🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <i9c9td$eb6$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <09Sdne8UQK_0jiTRnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@vex.net>,
>Kenneth McVay OBC <kmcvay@shell.vex.net> wrote:
>>In article <6pfhb6thka2vrojhiaq6tmhgnmopi9fkkt@4ax.com>,
>>Moldy Bread  <MoldyBread@redmonton.com> wrote:
>>
>>Oh, look! There's William Grosvenor's favorite
>>newsreader again!
>>
>>Updated Grosvenor Legal Documents & Extortion conviction: 
>>http://William-Grosvenor.info
>>
>>William Grosvenor is a convicted extortionist who
>>devotes his time to spreading hatred and defamation.
>>
>>Grosvenor recently complied with a court order to pay a 
>>$50,000 libel award and costs in excess of $30,000 
>>resulting from his penchant for defamation,
>>libel, assault and extortion.
>>
>>He is, above all, monumentally stupid.
>>
>>Grosvenor now lives in exile, a complete disgrace.
>>
>>http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii57728/2008canlii57728.html
>>
>>Defamation
>>
>>[52]      In Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications
>>Ltd., 1995 CanLII 60 (S.C.C.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3
>>(S.C.C.), Cory J. said, at para. 62,
>>
>>   [A] publication which tends to lower a person in the
>>estimation of right-thinking members of society, or to
>>expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is
>>defamatory and will attract liability.What is
>>defamatory may be determined from the ordinary meaning
>>of the published words themselves or from the
>>surrounding circumstances. 
>>                         
>>[53]      The tort of defamation consists of the two
>>torts of libel and slander.  The law of libel and
>>slander protects an individual.s reputation.  Libel is
>>any publication of defamatory material.  The law
>>presumes that the words are false unless and until the
>>defendant proves the contrary.  In order to succeed in
>>his defamatory action, the plaintiff must establish
>>each of the following three elements on a balance of
>>probabilities:  (1) the words are defamatory; (2) the
>>words are published; (3) the plaintiff is the person
>>defamed: Rainaldi, Remedies in Tort, looseleaf
>>(Carswell, 2006), at pp. 6-20.
>>
>>[54]      With respect to the first element, the
>>Postings on the various websites and with the various
>>website groups are clearly defamatory according to
>>their ordinary meaning.  They are calculated to be
>>personally and professionally insulting and demeaning.
>>They refer to the plaintiff as a dishonest man, liar,
>>scumbag, pimp and disgusting maggot, to name a few.
>>They falsely allege that the plaintiff is part of
>>organized crime and financed by .mobs..  They falsely
>>allege that the plaintiff was convicted of child
>>molestation.  They attack the plaintiff.s credibility
>>and reputation as a lawyer.  They significantly
>>discredit his personal and professional reputation and
>>they do so over and over again.  They heap hatred,
>>contempt and ridicule on the plaintiff and by their
>>volume and wide dissemination, they seriously expose
>>the plaintiff to hatred, contempt and ridicule from
>>others.  As the plaintiff testified at trial, to be
>>falsely alleged to be a pedophile convicted of sexual
>>assault against a young person is particularly hurtful.
>>
>>[55]      With respect to the second element, I have no
>>difficulty concluding that the defamatory words are
>>published.  The Internet is a means of publication like
>>no other, given its ability to instantaneously send
>>words throughout the world to the millions who have
>>access to computers.  The defendant has caused
>>defamatory words to be communicated to others by the
>>Postings and each time he has re-posted the same
>>defamatory words in the Postings, he has created a new
>>publishing of these words.
>>
>>[56]      I also have no difficulty concluding that the
>>third element has been established, in that the
>>plaintiff was clearly the person being defamed.  The
>>defendant mentioned the plaintiff.s name in all of the
>>Fourteen Postings referred to above.  In some of the
>>Postings, the defendant included links to a picture of
>>the plaintiff.
>>
>>[57]      It is for these reasons I conclude that the
>>defendant.s Postings have defamed the plaintiff.
>>
>>-- 
>>Who is your choice for the Dumbest celebrity?  George W. Bush
>>holds a commanding lead at 28.6%, Kurt Knoll is second at 
>>20.3% & Paris Hilton 3rd with 17.2%.            VOTE NOW, 
>>   VOTE OFTEN: http://squidoo.com/think-you-are-stupid-eh

>Nice too see you again.  Please add Mr.SmartyPants to nizkor .

Why bother? Google archives everything these days, so
Mr. Hamilton's contributions to the sewers of the world
are there for all to see.

-- 
"The Nizkor website (secretly financed by the ADL and other Jewish front
organizations) is behind it." (David Irving, whining about Google's 
reminder of his disgrace.) The facts:
http://nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html