|
Real Retaliation JUNE 12, 2001 (letter one) on LAWFIRM BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LETTERHEAD TORONTO ONT. by overnight courier To: Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. Carbon Copied & Couriered to: Eddie Taylor and Uniserve Network Operations We are solicitors for Eddie Taylor. We write in respect to statements regarding Mr. Taylor that you have published on your website www.citizensresearchinst. Our client complains of the following statements appearing on the Website: “I further suspect that the Human Rights Commissions are havens for lawyers incapable of running a private practice. In private practice one assumes that billable hours are at least partially kept in check by the client's ability to pay” “The Canadian Human Rights commission appears to condone make-work projects for reject lawyers who would otherwise be on the dole of forced to apply for Commissionaire status” The above-statements are false and defamatory of Mr. Taylor. In their ordinary meaning and/or by innuendo, the words mean, or would be understood by reasonable persons to mean that: 1) Mr. Taylor is an incompetent and unprofessional lawyer; 2) Mr. Taylor lacks the skills and capabilities to run a private legal practice; and 3) Mr. Taylor would be on welfare if he did not work for the Canadian Human Rights commission You are fully aware that Mr. Taylor is an experienced and competent lawyer. Your publication of the above statements despite this knowledge, particularly to such a wide audience, is clear evidence of malice. Mr. Taylor's reputation is central to his success as a lawyer. His good reputation has been developed over many years of practice, particularly in the area of human rights litigation. The statements that you have published have caused, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to this reputation. We hereby demand that you immediately remove the above statements from the Website and post an apology, in a form approved by our client, in an equally conspicuous place, approved by our client, on the Website within five days of receipt of this letter. Mr. Taylor reserves the right to commence libel proceedings against you in respect to the statements appearing on the Website. In this regard, any repetition of the statements on the website or any publication of similar statements will be taken as evidence of malice for which we will seek punitive damages. This letter is also being sent to your host service, Uniserve, Network Operations. Should our client be required to take legal steps against your Website, your host service will also be joined as a defendant. If you wish to discuss the form of an apology or retraction, you or your lawyer may contact me. Yours very Truly, Signed Joel Richler, Certified by the Law Society as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. JUNE 13, 2001 (letter two) on LAWFIRM BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LETTERHEAD TORONTO ONT. by overnight courier To: John Micka and Uniserve. Carbon Copied & Couriered to: Eddie Taylor. We are solicitors for Eddie Taylor. We write in respect to statements regarding Mr. Taylor that you have published on your website www.citizensresearchinst (the “Website”) and that you have included in your letter dated April 27, 2001 to Holly Lemoine. Registry Officer, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Letter”) THE WEBSITE Our client complains of the following statements appearing on the Website: “I further suspect that the Human Rights Commissions are havens for lawyers incapable of running a private practice. In private practice one assumes that billable hours are at least partially kept in check by the client's ability to pay” “The Canadian Human Rights commission appears to condone make-work projects for reject lawyers who would otherwise be on the dole of forced to apply for Commissionaire status” The above-statements are false and defamatory of Mr. Taylor. In their ordinary meaning and/or by innuendo, the words mean, or would be understood by reasonable persons to mean that: 1) Mr. Taylor is an incompetent and unprofessional lawyer; 2) Mr. Taylor lacks the skills and capabilities to run a private legal practice; and 3) Mr. Taylor would be on welfare if he did not work for the Canadian Human Rights commission. You are fully aware that Mr. Taylor is an experienced and competent lawyer. Your publication of the above statements despite this knowledge, particularly to such a wide audience, is clear evidence of malice. THE LETTER Our client further complains about the following statements contained in the Letter: Sharing my disclosure before the ink had sufficient time to dry was unethical, unprofessional, illegal and behaviour unbecoming a lawyer. Such behaviour is unacceptable. The Respondents will consider other avenues to deal with this. Perhaps Mr. Prideaux would like to speak to Mr. Henderson? The above statements are false and defamatory of Mr. Taylor. In their ordinary meaning, they mean or would be understood by reasonable persons to mean, among other things, that: 1) Mr. Taylor provided the disclosure material to Mr. Henderson. In so doing, he breached his ethical and professional obligations 2) Mr. Taylor engaged in illegal conduct and behaviour unbecoming a