babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
RackNine sues Pat Martin and NDP for $5 million
March 3, 2012 - 1:17am
*
Ha.
Well, if you're going to go American-style, I guess you have nothing to lose by going all the way.
Except they might find it a little bit harder to control their information once they have dragged it into court.
CBC.ca:
Pat Martin's response?
Will it work?
I'd guess this is one of those "Harper not thinking things through before trying to smash his enemies" moves, as opposed to "Harper in control of everything" moves.
After all, if he can't even keep the names of companies straight, he might want to sit back and think about things a bit.
But fortunately, he isn't. I think in the long run, this kind of vindictive nuttiness is all good because it just might come back on them this time.
I really can't imagine Rack Nine wants all it's executives deposed, I doubt this is anything other than a press release lawsuit.
So, my question: Will it work?
My guess is that this is Rack Nine acting totally on their own- but Harper will get the blowback.
The NDP has to take this seriously. But I wouldn't rate the chances more than longshot this could be a serious threat. Since RackNine has little repuation to lose in court, but the government has lots.... I'd say the chances are high that the bright lights in Edmonton have gotten their calls already from the PMO asking them if they want to stay in business and/or without holding huge debts for a business dropped off the edge.
Calls for popcorn.
But thats just a guess.
Which is just innuendo, you know.
Ok, I'll try again:
Will Pat Martin stop talking about RackNine?
And the rest of the NDP caucus?
I'm taking predictions, wagers, etc.
ETA: Here was Martin's last tweet, at 3:19 pm, mentioning RackNine - from the media reports, it looks as if he was served later in the afternoon.
Will there be any more?
I would think they will take something of a pause while they evaluate, talk to lawyers.
Maybe that would take longer than I think, especially without strong leadership.
But really, my guess is that this will be rated a paper tiger... in part because the people suing them- let alone the Cons in the background- will have to take such a beating to keep up what only has a small chance of winning.
There would no doubt be some rough risk calculation. And there is a tangible cost to shutting up.
Also I believe anything they say in the House would be immune from such a suit, no?
This is a nice photo of Matt Meier admeiering his cheque from the Harper Govt of Cananada republic. It's always good to have friends in low places.
I wonder if Racknine is going to make a chalenge under NAFTA Chapter 11 over loss income due to their portrayal in the media!
Pat Martin doesn't strike me as an MP who scares easily. (Proud)
Some lawyers here could venture into this much....
But isnt the initial serving with a libel suit pretty cheap- both in dollars and in non-commitment to going through with it?
In other words, is there any more threat to this than the pro-forma threatening letter from the lawyers? ["Take note that we may be suing you."]
And since the point is to shut you up and make the bad PR go away, its a tricky place for the plaintiffs.... since in cases like this the suit itself causes them more grief in the media.
I was once part of a discussion about how seriously to take a threat.... and these were the kind of things we tossed around. But I dont know how comparable different situations are. The laws are the same, but is the de facto dynamic that similar?
Like Pat Martin, former NDP MP David Orlikow was from Winnipeg - all he did was successfully sue the CIA!
I wouldn't be so sure that Harper didn't sign off on this action. There is no way of knowing for sure, of course, but after reading about the PMO's standard control over every public event, I can't imagine that this suit would have been launched if he had wanted it to NOT happen.
As for whether they will shut up, I doubt it but who knows? If they do, they should probably find another line of work.
Whatever the NDP do, it's not going to shut Bob Rae up, or the press, and this seems to be reaching the point where it has a life of its own.
No - Harper would know better than to sue Pat Martin - it would be a bit like waving a red flag at a bull fight. Pat Martin is now even more convinced that Racknine is dirty because they are suing.
Dirty, yes. But with whose dirty work?
And I am sure they would like to have more contracts in the future.
I don't see this as much different than those "rogue" MPs bringing up the abortion issue or marriage equality even though Harper says they are not on the table. Of course he's not getting his hands dirty, but does he not want it to happen?
I have a hard time believing the company who was paid to do this would take such a step if it was something their master REALLY didn't want.
