RackNine sues Pat Martin and NDP for $5 million

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
RackNine sues Pat Martin and NDP for $5 million

*

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2012/03/02/pol-racknine-sue...

Quote:

RackNine Inc. and its chief executive officer Matt Meier have followed through on an earlier threat and served NDP MP Pat Martin and his party with a $5-million lawsuit Friday.

The Edmonton-based call centre company that is part of the ongoing election calls controversy is suing for defamation, claiming that multiple comments made by Martin, and published by the NDP on its website, demonstrated malice and caused the company to lose business. [...]

"Martin's words were defamatory, and, in the very least, carried the innuendo that Meier and/or RackNine had committed criminal activity, fraudulent activity, participated in a conspiracy, intimidation, sabotage and/or deceit," the claim says.

"RackNine rascals," "young punks," and "Edmonton hillbillies" were some of the terms Martin used in relation to the company.

Pat Martin's response?

Quote:

Martin told CBC he is "disappointed" that RackNine would "pull the trigger before they'd even seen the response to their original complaint."

"Classic libel-chill slap-suit tactic I guess. How to silence someone with your chequebook," Martin wrote in an email.

Will it work?

 

6079_Smith_W

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.

6079_Smith_W

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.

 

 

 

DSloth

I really can't imagine Rack Nine wants all it's executives deposed, I doubt this is anything other than a press release lawsuit.

Unionist

So, my question: Will it work?

 

KenS

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.

KenS

But thats just a guess.

Which is just innuendo, you know. Wink

Unionist

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: [url=https://twitter.com/#!/PatMartinMP/status/175676704965144576]Here[/url] 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?

 

KenS

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.

DSloth

Also I believe anything they say in the House would be immune from such a suit, no?

Fidel

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.

vaudree

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)

KenS

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?

vaudree

Like Pat Martin, former NDP MP David Orlikow was from Winnipeg - all he did was successfully sue the CIA!

 

6079_Smith_W

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.

 

 

vaudree

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.

6079_Smith_W

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.

 

 

Buddy Kat

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!Cool  Now there is an election promise even cons will turn for..might even get everyone out to vote.

socialdemocrati...

"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.

Debater

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.

vaudree

Debater wrote:

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 second that!

autoworker autoworker's picture

Kudos to Pat Martin for showing leadership on this issue. At the moment, he is the de facto face of the New Democrats.

KenS

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.

Debater

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.

Debater

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.

Michelle

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.

Debater

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.

Michelle

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:

Quote:

a. "Elections Canada stated that these phony phone calls deliberately disrupted the voting process.  Now how was this different from a bunch of goons with clubs blocking the door to a voter station as we have seen in third world countries or the deep south of the United States?  'Cause the net effect is the same.  You are sabotaging the ability of people to exercise their democratic right to cast their ballot in a federal election.  In my view there can be no more serious crime..."

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.

Quote:

b. "My father didn't go to war to fight for democracy only to have some sleazy punk in an American-style black ops department run roughshod over it and undermine its integrity."

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.

Quote:

c.  ...and now the hundreds of thousands of phony phone calls by the RackNine rascals..."

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. 

Quote:

"I predict that RackNine will become the Conservative Party's Groupaction, and I predict that we will find that the sheer magnitude and audacity of the RackNine Rascals will be enough to make Richard Nixon blush."

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.

Quote:

"So who are the masterminds of the RackNine rascals' robocalls of deceit into NDP held swing ridings?  Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy to defraud the electoral system and initiate hundreds of thousands of phone calls into NDP swing ridings."

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.

Quote:

"What is the full nature and extent of the relationship between the Conservative's central campaign and the RackNine Inc. of Matt Meier?"

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.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

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."]

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.

 

Fidel

The Harpers should fix health care not elections.

I always thought we are living in a banana republic. This confirms it.

DAY-O!

Unionist

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.

 

Hoodeet

Debater wrote:

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

...

Hoodeet (JW)

Thanks for that.  I was just about to look up SLAPP suits. 

BTW:  I think you meant "seize the documents" not "cease".

Unionist

I don't think it's a SLAPP suit at all. A SLAPP suit, although it's a loose term, is designed to stop someone speaking out against wrongdoing, abuse of authority, etc., by pitting a strong well-financed target against an accuser who can be silenced just by the time and money required to defend themselves.

