|
So the police came out to speak with me again... (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceOwnsLol |
@Moral Hazard
I suggest you get a Taser C2
 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
defamation is a tort they are not two separarate things. |
No way!
This is defamation =
This is delicious egg tort =
 |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
My sister has already suffered monetary losses, and I've suffered emotional and time losses, potentially in part to an attempt to create public hysteria over this. Including slanderous and false statements. |
firstly, your sister's long distance phone call is not reasonably foreseeable, nor is it related at all to your alleged copyright infringement.
unlike the US, emotional damages are extremely rare in Canada. Furthermore, your argument of lost time is kind of pointless since you leach off the public coffers to begin with....
There is a difference between libel and slander. and unless you can prove malicious intent, the truth factor will always trump libel or slander.
| quote: | | Courts make ruling on a case by case basis, I am neither hill nor the church of scientology |
again, your ignorance of our legal system is astounding.
have you ever heard of a word called precedence? If it is proven that the facts in a case are similar to those of a previous case, then decisions can be infered (and usually are) in order of precedence. the only way to over turn a decision based on precedence is to take the case to a higher court. in your case, hill v church of scientology of toronto was a supreme court decision and cannot be overturned unless its by the supreme court. and since that particular case dealt with defamation of the church incured from online statements, your case essentially is the same.
Internets 1 - ******** 0
Internets win again! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Provide you name and address to me via email. It is an unfortunate situation if you take the recourse of anonymous posting. |
Service is kind of your responsibility. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
That is a false statement, lawyers are only required when sueing corporations in Ontario. |
technically they aren't ever required, unless you want to win something...... in which case it pays to have a lawyer. and in your case, since it would require the supreme court to overturn a decision, you really want a lawyer, and a damn good one. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Your knowledge of the Canadian legal system is lacking, you are unfortuantely not in support of the Monarchy. The supreme court and superior courts are in sitting representative of the Queen, the Queen has the power to strike.
|
Cite one specific occurrence of royal interference in our legal system within the last century....
everyone watch this.......
William Ashley you ARE an idiot (i also yelled it out loud while i typed)
but its neither libel nor slander since its 100% the truth. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| Damn this has been fun. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Damn this has been fun. |
oh its been a slice!
i kinda hope he tries to sue one of us by self representation.... i'm pretty sure i could get a 3 yr old to argue my case in court |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
That is technically false. Ontario has statutes requiring that a lawyer be required when sueing a corporation. |
No, it's technically true...
[QUOTE] Rules of Civil Proceedure R.R.O. 1990
15.01 (1) A party to a proceeding who is under disability or acts in a representative capacity shall be represented by a lawyer. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 15.01 (1); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.
(2) A party to a proceeding that is a corporation shall be represented by a lawyer, except with leave of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 15.01 (2); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.
(3) Any other party to a proceeding may act in person or be represented by a lawyer. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 15.01 (3); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.
[QUOTE]
it is the corporation that must be represented by a lawyer. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
oh its been a slice!
i kinda hope he tries to sue one of us by self representation.... i'm pretty sure i could get a 3 yr old to argue my case in court |
It will probably be me when I use his material for commercial, profit making purposes. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
Absolutely awesome! :stongue: |
|
|
|
|