If the company is linked to the greatest election fraud in the history of the country ..being called hillbillys is just the beginning ..the owner and Harper both will be cleaning shitters in sing sing prison...Sing Sing because they will be run out of the country....Didn't the mr poutine phone have links to that rack 9? That's all he has to do is wave the newspaper in the court packed with all the facts..."See look" dangle dangle here you'll need this where yer going and throw it at them.
Pat Martin is doing his job as a politician and elected official ..he isn't supposed to walk on egg shells while his country goes down the gutter ..and he should stand his ground and any company that gets in the way should be treated accordingly...especially with crooked criminal conservative ties...wait till the american companies are exposed..late breaking story ..for all we know they are real hillbillys not like the wannabes in Alberta
Drag it in the courts just like exxon does....in 20 years we'll see who has more money..Canadians should sue the conservative party of canada for selling us a defective product and make them pay every single Canadian 5 million $$$$.in damages!
Now there is an election promise even cons will turn for..might even get everyone out to vote.
"Rascals", "punks", and "hillbilies" might be mean, but I don't think they can be the subject of a lawsuit. Otherwise I'd be suing every shittalking motherfucker on this website. I'm not sure if they'd shut down twitter or parliament first. It's so frivilous that it might not even get off the ground.
Defamation/libel/slander only really applies to statements of intended fact. And that's going to go right to the heart of the real issue: was there election fraud taking place? That's a fight we should be itching to have, because truth is always a defense to libel. That means that if it goes forward, the NDP is going to have a lot of fun discovering RackNine's documents.
I'm no expert though. Just a real basic analysis.
Even without any legal knowledge, it reeks of the conservative philosophy of "the best defense is good offense". They might be right -- the cons might play the victim act well enough that the average voter gets confused and blames all the parties. But I have faith that they're wrong, and that they're now digging an even deeper grave.
I can only hope.
I think Pat Martin has said that some of his fellow MP's are willing to chip in to help with his legal defense fund should it become necessary.
I might even be willing to make a contribution myself since I admire him for being a straight shooter who always calls it like it is and is usually on the side of justice.
I would never do the same thing for say, Thomas Mulcair, a blatant political opportunist, but Pat Martin is one of the good guys and deserves the support of people across party-lines.
I second that!
Kudos to Pat Martin for showing leadership on this issue. At the moment, he is the de facto face of the New Democrats.
Despite my guesses the other way, I can see Harper behind this. If so, its more reason for the NDP to think about it before going ahead as unchecked as before.
Even if you keep an eye to protecting yourself, continuing to criticise does not directly bear on previous speech you are being charged over.
Keep in mind that bringing defamation suits is often just a stunt to make it look like there is substance to your defence. They'd do that even if only the base gave it any credibility. A lot of the base needs to be able to really think it is not true.
From CBC:
But documents show 14 Conservative campaigns enlisted the telephone services of an Ohio company called Front Porch Strategies.
During the election, the company made thousands of calls into each of those Canadian ridings from its headquarters in Columbus.
In fact, Del Mastro's own campaign used the American firm twice during his successful bid for re-election last year.
Here's an opinion I found about this matter:
The case is clearly a SLAPP: Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation
1. They can't sue for statements of opinion
2. Unless they can specifically prove that these specific comments resulted in the loss of funds the case holds no weight. They have to reasonably prove the fiscal damages.
3. They just gave the NDP the right to cease all their business documents
4. It will cost them $1000+ for every day in court, $250+ for legal prep time. If they don't prove their case, they can be held responsible to cover costs of the guy they sue.
In my view it's a SLAPP. Not good. Better to address issues raised by the MP, review their corporate practices and make sure these sorts of issues don't happen again instead of trying to play hardball on a case they can't reasonably win.
Honestly, I couldn't understand why people were saying stuff about RackNine anyhow. There is no evidence that they were involved in the fraud. After hearing about the completely automated process for putting your calls out using their service, I couldn't figure out why Martin was making comments about RackNine at all instead of focusing solely on the Cons. It would be like trying to blame GoDaddy.com if someone set up a website sending out misleading information and registered the domain and did the hosting through them.
And I'm saying this as someone who, yet again, had to love Pat Martin for five minutes when I heard his fantastic, punchy comments about the whole incident. I cheered, but at the same time, I wondered why he bothered talking about RackNine, when they seem to be completely cooperating with the investigation, to the point of giving out the phone numbers that were used to set up the automated calls.