Pat Martin should just apologize about any allegations he made about RackNine. Even talking about RackNine in the context of exposing the rotten nature of these electoral crimes is a total diversion, which he did only for sound bites and to hear himself rant. I don't know why he was allowed to continue after the initial warning anyway. From the documents:

Quote:
The Defendants could have opted to comment on the 2011 Canadian federal general election telephone incident without direct, intentional and/or reckless allegation and innuendo against RackNine and Meier personally. Said conduct of the Defendants, or either of them, demonstrate malice towards the Plaintiffs directly and entitle the Plaintiffs to punitive damages.

Over the years, we here on babble have been collectively much more careful than the loudmouth Pat Martin when it comes to not making defamatory allegations against individuals, companies, etc.

 

Fidel

It's too bad that Canadian voters will tend to want to punish the Harpers at the polls in 2015 for this misunderstanding with election rigging. It's all about appearances. Politics can be a dirty game at times. I feel really badly for Steve and the entire colonial administrativeship. They didn't deserve this. I'm sure Racknine are just innocent bystanders to it all. How could Matt Meier and Rackneiners possibly know that a lone fraudster was using their services to break federal laws and rigging the election? 

Buddy Kat

Fidel wrote:

How could Matt Meier and Rackneiners possibly know that a lone fraudster was using their services to break federal laws and rigging the election? 

Actually they would probably have greater success sueing the CPC ......all they would have to show is how the CPC used them for illegal activity's , that eventually led to their business being ruined and as a result  associated with comments that were warranted due to the nature of the crimes and the people who said them. That would be easy to prove as the cons rigged the election using there equipment and services.

 

The judge will look and say the ring leader was the CPC and therefore the REAL guilty party....have at it rack 9 ..that would be something even a jury would support....everyone for that matter...the evidence is there and the circumstantial evidence shows who the benafactor of the crimes are , and it's pretty open and shut...however the evidence is growing by the day on the tactics of the CPC ..the lies and deciet would make any testimiony they give to the contrary questiionable and very unreliable to say the least..there credibility is garbage .  

Pursuing the Pat M. lawsuit makes rack 9 look like they are in partnership with the CPC..the party of criminal activity and election rigging, wrecking there credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-QvXax88J8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eQgUpkJ1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8LD5Q8ecc

 

Brachina

I noticed Pat Martin said I predict alot, and that gets him out of the hot water, because he didn't make the statement out as a fact, he made as a guess or prediction. This saves his ass the way FOX news does. Allegations have come forward *cue bullshit*, word has it •cue bullshit*, a source says *cue bullshit* it how they and other news agencies can say what ever bs they want to.

Unionist

"I predict historians will see my neighbour John Doe as the greatest serial killer since Clifford Olsen." Great legal strategy, eh? Makes me immune from a lawsuit.

That Pat Martin, he's a tactical genius - always calculates the consequences before he says a word publicly.

 

 

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

"I predict historians will see my neighbour John Doe as the greatest serial killer since Clifford Olsen." Great legal strategy, eh? Makes me immune from a lawsuit.

That Pat Martin, he's a tactical genius - always calculates the consequences before he says a word publicly.

 

 

Our enemies in the mediz use this tactic all,the time, why can we?

Brachina

Here the beauty/horror of it, its the attack people will remember, not source or the adendums, but thw attack.

So if I had a national news paper and ran the headline senior dipper official suggests Tories plan to sell Alberta to North Korea, six months later what they'd remember is oh the, tories plan to sell Alberta to North Korea, but the extra bullshit protects the paper legal and socially.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
Unionist wrote:

"I predict historians will see my neighbour John Doe as the greatest serial killer since Clifford Olsen." Great legal strategy, eh? Makes me immune from a lawsuit.

That Pat Martin, he's a tactical genius - always calculates the consequences before he says a word publicly.

 

 

Our enemies in the mediz use this tactic all,the time, why can we?

Here's one question: Why do we want to attack RackNine?

 

Howard

Unionist wrote:

So, my question: Will it work?

I could see the Liberals pulling their punches, but the NDP is used to getting sued.

socialdemocrati...

I can see how some of Pat Martin's statements could be a little too bold to be 100% safe. Doesn't mean we'd lose, but the legal battle could be drawn out enough that it makes Conservatives look potentially innocent. And when the case is finally settled out of court, no one cares, except the base who believes what they want to believe.

voice of the damned

Our enemies in the mediz use this tactic all,the time, why can we?

