BREAKING: Trout Point Lodge asks Nova Scotia Judge Suzanne Hood for $1,000,000 in damages against Slabbed plus a cyber execution for the blog.

Well folks, what can I say except 2 of the 3 Trout Point Lodge stooges were in rare form today. The SouthCoast Today has this breaking news story. Here is my favorite part:

The pair testified that they thought that the recent revelations on the Slabbed blog about New Orleans lawyer Roy D’Aquila might have resulted in or contributed to his death yesterday. When the pair complained to the Justice that Slabbed had access to public court documents from Nova Scotia, Hood reminded them that the documents are public records and available for all to see. Perret asked that the Justice clear the courtroom for some of his testimony, which she refused to do.

Leary and Perret testified repeatedly about the contempt which they felt Handshoe had displayed for the Nova Scotia Judiciary and Hood reminded him that the judiciary was not a party to the case.


24 thoughts on “BREAKING: Trout Point Lodge asks Nova Scotia Judge Suzanne Hood for $1,000,000 in damages against Slabbed plus a cyber execution for the blog.”

  1. I have no doubt Hood will issue an order to kill Slabbed. Canada is notorious as a defamation judicial hellhole. I'll remind everyone that Automattic, Webhost to turned over poster IP information to Leary and Automattic did not notify us thus depriving those Slabbed commenters of due process rights supposedly guaranteed American Citizens. These very well could be the final days of Slabbed.


  2. Yes they are wasting their time and helping my cause but by the same token Editilla why should protected free speech be taken down on the whim of a foreign judge?

    There is a point where a line in the sand has to be drawn. We are there.


  3. B'lieve I'll look into a complaint under RICO against webhost Automatic, WordPress, Trout Point principals (think "discovery"),and Judge Hood for CONSPIRACY to violate my civil rights…..anyone else want to make it a class action under Civil Rights??


    ….Perret asked that the Justice clear the courtroom for some of his testimony, which she refused to do.

    Na Na Na Na BOO BOO!

    Well, that explains the remote settings they live in until the deal caves in & they move on to the next scam. These cry babies should be imprisoned for using the legal system like it's The Dr. Phil Show. Psychiatric evaluations are in order & NOW! Leary & Perret are menaces to SOBRIETY. I need a DRANK ~

    …Send those CANDY-ASSES To THIS JUDGE!

  5. It’s absolutely shameless that these two lowlife cocksuckers would be using the death of Mr. D’Aquila to further perpetuate this fraud upon the Canadian Courts, who appear to be complicit in trampling upon the Constitutional rights of US Citizens. How despicable can these people be ?

    One thing’s for sure, their gratuitous statement, “The pair testified that they thought that the recent revelations on the Slabbed blog about New Orleans lawyer Roy D’Aquila might have resulted in or contributed to his death yesterday”, as uncouth as it is under the circumstances, may well be actionable slander and/or libel.

  6. IMHO the only way to stop BULLIES is to stop them cold in their tracks. If my reading of the SPEECH Act is correct it appears to me that NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY.

    Nothing I read in the South Coast Today news article appears to support even a smidgen of defamation as alleged by the two clowns who took turns examining each other on the Witness stand. How the Judge did not fall off her seat laughing is beyond me. This sounds like TV Judge shows on steroids…hahahahahahaha.

    But seriously folks, no wonder they wanted the courtroom closed: they actually , on the record, in a public Court Hearing , accused Slabbed of causing Roy D'Aquila's death! Can you spell DEFAMATION? They neatly failed to mention that Mr. D'Aquila was the attorney for Calderera ( as in the Contractor embroiled in the Jefferson Parish Performing Art Center debacle and investigation) when he was awarded the contract to build the JPPAC. And they failed to mention that Mr. D'Aquila and his law partner Jerome Volk had just recently ( a week maybe two) split up their law partnership very non-amicably. The FACT that Mr. D'Aquila wrote a letter on behalf of Aaron Broussard to Leary and Perrett arguing about insurance coverage and payments on the cottage or whatever Broussard had/has up there is a FACT. Maybe a disturbing FACT for Mr. D'Aquila but a TRUE PROVEN FACT. A TRUTH which, may I remind the Court , under UNITED STATES LAW, I am told, is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO ANY CLAIM OF DEFAMATION.

    And as an additional aside to her Honor, I am told that under the UNITED STATES SPEECH ACT, if she did not handle her Canadian end of this farce utilizing UNITED STATES LAW AND DUE PROCESS any Order will in all likelihood be just so much more paper under the bridge.

    Finally I would point out that given the Arraignment of Aaron Broussard's former CAO Tim Whitmer today and his attorney's statements on live news WWL TV 4 that his client 'knows where all the bodies are buried' and 'will be naming names and cooperating fully and telling the whole truth'… anyone within a football field of Broussard should be very cautious of calling attention to themselves.