Debater, with Canadian libel laws, my understanding is that, yes, you can sue someone for expressing their "opinion" about you publicly, if that "opinion" is defamatory and causes you a loss of some kind.
If you read the statement of claim you will see a lot of stuff that might get tossed right out the window.
Apparently, and according to the claim, the NDP simply pointing out that calls had been traced back to Racknine constitutes libel
Check out 15 a, b for an example:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83557190/Filed-Statement-of-Claim-Action-No-1203-03498-3-2-12-E6148218
In another part, pointing out that some expenses to Racknine are redacted is supposed to be libel, pointing out they mostly work with Conservatives is libel, pointing out that they worked with Harper in his riding is libel.
You're right, Debater, I'm commenting without even having read the Statement of Claim. :) I'll go read it now. I was going by the stuff mentioned in an article posted about, such as the "RackNine Rascals" remarks and such. I couldn't understand at the time I heard them (and in the midst of my own cheering since he was saying other stuff I completely agreed with) why he would bother with RackNine.
And it's funny, even though Martin was making his comments outside the House, the Harpocons haven't dared to SLAPP him with libel over his comments about them. Doesn't surprise me. Makes me wonder if they're the ones who can't afford the disclosures they'll have to make in court if they do.
So, looking through the Statement of Claim now, and at the bulleted (by letter) statements that they considered to be defamatory:
I think this quote (which I cheered at the time) is clearly talking about whomever planned and set up the automated calls. He's not specifically referring to RackNine here.
Martin is clearly talking about the person who set up the calls here, and the "black ops operation" is referring to the people who planned it and doesn't mention RackNine.
That was dumb. Catchy, but dumb, considering that it was not the service that was under investigation but the people who used it, especially since the company was cooperating with the investigation.
I remember when listening to this interview with radiorahim, I laughed the first time he said "RackNine rascals". The second time he said it, I smirked and said to rr that clearly this is a phrase that he (or his speechwriter) really wants to catch on. Well, it did...unfortunately for him.
Anyhow, this comment was also a dumb thing to say outside the House. There is no proof whatsoever that RackNine was involved in the scheme, and speculating or implying that it was is unfair at this point. Is it defamatory? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I would feel defamed by such a comment if I were targeted by it and I wasn't involved.
Then why are you calling them rascals? Why are you calling them young punks?
He seems to be associating RackNine with the illegal activity without proof.
Not a defamatory statement in itself, but put together with the rest of the statement where he talks about "RackNine rascals" and calls them "young punks", and allegations of illegal activity, I think it's clear that he's insinuating that Matt Meier and his company was knowingly involved in illegal activity.
And his comments to Evan Solomon later in the statement of claim, saying that he thinks that RackNine is involved and will be "this Conservative Government's Groupaction" is also clearly accusing the organization of colluding in this matter, and he mentions Meier by name in that interview.
Risky if you don't know for sure they were involved. You can't just go around claiming in the media that someone was involved in criminal activity. Or, you can, I guess, but if you do, then you better be able to back it up when they sue you for libel.
Should be interesting to see how this turns out.
Thanks for the sober attempt to actually figure out what's going on, Michelle.
My opinion about Pat Martin (loudmouth pro-imperialist-war, rabidly pro-Zionist, viscerally anti-Québec - just ask if you don't recall the evidence) is no secret in these parts. I also think I understand the thrill he generates in a partisan room.
He's not that bright. That's why he went after RackNine. He thought it made good sound bites. He must have thought that while waiting for solid evidence about Harper's involvement, he might as well go after the ones everyone "knows" is guilty.
I ask myself a simple question. After reading Martin's comments, do reasonable people come away with a strong conviction that RackNine has just been accused of extremely serious unlawful activities - by someone acting in a malicious way or with reckless disregard for the truth? I'm not a lawyer either, but that's my test.
Martin is a fool. Even when he gets it right, he can make you think it's wrong. I don't know whether the NDP will physically muzzle him, but it wouldn't sadden my heart.
So sorry to be out of step with the general applause.
Didn't they already serve that letter - and wasn't Martin already working on his apology letter - when he got served with the actual court documents? That's what the media report seemed to say.