CDR: Re: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton (was) www.ester.dyson
Me
commerce at home.com
Sun Oct 29 19:00:37 PST 2000
From: "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart at pobox.com>
> This is also the same Joe Baptista who's not supposed to
> email or fax the government* of (Ontario, I think?)
Yes, but this is also the Joe Baptista who was served with this:
CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff claims:
(a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00;
(b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of
$500,000.00;
(c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
$500,000.00;
(d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction
restraining the Defendant from communicating with
any person, group of persons, associations or
corporations by facsimile transmission, computer
facilities, including electronic mail and the
"Internet" or in any manner whatsoever except
direct individual communication, wherein such
communication, either directly or indirectly,
refers to or concerns the Plaintiff;
(e) costs on a solicitor and client basis;
(f) such further and other relief as this Honourable
Court deems just.
2. The Plaintiff is and at all material times was the Chief
of Police of the City of London Police.
3. The Defendant resides in the City of Toronto and is a
self-described: harasser of the police; critic of
government; bulk user of government services; and,
administrative burden to the police.
4. On or about the 5th day of February, 1995, the Defendant
falsely and maliciously wrote and published of and
concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his
office as Chief of Police to Robert Riley and the public
at large by electronic mail over the Internet, the message
set out in Schedule "A" attached hereto.
5. On or about June 27th, 1995, the Defendant falsely and
maliciously wrote of and concerning the Plaintiff and of
him in the way of his office as Chief of Police by
letter addressed to the attention of "all concerned
citizens"
as set out in Schedule "B" hereto.
6. The said letter was published by the Defendant by facsimile
transmission to:
(a) the police departments of the following municipalities
in
the Province of Ontario:
(i) LaSalle
(ii) Durham Region;
(iii) Kingston;
(iv) Lakefield;
(v) Brockville;
(vi) Desoronto;
(vii) York Region;
(viii) Anderdon Township;
(ix) Chatham;
(x) Niagara Region;
(xi) Amherstburg;
(xii) Essex;
(xiii) Kemptville;
(xiv) Sudbury Region;
(xv) Lindsay;
(xvi) Windsor;
(xvii) Gananoque;
(xviii) Collingwood;
and others not presently known to the Plaintiff; and
(b) the following media outlets in the City of London:
(i) 6X Radio, Fanshawe College;
(ii) CJBK Radio 1290;
(iii) CKSL Radio 1410;
(iv) CFPL Radio 98;
(v) CFPL Television;
(vi) The London free Press;
and other outlets not presently known to the Plaintiff.
7. At or about the same time, the aforesaid or similar letter
was further published electronically by the Defendant to the
public at large over the medium of the Internet,
a global computer network.
8. On or about the 6th day of July, 1995, the Defendant
falsely and maliciously wrote of and concerning the
Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as
Chief of Police, as set out in Schedule "C" attached
hereto, submissions to the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of Ontario, purportedly pursuant to an Inquiry
being conducted under the Municipal Freedom of Information
and
Protection of Privacy Act.
9. On or about July 10th, 1995, the Defendant published the
document
attached as Schedule "C" to all of those parties referred to
in paragraph 5 above and others, by facsimile transmission
and
other means of communication.
10. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
"A",
the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
with the complained of words contained in Schedules "B" and "
c ".
11. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
"B",
the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
with the complained of words contained in Schedules "A" and
"C" but particularly in the following words:
(a) "Dr. ";
(b) "Attention: all concerned citizens";
(c) "an upcoming inquisition";
(d) "an investigation into the background and
activities of Julian Fantino";
(e) "family and employment history";
(f) "known, suspected or rumoured criminal
activities";
(g) "known, suspected or rumoured homophobic,
sexist, or racist activities
(including actions and statements)";
(h) "any other information of a nature that
might bring Mr. Fantino into
disrepute, and/or before justice".
12. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
"C",
the Plaintiff pleads that the following words, on their own
and in
conjunction with the complained of words contained in
Schedules
"A" and "B", are maliciously false and defamatory of him:
(a) "the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been
victim to a criminal conspiracy from within the
ranks
of the London Police Services Board";
(b) "This process is nothing more than the police version
of the silent scream. A futile and miscalculated
adventure by them to avoid or minimalize
prosecution
under the Criminal Code of Canada.";
(c) "Although the old Chief is a principal in this
crime -
he has not been a driving force in its
application.