    Slabbed United will be watching and waiting: therein lies the rub. Annoy us and will just ignore you. Piss us off and we will begin our own legal wrangling down here in the good old US of A. Don't miscue: Sop is not alone. He is just the initial line of defense. Wait til you see what is waiting behind him.

  7. Let's see, if I were to use the convoluted fairy tail reasoning of these drama queens, then the proximate cause of this gentlemean's death would be them! They were involved with Broussard, and Mr. D'Aquila was acting on behalf of Broussard with them. That letter was addressed to them, and made public by them in their pleadings. So would it be these very same drama queens who are responsible for this man's death ?

  8. And just for giggles let's start here:

    28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, which bars U.S. courts, both state and federal, from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless certain requirements, including consistency with the U.S. Constitution and section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 230), are satisfied.

    And here:

    In et al. v. Mina Mar Group Inc. (Case No.: 4:11cv9-RH/WS) appears to be the first declaratory judgment issued under the SPEECH Act.

    The stipulated judgment reads in part:

    “19. The parties acknowledge, and the Court finds, that Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendment, federal law, and Florida law.”

    “20. Nor does Canadian law provide the protections for freedom of on-line speech provided by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.” …

    “22. The Court hereby declares that the Foreign Defamation Judgment in the matter of Mina Mar Group, Inc., et al. v., et al., Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is not enforceable in the United States pursuant to the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and any orders entered in connection therewith are invalid and unenforceable in the United States.”

  9. The pair also intimated to the court that South Coast Today was somehow complicit in the case and made mention more than once of a previous employee who they said was fired and was feeding information to Handshoe. A legal expert contacted by SCT said that both of those assertions, if proven to be untrue, could be the basis for an independent defamation case against Leary and Perret. "Defaming someone in a courtroom during another proceeding offers no protection," said the lawyer.

    As my Grandma Tate would say "They sure did shit in their Easter Basket, baby."

  10. They think everyone is sacred of them. They have used this tactic to silence people in the press and the community since their early days there.

    I know why the truth scares them shitless. Trying to shut us up is only making it worse. They are literally too whacked out to understand that but that same group still believes Broussard will beat these charges.


  11. AND,

    Moreover, the SPEECH Act extends to enforcement of judgments involving third-party content on the Internet, declaring that a domestic court “shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States.”

  12. SO….These guys went INTO a COURT ROOM & COMMITTED the VERY Crime that they ACCUSE YOU OF?….hahahahahhahahahahah?…HOW can a thinking person NOT find them RIDICULOUS?….haha!

  13. From what I understood from Sop's statement and the comments from the Slabbed community, a possible Canadian court ruling could result in expensive legal battles, and the unthinkable demise of SLABBED. I am appalled and troubled to learn that the Slabbed Organization is being threatening and attacked via a conflict that not really is. It is absurd for family members to accuse Slabbed's reporting public information as being the reason for someone's death.

    Indeed, I shall pray / intercede for Slabbed, and our community, as I hope the controversy will not be costly physically nor financially; and any and every inconvenience that Slabbed has been made to suffer, will be recompensed. Unfortunately, weapons DO 'form, but they will not prosper; (Isaiah 54:17).

  14. If Automattic is obligated to notify, what is sufficient proof that they have? Where does that notification exit in the record … simply stating that no one replied lacks sufficient credibility without evidence of notification …

    So my question is: Can Automattic claim immunity without proof of notification ?

    It is this question, and more, that need to be researched. And I am asking that we who comment and those who read Slabbed join collectively in 1) legal research relating the varied issues that are presented by the events that have occurred to date re Trout Point’s assault on Free Speech, and 2) compile a list of the various organizations and academic institutions that promote free speech and offer legal assistance, such as the ACLU …

    We need to reach out to the blogasphere for help with a thoroughly briefed argument as to why this is their concern also … organization and information are the keys to promoting our cause of Freedom …

    PS: Kidd I think you're on to something

  15. Several nonprofit public interest groups advocate on behalf of online users. They also provide extensive information about privacy issues on their Web sites.

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Find your local ACLU chapter:
    Web :

    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    454 Shotwell St., San Francisco, CA 94110
    Voice: (415) 436-9333
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Web :
    Also see EFF's "Surveillance Self-Defense" project:

    Electronic Privacy Information Center
    1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009
    Voice: (202) 483-1140
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Web :

    E-mail: [email protected]
    Web :

    Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
    3100 – 5th Ave., Suite B, San Diego, CA 92103
    Voice: (619) 298-3396

    World Privacy Forum
    Voice: (760) 436-2489
    E-mail: [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *