. Remember he is the one who exposed the entire Abotech affair. I believe there is more to the Abotech story than has presently been revealed. Probably another Adscam, a way for Liberals to funnel federal contracting dollars back into their own party. The Herle lawsuit is an easy way for the Liberal party to hit back at Janke and possibly silence him for good.

The message here is simple: "Question us, expose us and we'll destroy you". A common principle for any party solely concerned with acquiring and keeping power.

Rob: "Question us, expose us and we'll destroy you" is eerily true of the Liberals modus operandi, the same as the Despots in tin pot dictatorships.
SCARY stuff.

It will be interesting to see IF the MSM cover this.
anon: I know I should ignore you, but really...'if he didin't do anything wrong....'?
Give your head a shake...if the the Libs are out for his neck, he needs a lawyer. Are they free on your planet?
As far as elections go the lemmings aren't reading blogs, most won't have a clue....they think all is well in La La Land...cuz MSM said so.

Steve Janke: I issued apologies and retractions on two separate occasions, each time as per his instructions. Each time he has responded by continuing legal action anyway.

...and yet...

I believe I have to, because it's not right to be punished economically for telling the truth...Most of all, it would tell the Martin man something important -- namely, that the law shouldn't be used to punish bloggers for simply providing accurate criticism of powerful people.

Here's a tip: either (1) bite the bullet, issue your retraction, and leave out the obstinate rejoinders, or (2) don't issue one at all. Insisting that you did nothing wrong yet apologizing for it anyway only makes your legal defense appear either disingenuous and foolish or both.

Good to see A'dam has set up his own set of standards for blogging. Too bad jason and the rabble rot don't go by your 'rules' A'dam.
Is it steve telling the truth that bothers you, or 'simply providing accurate criticism'?

Big mistake issuing retractions Steve.

OTOH a pig like Herle who can set up the 55555 corp. party funding laundery has more to hide than you do...let him take the case to court where the allegations are explored for fact ( I like the irony of a conservative blogger retaining Kinsella to do this)...let that case get wide media ( and blogoshere) coverage.

Let the public know what a real douchebag Herle is.

http://noncogent.blogspot.com/2005/01/revision.html

I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere. It's solely an intimidation tactic.
Remember the law of unintended consequences. If Angry loses and a precedent is set, the MSM will be subject to a flurry of lawsuits every time they publish or broadcast stretched truths, innuendo, or their sometimes outright lies. It's a can of worms that the "establishment" liberal media won't want opened.

When you turn the light on, the rats scurry into the corners. This suit may well turn on a light.

Personally, I'd love to sue numerous MSM for their lies and attacks against the CF over the years...

Bring it on!

vf: Too bad jason and the rabble rot don't go by your 'rules' A'dam. Is it steve telling the truth that bothers you, or 'simply providing accurate criticism'?

Actually, neither, vf. What does Cherniak or Rabble have to do with this? My comment wasn't about whether Steve did or did not in fact commit libel. I was just pointing out the folly of issuing a retraction, especially one in which Steve himself admits that his original statements "do not have a factual foundation," and then turning around and claiming that he was telling the truth and providing accurate criticism all along.

I thought canadians dumped that dunderhead PAUL MARTIN last year

" If Angry loses and a precedent is set, the MSM will be subject to a flurry of lawsuits every time they publish or broadcast stretched truths, innuendo, or their sometimes outright lies."

Shows how little you know about the goings on in any newspaper's/broadcaster's legal department. They are being sued constantly by people who don't like their stories. Most are nuisance claims by people who didn't want their name seen in a bad light but go away. Most of the remaining go away as soon as an apology or retraction is issued. Of those that proceed, most would end up getting settled some way or another. Like most law suits that are started in any area of law, very few claims end up in court where we, the public, would hear about them.

But Janke hasn't even apologized or retracted, really, since he essentially retracted his retraction by stating he was posting the "truth" and was being punished for "simply providing accurate criticism of powerful people". So he's got a long way to go before we can say for certain there is any chance of a court hearing.

And it's all very well and good for the Liberal haters and baiters here to egg him on, but your neck is not on the line. I personally think Janke has indeed crossed the line and libelled before and have told him so. This is serious business and costly business. If support him, then send him your money. But firing up for a battle will only get him into worse trouble if he listens to the stupidity here. Ask Mark Bourrie who was being sued by Kinsella and how he felt his private dispute was being hijacked by a lot of anti-Kinsella agendae.

If you want to help then send in some cash and STFU.

As posted previously:

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001672.html+55555+Inc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

"MK Braaten;

Previously, Chuck Guite testified that he recalled that he had a telephone conversation with Terrie O'Leary who told him that "Paul would prefer (Earnscliffe)" for advertising contracts. Earnscliffe is an advertising/consulting firm which has very close ties with Paul Martin and was a large supporter in his leadership bid. In return, Earnscliffe's owners David Herle and John Webster, who are also the national Liberal Co-chairs, donated nearly 3 million dollars to the Liberal party through a container company #55555 Inc. In total, Earnscliffe has earned over $6 Million dollars in government contracts under Martin's watch. The question remains is whether Martin deliberately diverted contracts toward Earnscliffe, which is operated by Liberal party members, who then diverted money through #55555 Inc and back to the Liberal party. A phantom company with no previous history turned out to be the largest contributor towards the Liberal party in 2003; this definitely seems odd. Why else would a container company, whose financial statements are not public, donate millions of dollars to the Liberals? Similarly, Groupaction was given millions of dollars in contracts and was used as a container company. Government contract money would be 'washed' through Groupaction before it was illegally returned to the Liberal party disguised as donations. When Martin was running for leadership, Shelia Copps dared Martin to reveal who donated to his leadership campaign. Mr. Martin responded that the money was in a 'blind trust' and he did not know who contributed. Why the secrecy?

Discussion of this numbered company has arisen previously - without doing a lot of surfing around, it seems to me that the explanation given was that it represented the surplus from Paul Martin's leadership campaign."

Thus the question arises: If money laundering was happening under the auspices of ADSCAM where were the other money laundering possibilities such as through polling and consulting?

We recall that the Gomery Commission mandate specifically avoided the polling/consulting connections.

"he was posting the "truth" and was being punished for "simply providing accurate criticism of powerful people".....and their obvious apologists like Mr. "STFU" Ted.
The horse is long out of the barn lieberal toad.

A couple of thoughts:
I read Janke's post (it's not very hard to find if you use the search mechanism on his site) and I think he has a few problems. I believe he may have been misled by Earnscliffe haters and is now paying the price. My advice to him would be to negotiate some kind of settlement as quickly as possible. The Earnscliffe-Kinsella dispute is before the courts and it would be unwise for anyone to get involved in it or somehow drawn in, which is what I think has happened here.
I would like to see precisely what the Earnscliffe-Janke dispute is about. Earnscliffe's statement of claim is a court document and Janke can publish it or distribute it if he wants to (though he may, in the interest of diplomacy, decide to keep it under wraps). By now, anyone in the media with an interest in this story has already gone to the court office (presumably in Ottawa) and retrieved the document, so we may know more in the next couple of days.
Kinsella's trumpeting of Janke's case will do Janke no good in terms of reaching a settlement. As for blogger donations, keep in mind that the typical libel lawyer charges $5000 just to begin a defence. The actual cost of a case that goes to trial is about $200,000, and even if you win "costs", those costs won't cover all that you shell out, let alone your time, the stress on your family and the negative publicity. And I'm not sure Janke would win. Nor am I sure he would lose. The facts of the Earnscliffe-Kinsella fight, and the legality, are far beyond any of us armchair quarterbacks. Best to let Kinsella and Earnscliffe fight it out. It's their dispute. Janke is, I believe, a sideshow for Earnscliffe and I doubt it's in their interest to keep at him.

It will be great to see Janke on the stand under oath answering the question:

Who is your source for the allegations? Where did you get the info to support these allegations? Who tipped you off?

Given the context, who do you think Janke's source was Mark?

Frank Magazine published the details of the lawsuit back in May.

"Given the context, who do you think Janke's source was Mark?"

Who knows? Who could possibly know?

On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone know how many arch-rightie bloggers have shown up on the short general blogroll of an arch-leftie blogger? And why? Just wonderin'.

Wrong link. Trying again.

Who could possibly know?

Yeah, I'm not moved by Janke's appeal or his 'retrations.' The fact that he doesn't mention the person who he's libeling in this case by name also doesn't matter. We all know who he's talking about.

His retractions have been narrow and glib. From Janke's writings, we are always left with the impression that the person in question is a crook, which is the real matter.

Until he posts a real apology and ceases his tortious behavior, I don't fault anyone from persuing their legal recourse. The fact that Janke is poor doesn't change the outcome of his comments.

And if David Herle had a blog it would be better than Steve Janke's. Unfortunately for all of us, David is busy with bigger things.