SPEECH Act in the news as word spreads of my historic victory over Broussard’s boys (Updated)

For those of you not following Slabbed on twitter I have a couple of links. First up is the story from LexisNexis’ Law360.com (subscription required) that I think told it best. Here is a snippet:

“The Nova Scotia Court’s oral decision does not contain specific findings of fact with respect to the falsity of Handshoe’s statements,” the opinion said. “Trout Point could not identify a single specific allegation in the statement of claim that the Nova Scotia Court found was actually false.”

Jack E. Truitt, who represented Handshoe, told Law360 Friday that the appeals court decision makes it “almost impossible to get a defamation lawsuit judgment in Canada and come here and enforce it.”

“[The SPEECH Act] has been on the books since 2010, but this is the first widely reported decision on it,” Truitt said. “From the perspective of journalists, it should help you guys sleep a little easier.”

An attorney for Trout Point did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

I know I’ve slept better ever since Bobby signed up to defend Slabbed. Quality lawyers get quality decisions and I can’t say enough good things about the job he did. I was surprised to see the otherwise loquacious Henry Laird declining comment as he frequently comments on his cases locally.

This brings me to the second link as the case was also featured on UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh’s blog.  I detect some anonymous astroturfing in comments so for those that want a flavor for the other side’s viewpoint can find them in comments. Slabbed lifers have read the incomprehensible screed that was the amended complaint and it’s progeny understand neither contained any well pleaded instances of defamation under either US or Canadian law.

(Update)

IgnatiusJeffReilly has a local take on the matter that is well worth reading.

7 thoughts on “SPEECH Act in the news as word spreads of my historic victory over Broussard’s boys (Updated)”

  1. I would encourage all of the SlabbedNation to comment under the UCLA’s Professor Eugene Volokh’s blog to inform the liberal establishment and their attorneys that if they don’t like the SPEECH Act then to call Dudley Do-Right to save them by sawing their liberal – ass state off and transplanting it onto Nova Scotia,Canada which has also band the original U.S. cartoon, Dudley Do-Right, from being shown due to alleged suggestive defamatory ” evidence” toward the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

    http://youtu.be/rzIFFKb_tU0

    1. I’m thankful for Nathan and the fact he showed up on Professor Volokh’s blog. What is interesting is the down vote to my factual comment that places this, the first of a multitude of lawsuits filed by the same bunch of gay men closely associated with Aaron Broussard, into its proper context.

      Seems to me that Canadian libel laws are the first place of refuge for crooks and liars and the instances of their use in acts of what amount to state sponsored coverup are legion. My personal theory is the deficiencies in those laws are not addressed because there is too much money in play for the legal profession in Canada in such litigation thus the indignation in his comments.

      Someone else called me a genius and if there is such a thing as a self flagellated genius I’ll wear the mantle because I had to take a mulligan to execute the plan.

  2. Diz, bet yo’ didn’t know that Dudley Do-Right went undercover as a musician to solve the illegal fur smuggling trade of Snidely Whiplash by playing yo’ song, the ” Warbash Cannonball”, causing a drum to rupture and release hidden illegal furs.

    Just because Dudley took the wrong turn at the wrong tree in Wiggins trying to serve you Nova Scotia goatdroppings doesn’t mean he’s stupid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8mgL88oVj0&feature=share&list=PL3654904973A010FB

  3. I agree Doug, you just won a major victory for US publishers showing they are immune to Canadian libel judgements,no way will the media or legal community promote this.

    I look at this decision in terms of what remedy Trout Point could have sought under the law. They make serious allegations against you that demand they take legal action. The decision points out those remedies. It says they could have filed an action in Mississippi where you are liable and hold assets. They could have stated what was false and proven it was false. They could even brought the publication ban they received in Nova Scotia along with the money damages for enforcement. They did none of the above.

    Where does that leave you?

Leave a Reply

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