That honour goes to another who will be
later named." (referring to the Plaintiff);
(d) "the actions by the various police agencies to the
court application only merit consideration as
they
relate to criminal behaviour";
(e) "this action has only been taken by the police with
the
intent of avoiding and deflecting criminal
responsibility";
(f) "I only present these facts in support of any claims
of wrongdoing I herein level against the various
irresponsible police authorities as they respect
the
Commissions inquiry.";
(g) "I accuse former chief McCormick and chief Julian
Fantino of an offence against authority and
public
order. Both have conspired to maintain
confidences
with respect to my criminal activities and as a
result have assisted me in achieving my goals ...
the police have at all times known and been aware
of my criminal activity ... the police abstained
from the proper criminal procedures and that said
actions were with intent.";
(h) "Apart from having his private telephone ...
disclosed
to me and details of a dysfunctional family life,
I was
also able to confirmed(sic) Fantino is not
altogether a
law abiding citizen.";
(i) "they (referring to the police and the Plaintiff)
have
in turn become criminal".
13. The Plaintiff pleads that the words set out in Schedule "A"
are defamatory of him and, in their natural and ordinary
meaning,
meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously
written
and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean,
in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set
out
in Schedules "B" and illicit that the Plaintiff is:
(a) porcine;
(b) greedy;
(c) dirty;
(d) an annoying person;
(e) an unpleasant person;
(f) a slovenly person;
(g) a slob;
(h) a despicable person;
(i) a Neanderthal;
(j) primitive;
(k) unintelligent;
(l) aesthetically challenged;
(m) intellectually challenged; and
(n) prehistoric.
14. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words as
contained
in Schedule "B" and particularized in paragraph 11 above, in
their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were
understood
to mean and were maliciously written and published by the
Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and
in
conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "A" and "C"
that the Plaintiff:
(a) was guilty of wrongdoing and is the subject of an
officially sanctioned investigation being
conducted
by the Defendant;
(b) was and is engaged in criminal activity;
(c) is homophobic and was and is engaged in homophobic
activities;
(d) is sexist and was and is engaged in sexist
activities;
(e) is racist and was and is engaged in racist
activities;
(f) does engage in and has engaged in disreputable
and discreditable activities;
(g) has engaged in unlawful activities that should be
subject to judicial sanction;
(h) has breached his oath and duty as a police officer
and Chief of Police; and
(i) has not conducted himself as a police officer and
Chief
of Police in accordance with law, honesty and
integrity.
15. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words in Schedule
"C"
hereto, as particularized in paragraph 12 above, in their
natural
and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and
were
maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be
understood
to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the
words set
out in Schedules "A" and "B", that the Plaintiff:
(a) has contravened the criminal law;
(b) is a criminal;
(c) has engaged in a criminal conspiracy;
(d) has, by a criminal action, victimized the
Information
and Privacy Commissioner;
(e) has breached his public duty as a police officer
and
Chief of Police;
(f) has engaged in civil proceedings involving the
Information and Privacy Commissioner in order
to
subvert the criminal law and/or to prevent
exposure and prosecution for his own criminal
acts;
(g) is a criminal ringleader;
(h) is participating in wrongdoing and unlawful
activities;
(i) has covered up criminal wrongdoing; and
is an unfit husband and father.
17. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words published
by the
Defendant were calculated to and did disparage the Plaintiff
in his
calling as a police officer and Chief of Police.
18. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant
published the
complained of words out of malevolence or spite towards the
Plaintiff,
19. By reason of the publication of the complained of words by
the
Defendant, the Plaintiff has been much injured in his credit
and
reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium and
contempt
and has thereby suffered damage.
20. The Defendant intends to continue the publication of the same
or
similar defamatory charges against the Plaintiff;
21. Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiff pleads that the
complained of words set out in Schedules "A", "B" and "C"
and as
particularized in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, were
published with express malice and constitute malicious
falsehoods.
22. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon Section 19 of the Libel
&
Slander Act, R. S. 0. 1990, Chapter L12 as amended.
23. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City
of
London, in the County of Middlesex.
And responded, unsuccessfully, with this:
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs
2, 3
and 8 of the statement of claim.
2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs
1, 7
(page 3), 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the
statement
of claim.
3. The defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations
contained in paragraphs 6, 7 (page 5), 9 and 19 of the statement
of claim.
4. The defendant is the system administrator to planet earth.
5. The defendant is an internet god.
6. The defendant is at war with the government of Canada du jour.
7. The defendant is the government of Canada de facto.
8. The defendant is inquisitor to Alberto Araujo Cunha, sometimes
known as Albert Araujo, Albert Cunha, Alberto Cunha, and Alberto
Araujo,
a priest to the roman catholic order and reformed cocaine dealer.
9. The defendant is inquisitor to Julian Fantino the plaintiff to
this action.
10. The defendant by act of war warns this court that it has no
jurisdiction in this action.
11. The defendant by inquisition advises the court that limited
jurisdiction is granted this court with respect to facilitating
the
continued inquisition of Julian Fantino a plaintiff to this
action.
12. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2
of
the statement of claim. The defendant has been successfully at
war with
the government of Canada du jour, and associated entities since
April 1993.
13. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7
(page 3) of the statement of claim. The electronic mail
communication
set out in Schedule A of the plaintiffs statement of claim is a
forged
communication which does not comply with network news transfer
protocol
standards employed by the posting agent at the host server at
planet.earth.org.
14. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5
of
the statement of claim. The defendant believes the document set
out in
schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim originated from
the
ExtraTerrestrial Archives (ETA) an independent agent and
archivists to
the inquisition of Julian Fantino. The defendant however is
unable to
verify the ETAs authorship of the stated document since ETA
archive
access to internet public inquisitors is denied.
15. The defendant further claims that any individual with an
internet
account may access the necessary documents and files that can
reproduce
the defendants letterhead and signature in electronic form.
16. The defendant further claims that the document set out in
schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim is in form and
content
acceptable to the defendant as a inquisition document.
17. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8
of
the statement of claim but denies that the submissions made under
the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to
the
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario were in any way
false or
malicious. The defendant further claims that the document set out
in
schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim is not a true
copy of the
original text published by the Information and Privacy
Commissioner of
Ontario.
18. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has
contravened
the criminal law of Canada, is a criminal and has engaged in a
criminal
conspiracy with one William McCormick a former police chief to
the
Metropolitan Toronto Police.
19. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has engaged
in
unlawful activities and has breached his public duty as a police
officer
and Chief of Police.
20. The defendant further claims that as a result of this
criminal
activity the public and the Information and Privacy Commissioner
have
been victimized by the plaintiff.
21. The defendant further claims that as a result of this
criminal
activity government processes and democratic principals have been
jeopardized by the plaintiff.
22. The defendant by declaration of war further claims that the
criminal behavior exhibited by the plaintiff is good and has
served the
defendants purposes and goals in destabilizing government
structures and
systems.
23. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph
10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the plaintiffs statement of claim.
The
defendant did not author the documents contained in schedule A
and B to
the plaintiffs statement of claim and therefore any reference to
these
documents in support of any allegation is void and irrelevant.
24. The defendant pleads that he agrees with the interpretation
of
schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim contained in
paragraphs
15. (a), 15. (b), 15. (c), 15. (d), 15. (e), 15. (f), 15. (h) and
15. (i).
25. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegation contained in
paragraph 15. (g) of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The
defendant
pleads and believes that the plaintiff does not have the
necessary skills
or competence to be a criminal ringleader.
26. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegations contained
in
paragraph 15. (j).
27. The defendant pleads that as inquisitor to Julian Fantino,
the
defendant has received privileged information concerning the
sexual and
private activities of the plaintiffs family.
28. The defendant further pleads that this information was
discussed
at length with the defendants associates.
29. The defendant further pleads that these conversations were
private and have not yet been placed on the public record.
30. The defendant further pleads that the plaintiff has
unlawfully
gained access to transcripts of these conversations.
