Xianthrippe – wrongly spelt and linked when I am a real keyboard describes the miscarriage of justice which is John “Dr. Dawg’s” endless defamation suit against Connie and Mark Fournier. I commented
Thank you again for covering this travesty.
Connie and Mark and Roger are being put through an expensive wringer by a man who knows better. Unlike Warman, Baglow is misguided rather than actively evil. As you report, he knows shame and is feeling it as this farce goes on. People who, normally, he would respect are lined up with the Fourniers. Even if, as unlikely as it is, he wins his win will simply skiffle the conversation of the internet. He will silence his critics and, eventually, his critics will use his precedent to silence him.
How sad. I was chatting to Connie a day ago and talked about a bar I used to go to where lefty academics fought tooth and nail with right millionaires. It got hot. Insults were exchanged. People said things which, in the sober light of day, they might have phrased differently. No lawsuits. Brass rail rule.
Several years ago I offered my good offices to settle this silly dispute. Connie and Mark were up for it. John was not. Which has meant huge legal fees for both sides over a remark which would be a commonplace in any Legion or pub in the country. Which John knows. After all, he repeated his so called defamation using his sock puppet Miss Mew. Which he also knows.
If Baglow wins it is pretty much the end of free discussion on the net in Canada. Which he also knows.
I know John well enough to know that that outcome is not what he wants or intends. We disagree about politics but we don’t about free speech.
He needs to drop this case now just on the off chance that he might win.
Jay Currie 
Jay re:
Baglow is misguided rather than actively evil. As you [Xanthippa] report, he knows shame and is feeling it as this farce goes on.
Baglow shares with Warman a general disdain for comments posted to FreeDominion, and both have targeted Peter O’Donnell commentaries for legal litigation.
I don’t think either fellow has any shame for their actions against Connie and Mark Fournier, over long duration.
People who would normally go along to get along with DrDawg have shown a reluctance to go along with John Baglow v. Smith.
He needs to drop this case now just on the off chance that he might win.
Baglow has to lose, and be chastized by the Court for bringing a frivolous action.
Baglow v. Smith is Canada’s mini-Mann v Steyn
http://debatenotdefame.blogspot.ca/2012/06/open-thread.html
“I have never “supported Khadr,” except insofar as his rights as a
citizen and a human being are concerned.
To suggest by extension that I also subscribe to his Islamism…well, you know better than that.
If we pursue that logic, you’re a Nazi.
We’ve been through that before. I recall dudgeon, high and low, being expressed by you and other Speech Warriors on that very matter.”
Therein lies the tragedy of ‘Baglow v. Smith’.
The Plaintiff knows better than to bring one of his online flame wars into Court.
In Baglow v. Smith, one ‘likely’ outcome is that sordid abuse of a newly-born female kitty by a full-blown pussy parading as a junkyard dawg will be seen by the iCourt as more rabid than rational.
Thank you, Jay, for your kind words.
The trial is ended, the verdict awaits…
“When we were preparing our defence in this case, back in the spring of 2011, we were making copies of posts on Dr. Dawg’s Blawg to use as exhibits in the trial. Suddenly, all of the comments on the entire blog disappeared. Our lawyer wrote to John Baglow’s lawyer and told him that the comments were digital evidence and they needed to be preserved, but they never put them back up and they never gave an explanation as to why they disappeared.
Because a lot of this was technical and I am a computer programmer, I chose to represent myself so that I could cross-examine John Baglow and his tech guy James Bow about what happened to the evidence that disappeared. I filed my “Notice of Intent to Defend” on the first day of trial.
I went though hours of technical evidence with both James Bow and John Baglow and, after insisting for years that the comments had disappeared months earlier in a site move, James Bow finally admitted that what he had told [as] the truth in an affidavit was “misremembering”.
While this case is obviously very important for the issue of defamation on the internet, it has also turned into what might be a leading case on the spoliation of digital evidence.“
Do you have a link for that?
I am disappointed in James if what you are quoting is accurate. Again, one of the better people in the blogosphere. Misremembering on oath is not a good idea.
I am not sure what the significance of this case is going to be: Dawg’s lawyer wants the strict liability of Ontario defamation law to work mechanically and punish the Fourniers.
The judge has the opportunity to consider what the Chief Justice of Canada had to say about balancing strict liability with freedom of expression and the goals which are embodied in the Charter.
As to the evidence itself – its disappearance is unfortunate but likely not done with any intent to deceive the Court. Such things happen. My own blog for the period in question is in the great pixel dump in the sky not that I was under any obligation to produce it. But it is a real issue if the affidavits were filed with even a hint of deception.
It should be an interesting decision.
Baglow Court report
Unfortunately, and as a result of another defamation case, the list of people able to access FreeDominion is restricted to those the hosts consider trustworthy.
People such as yourself.
Jay was touched by ‘Baglow v. Smith’, and has hosted the online opinions of all parties to ‘Baglow v. Smith’.
Jay is an ixpert witness to the shenanigans which led to the feature flimflam ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Ottawa”
link:
Maikeru wrote