“ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF an intended action
RICHARD WARMAN Plaintiff
JOHN DOE Defendants NOTICE
Pursuant to section 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, (…)
The web-page article entitled, “Gentes/CHRC withdraw complaint against Free Dominion”
1. Accuses me of being the “Censorship Champion“.
2. States in reference to me that “…this asshole is so obnoxious that even his fellow fanatics at the “Human “Right” Commission couldn’t stand him”
3. Accuses me of being a “professional complainer”.
4. Accuses me of being a “devious character”.
Heenan Blaikie LLP Barristers & Solicitors
55 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 6L5
T. 613 236.1668
F. 613 236.9632
Jesus in a rainhat. Yes, folks, this is a new and separate suit, not to be confused with the suit against the same people he launched last month.
So: Richard Warman — sadist or masochist? Personally, my hand hurts from spanking Mr. Topping From Below here. And his ball gag keeps popping out…
BONUS free legal advice:
An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case Arkell v. Pressdram. The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and for a change the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell’s lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: “Our client’s attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply”. The response consisted, in part, of the following: “We would be interested to know what your client’s attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows : Fuck off”. This caused a stir in certain quarters.