lawyer in his carriage of your file on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Mr. Taylor has a vendetta against you. It goes without saying that the statements contained in the Letter are untrue. Mr. Taylor's reputation is central to his success as a lawyer. His good reputation has been developed over many years of practice, particularly in the area of human rights litigation. The statements that you have published have caused, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to this reputation. We hereby demand that you immediately provide Mr. Taylor with a full and complete apology for the allegations made in the Letter. This apology should be copied and forwarded to Ms. Lemoine and the Registrar of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It should not only include a retraction of all allegations made, but also express regret for any harm caused. We further demand that you immediately remove the above statements from the Website and post an apology, in a form approved by our client, in an equally conspicuous place, approved by our client, on the Website within five days of receipt of this letter. Mr. Taylor reserves the right to commence libel proceedings against you in respect to Letter and the statements appearing on the Website. In this regard, any repetition of the statements on the website or in the Letter or any publication of similar statements will be taken as evidence of malice for which we will seek punitive damages. If you wish to discuss the form of an apology or retraction, you or your lawyer may contact me. Yours very Truly, Signed Joel Richler, Certified by the Law Society as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. TODAY IS THURSDAY JUNE 13 2001. THE TRIBUNAL STARTS THIS MONDAY JUNE 18, 2001. AND YOU THINK I AM NOT WORRIED? WHAT ME WORRY? JUNE16, 2001 (micka's machiavellian response) TO Mr. Joel Richler Certified by the Law Society as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. C/O Blake, Cassels, & Graydon LLP 199 Bay Street Toronto Ontario Canada your reference # 61028/00002 Re: Eddie Taylor Re: Citizensresearhinst.com WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dear Mr. Richler Your first communication is addressed to Machiavelli & Associates with the words “that you have published on your website”. In their ordinary meaning and or by innuendo it would be understood by reasonable persons to mean that you are under the impression that Machiavelli & Associates Emprize Inc. owns the Citizens Research Instrument website. For your information Machiavelli & Associates does not now own, nor has it in the past owned nor does it anticipate owning the Citizens Research website. For my information please clarify that when you write the words “We are solicitors for Eddie Taylor” and “We write in respect to your statements regarding Mr. Taylor”, do you mean the entire firm of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP or do you mean to refer to yourself only? I ask because I want to be specific should the need arise for my communicating formally with the Law Society of Upper Canada. You write, “You are fully aware that Mr. Taylor is an experienced and competent lawyer”. Are you asking me or are you telling me? I can tell you now that one of the words that does not come to mind when describing Mr. Taylor is competent. Let me set the record straight. I have no positive knowledge about Mr. Taylor's conduct as a lawyer other than his, in my opinion, questionable and unprofessional conduct displayed while acting as the Canadian Human Rights Commission's protagonist against Machiavelli and Micka. I can understand that it would take many years to develop a “reputation” such as Mr. Taylor's What I cannot understand is how my answers in response to questions by Mr. Paul Henderson, (a freelance writer, writing an article for the Xtra West newspaper, Vancouver's Gay and Lesbian bi-weekly) are false, defamatory, clear evidence of malice, have caused and will cause irreparable harm to Mr. Taylor's reputation. Specifically: Question: 5 What do you think the HRC will decide and will you adhere to their decision? Answer: (in full not out of context) I suspect that the Human Rights Tribunal decision is already in the kangaroo pouch so to speak. I also suspect that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is delirious in its insatiable desire to gain jurisdiction over the Internet in order to expand the horizon of authority to further inflict their mandate of protecting special interest groups. I further suspect that the Human Rights Commissions are havens for lawyers incapable of running a private practice. In a private practice one assumes that billable hours are at least partially kept in check by the clients abilities to pay. The Canadian Human Rights Commission appears to condone make work projects for reject lawyers who would otherwise be on the dole or forced to apply for commissionaire status. I will abide by the appealed decision made by a real Canadian Court. (End of answer) As Mr. Taylor's name is not mentioned, please advise what specifically causes you and Mr. Taylor to conclude from the above that Mr. Taylor is an incompetent and unprofessional lawyer lacking the skills and capabilities to run a private legal practice