Well, I think it depends who you direct your comments at. IANAL, but if Ezra Levant says "Environmentalists are a bunch of moose-humping tree-spikers", he's probably on safe legal ground, because "environmentalists" are not a discrete, identifiable group of people.

Whereas if he says "Greenpeace directors are a bunch of moose-humping tree-spikers", he might have some legal problems. Because he's accusing, pretty much by name, a specific group of individuals of commiting crime.

Rack Nine, I would think, is more comparable to "Greenpeace directors" than to "environmentalists". Now having said that, going by the quoted comments on this thread, I'm not quite seeing where Martin would be commiting libel. Okay, "Edmonton hillbillies" might not be the smartest thing to say, if the NDP is looking to build on whatever support it currently enjoys in Edmonton(and probably wouldn't  play so well to an Edmonton jury), but I don't really see how it's anything more than a typical regionalist insult. Maybe "rascals" and "punks" are thought to imply criminality? Or Racknine's lawyers are just shooting in the dark, hoping to hit anything they can.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:
Now having said that, going by the quoted comments on this thread, I'm not quite seeing where Martin would be commiting libel.

Just take these for example:

Pat Martin wrote:
"...hundreds of thousands of phony phone calls by the RackNine rascals..."

or this:

Pat Martin wrote:
"So who are the masterminds of the RackNine rascals' robocalls of deceit into NDP held swing ridings?  Surely these young punks didn't unilaterally construct this massive conspiracy to defraud the electoral system and initiate hundreds of thousands of phone calls into NDP swing ridings."

These are statements of fact, alleging wrongdoing on RackNine's part - criminal wrongdoing, actually. How is that not defamatory?

 

 

voice of the damned

These are statements of fact, alleging wrongdoing on RackNine's part - criminal wrongdoing, actually. How is that not defamatory?

 Well, as far as "defraud" goes, he said "defraud the electoral system", which I would take as metaphorical. I don't think you can "defraud" an electoral system the way you can defraud, say, a bank or a person.

But what if he had just said "the phone calls were meant to mislead voters"(which is what I assume he meant)? Isn't it already being reported in the papers that misleading phone calls were made? From a Globe And Mail article...

 

Automated phone messages had fanned the Southern Ontario city earlier in the day, erroneously telling residents their polling station had changed. Hundreds of voters fell for the hoax

 

Or is the issue here that Martin was accusing Racknine of being involved, when in fact Racknine's involvement remains unproven(rather than the nature of the accusations themselves)?

 

voice of the damned

And just doing some research on Racknine, I came upon this from the National Post...

Elections Canada has traced fraudulent phone calls made during the federal election to an Edmonton voice-broadcast company that worked for the Conservative Party across the country.

So, they're calling the phone-calls "fraudulent", and saying they've been "traced to" Racknine. Minus the insults, this seems to be pretty much what Martin said.

Brachina

Howard wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So, my question: Will it work?

I could see the Liberals pulling their punches, but the NDP is used to getting sued.

This is news to me, how often does the NDP get sued?

6079_Smith_W

Well they ARE involved.

It doesn't necessarily mean it was their scheme, but they were contracted, and DID make the calls, and there is probably a decent argument that they are at least as culpable as a website, a printer or publisher for things that may have been done by someone else using their services. 

Martin's use of the word "unilaterally" might be taken as an accusation that they were in on the planning, but whether that can be proven or not, they did make the phone calls. 

Even though NOT doing something is not a proof of guilt. It begs the question of why they did not get suspicious and report it, the way some call centre operators have. 

Gary Shaul Gary Shaul's picture

Here are a few questions that should be asked. Presumably, Elections Canada, the CRTC and the RCMP understand this and are asking them. Having engaged in robocalling during the election for the Catch 22 campaign (1.2 million calls from my kitchen table), I gained some insights into all aspects of the process. We were clearly and firmly informed about the Elections Canada and CRTC rules by our service provider. We were informed about potential liability for breaking the rules and that the service provider might also face potential liability were we to abuse the system - e.g. calling "off-hours" or not identifying ourselves. We were also monitored by our service provider to help avoid human error (e.g. time zone differences).