31. The defendant further pleads the plaintiffs allegations
contained
in paragraph 15. (j) that he is an unfit husband and father is a
reflection not of the plaintiffs interpretation of schedule C but
an
interpretation of information from transcripts unlawfully
obtained.
32. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph
18
of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The plaintiff at all times
has
been manipulated and directed to serve the defendants authority.
The
defendant further pleads the plaintiff has been instrumental in
furthering the defendants objectives.
33. The defendant pleads that he has no malevolence or spite
towards
the plaintiff.
COUNTERCLAIM
34. The defendant claims:
(a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00;
(b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of
$500,000.00;
(c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
$500,000.00;
(d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction
restraining the plaintiff from communicating with any person,
group of
persons, associations, police forces, governments agencies and
departments or media in any manner, including individual
communication,
either directly or indirectly, as it refers to or concerns the
defendant;
(e) a autographed color picture of the plaintiffs anus;
(f) costs on a solicitor and client basis;
(g) such further and other relief as this court deems
just,
or unjust.
35. The defendant is an inquisitor of the order of arcon.
36. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted himself
professionally,
honestly, with integrity and in keeping with the principals and
teachings
of the arconian committee of inquisition.
37. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted various aspects of
inquisition on behalf of the committee of inquisition:
(a) Robert George Spencer, being the investigation and
promotion of political activities in fraud;
(b) Thomas Clifford, being a report into political
activities
and crimes against children, inquisition pending due to health of
subject;
(c) John Eakins, being a report into political activities
and
crimes against children;
(d) Roy McMurtry, being the purchase of the same,
inquisition
inactive;
(e) James Kalan, being the purchase of the same,
inquisition
terminated due to death by random violence;
(f) Sid Balcom, being a report into guardianship and
crimes
against children, application for inquisition pending the
availability of
an inquisitor;
(g) Marion Boyd, being an investigation and application
for
inquisition pending the availability of an inquisitor;
(h) Alberto Araujo Cunha, inquisition active and pending
the
investigation of the roman catholic order;
(i) Julian Fantino, inquisition active and moved to
public
forum at the request of the subject.
38. The defendant claims the plaintiff has made wild, insane and
malicious accusations against the defendant as an individual and
inquisitor.
39. On or about September 1st, 1995 the plaintiff gave an
interview
to XTRA magazine, set out in schedule A, in which he referred to
the
defendant as:
(a) This is a situation out of control,;
(b) The hate mongering, the spreading of propaganda and
malicious attacks on the institution of policing.;
(c) Its more then societys prepared to take.;
(d) I am a victim, am I not.;
(e) I have merely incurred his wrath because I have
professionally, honestly, with integrity, in keeping with my oath
of
office, brought to bring some relief to this anarchist movement
he
promotes - and got in his way.;
(f) That suggestion is unfair.;
(g) Mr. Baptista is attacking me for what I have done in
my
capacity as police chief.
40. On or about September 1st, 1995, Dianne Haskett, mayor to the
city of London, in the county of Middlesex, did also give an
interview to
XTRA magazine in which she said of the defendant:
(a) I believe other action would of been more effective.;
(b) We have heard a lot about threatening communications
made
by Mr. Baptista.;
(c) I think they should be explored to see if they
violate
the Criminal Code.;
(d) To try to curtail someones access to the internet
goes
beyond what we are capable of, even in this lawsuit.;
(e) This is something not even the computer community
agrees
you can do.
41. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff, and individuals
associated and under the direction of the plaintiff, have with
purpose
and malice given interviews to various press and media persons
with the
intention of harming and damaging the defendants reputation.
42. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff has used his office
as
chief of police to the city of London, in the county of Middlesex
to
cause hatred and harm towards the defendant through hate
mongering and
the spreading of malicious propaganda.
43. The defendant pleads that the complained of words contained
in
schedule A are maliciously false and defamatory of him.
44. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff is a disgrace to his
office and profession.
45. The defendant proposes that this action be tried before a
jury at
the city of London, in the county of Middlesex.
Date: September 12th, 1995 Dr. Joe Baptista
Inquisitor to Julian
Fantino
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list