who would be on welfare if he did not work for the Canadian Rights Commission? By the way, what is Mr. Taylor doing now since he is no longer gainfully employed by the Canadian Human Rights commission? May I humbly suggest that you have a more senior partner in the firm read the text in question and have them confirm to you that the above statements, read by a reasonable person, have nothing to do with Mr. Taylor personally. Perhaps the sage advise will compel you to withdraw your ignorant demand for the removal of the above statements form the website and for the posting of an apology, in a form approved by your client, in an equally conspicuous place, approved by your client, on the website within five days of receipt of your letter. Carbon copying your letter to the host service, Uniserve Network Operations suggesting they to be named as a joint defendant should Mr. Taylor exercise his right to commence libel proceedings seeking punitive damages is a scare tactic unbecoming someone certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in Civil Litigation. Threatening the facilities of a broadcast undertaking with legal action when clearly they are exempt from prosecution on absolutely fabricated and unreal charges is amateurish behavior at best. There is no way that the text points to Mr. Taylor specifically. The text clearly names the Human Rights Commission. Any other interpretation, in my opinion, can only stem from paranoia and the need for self-degradation. As a Certified by the Law Society Specialist in Civil Litigation you had a responsibility to review the facts and evidence when Mr. Taylor retained your services. In my opinion, had anyone else come you with such non-evidence and a personal grudge you would have advised him or her to go home and forget about it. I submit that your acting and action on behalf of Mr. Taylor is as suspect as the sudden unwillingness for Mr. Prideaux to give evidence is as suspect as the “leaking” of my disclosure to the Gay Press is as suspect as the “retaliation” charges filed by Mr. Taylor. Do you not see a pattern? I think Mr. Taylor has taken an inexplicable dislike to me even though we have as yet to meet and as a result has gone out of his way with malice and aforethought to use his position of power to attempt to harm me financially by entangling me in a legalese maze. I believe Mr. Taylor's spiteful actions against me while employed at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and now since his “timely” departure are libelous, defamatory, and unprofessional and warrant further investigation. My reputation is central to my success as a facilitator. My good reputation has been developed over many years. Mr. Taylor's accusation of retaliation and suspected “blind eye” to the “leaking” of my disclosure to the Gay Press have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to my reputation. Mr. Taylor's relationship with Mr. Prideaux, who appears unduly compliant has cost me nothing but time and money and is also worthy of further investigation. So in closing, do not hold your breath for my calling you to discuss the form of an apology or a retraction. Do not wait 5 days for the removal of anything from the website and do not wait to commence libel proceedings. Should common sense break out and prevail at 199 Bay Street, a letter of apology to Machiavelli and Uniserve, I am sure will follow in natural order. If you wish to discuss the form of apology or your retraction you may contact me. John Micka p.s. It occurs to me that your joining Eddie Taylor in such a laughable claim could suggest that your case load is lighter now as a result of fewer intervener referrals from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I speculate that it might also be reflective of a close friendship between you and Eddie naturally and understandably developed over many years of mutually beneficial Tribunals. I certainly have not ruled out that you are simply a sincere Law Society Certified lawyer who specializes in Civil Litigation and is simply acting out the wishes of another lawyer nor have I ruled out the possibility that somehow you actually believe that you can prove that the text in question in someway refers to Eddie and slanders him. Is truth a defense? Obviously I can only speculate as to your motivation and at best am expressing only an opinion. Here is an opinion. In my opinion, if you want to do the right thing, try to marshal all the lawyers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission/Tribunal and commence a class action libel suit against me and my website. To be successful you have to prove that the Commission/Tribunal does not provide a haven for lawyers incapable of running a private practice where presumably they would be accountable for billable / paid hours and if it were not for the financial support of the Commission would otherwise be employed in a different vocation. Good Luck! I take for granted Eddie will be your star witness. Be careful, his track record shows a propensity for “cold feet” during the parade to the post. I still bet that's not a ponytail. I leave you with the following questions; 1) How do you ruin a lawyer's reputation? 2) Have I been right all along? Warm regards, Machiavelli click  for chapter10
|