  1. How did the fraudsters specifically target opposition voters in order to misdirect them on e-day - i.e. where did the callers get their numbers from?  They may have very well compiled the numbers based on previous robocalls where they solicited voter intention. If Racknine was used to gather voter intention data, Racknine would have log records of all calls made and the results of the calls - i.e. a copy of the lists.The Cons also maintain a national database which is fed from a number of sources. If the fraudsters didn't get the numbers from Racknine, another robocalling service provider or the central Con campaign, where did the numberse come from? For me, this is the central question that could implicate the Conservative Party or its operatives or rogues.
  2. If Racknine or another robocall service provider was involved in voter intention calls, who actually managed that first round of calls to build the lists? The local campaigns? The central campaign? From where? Did Racknine or other providers just hand over total control. Does their robocalling product have a "user interface" for non-professionals? Did the Conservatives hire a person or people to manage all aspects of the "legitimate" calling (call design, scripts, reporting, scheduling, etc)? Was this done by volunteers? What kind of advice did Racknine or other providers give?
  3. Did the same people who put the lists together manage the e-day calling? If not, how did they get the numbers? Don't get distracted by whether or not the service providers were based in Canada or not. That is a red herring.
  4. Who had access to the detailed results of any voter intention exercise? Were the results centralized or held at the riding campaign level? Were they provided to a Third Party? If so, was the Third Party registered and audited by Elections Canada? (they would have to be if they spent more than $5,000). If it wasn't a Third Party, then it would have to be the Conservatives - rogue or not because they were the beneficiaries.
  5. Racknine must have been aware that its servers were being used on E-day. While clients can legitimately call voters to remind them that it's voting day, they can't "advertise" for or against any candidate or party. Does Racknine do due diligence to inform their clients about these limitations? How much traffic was on their system on E-day? How much of it was not related to the fraudulent calls? Was traffic higher or lower than a "typical" e-day? Also, some of the fraud calls were made before e-day.
  6. Where are the log reports of the E-day (or pre-E-day) misdirection calls? These records should show which numbers were called, how many people answered the phone and how long they stayed on the line. This would be vital information if there are any challenges to the results if the number of completed calls was greater than the margin of victory. Racknine would have access to that information for Guelph which has been tied to their servers through Pierre Poutine. I would imagine that Elections Canada got a hold of it in their investigation but wouldn't take anything for granted.

vaudree

Re muzzle: If they were going to, they would not have given him a twitter account.

We are not talking about some person on a phone, a robo-call has to be approved. A company has the right and obligation to approve (or reject) a particular robo-call - which is why you don't get robo-calls to Jewish areas praising the policies of Adolf Hitler. If the company was not accountable for the content of their robo-calls, then hate groups would have a field day!

Ok, Racknine may not have any idea whether a voting station has been changed or not (and no interest in checking to be sure it has), but there is also the issue of impersonating Elections Canada.

Sure Charlie Angus may have been able to handle it better but he has been run ragged!

Like him or hate him, Pat Martin always comes off as guenuine and honest - sometimes too honest - but no one questions that he doesn't mean exactly what he says.

Suing will backfire because it will keep the story in the media longer.

You do have to admit the "fixing health care not elections" part was golden!

Fidel wrote:
It's too bad that Canadian voters will tend to want to punish the Harpers at the polls in 2015 for this misunderstanding with election rigging. It's all about appearances. Politics can be a dirty game at times. I feel really badly for Steve and the entire colonial administrativeship. They didn't deserve this. I'm sure Racknine are just innocent bystanders to it all. How could Matt Meier and Rackneiners possibly know that a lone fraudster was using their services to break federal laws and rigging the election?

Smile. Smear campaign - Schmiergelder

Buddy Kat wrote:
Actually they would probably have greater success sueing the CPC ......all they would have to show is how the CPC used them for illegal activity's , that eventually led to their business being ruined ...
Pursuing the Pat M. lawsuit makes rack 9 look like they are in partnership with the CPC..the party of criminal activity and election rigging, wrecking there credibility.

You've got a point - they would be better off suing the Tories if they wanted to show that they had no part of it - that the Tories duped them too.

The Tories actually did quote Sargent Schultz a few years back when Cretien was still in.

Question: If one is in a coma, can one have a living will for voting by proxy during an election?

With all the chemicals, the young are probably just as senile. Think of all the Axe and Tag they get duped into using. Think that a few innocents are getting dissed in your videos.

voice of the damned wrote:
(presumably quoting from some sourse) Automated phone messages had fanned the Southern Ontario city earlier in the day, erroneously telling residents their polling station had changed. Hundreds of voters fell for the hoax

"erroneously" infers that they did not do it on purpose.
"hoax" implies that they were "just goofing around"

It was done on purpose and it was fraud - let's all at least agree on that minimum amount.

 

Pages

Topic locked