Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, but what about the "godfather" discussion with David Gray? That's hardly just a negative opinion and its extremely unlikely to be true (to say the least).

In reading the Herald article Wenzel says he just wanted an apology and couldn't get one. If that's the case, its really a waste of legal resources to pursue IMO.

I would say the bigger issue is his, like Killer_Carlson said, the use of the word "illegal". That's the bigger point.

His exact quote with regards to the Godfather was "We had a scene right outside of — out of the movie Godfather." And considering it was pretty close to this secret underground meeting with 1 guy at the lead telling how to gain control of the municipal government it wouldn't be the worst comparison ever to be made.

Although my response was more towards the usage of "obvious," I don't think it's clear cut in any way.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would say the bigger issue is his, like Killer_Carlson said, the use of the word "illegal". That's the bigger point.

His exact quote with regards to the Godfather was "We had a scene right outside of — out of the movie Godfather." And considering it was pretty close to this secret underground meeting with 1 guy at the lead telling how to gain control of the municipal government it wouldn't be the worst comparison ever to be made.

Although my response was more towards the usage of "obvious," I don't think it's clear cut in any way.

Its obvious because his reputation and otherwise good standing was tarnished. I don't think that is really debatable at all? The question is was that a result of Nenshi himself, Wnezel himself or other people? That's where it gets murky.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its obvious because his reputation and otherwise good standing was tarnished. I don't think that is really debatable at all? The question is was that a result of Nenshi himself, Wnezel himself or other people? That's where it gets murky.

But that's not obvious defamation. Defamation has to be, usually, false information.

His reputation was tarnished, might have even been because of Nenshi. Was the information false? That's the bigger issue.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its obvious because his reputation and otherwise good standing was tarnished. I don't think that is really debatable at all? The question is was that a result of Nenshi himself, Wnezel himself or other people? That's where it gets murky.

But the words were right from his mouth, no?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its obvious because his reputation and otherwise good standing was tarnished. I don't think that is really debatable at all? The question is was that a result of Nenshi himself, Wnezel himself or other people? That's where it gets murky.

Absolutely this point is debatable. This will be very hard to prove because of the video.

I would argue that because of the video (where a lot of people would have already formed their opinions and probably first heard of Wenzel) and not because of Nenshi's comments.

[SebC]

A good read: http://www.torys.com/Publications/Do.../LDR2008-5.pdf

I don't think there's any way Wenzel's suit meets this threshold.

(For those who won't read it, it essentially says that Nenshi's statements don't need to be true, nor does Nenshi need to believe that they are true... they only need to be things that one could rationally believe to be true on the basis of things that are true - and to me, they certainly meet at least that bar.)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by flameswin

But the words were right from his mouth, no?

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Absolutely this point is debatable. This will be very hard to prove because of the video.

I would argue that because of the video (where a lot of people would have already formed their opinions and probably first heard of Wenzel) and not because of Nenshi's comments.

If you guys read what you quoted from me, that's basically exactly what I said.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

A good read: http://www.torys.com/Publications/Do.../LDR2008-5.pdf

I don't think there's any way Wenzel's suit meets this threshold.

(For those who won't read it, it essentially says that Nenshi's statements don't need to be true, nor does Nenshi need to believe that they are true... they only need to be things that one could rationally believe to be true on the basis of things that are true - and to me, they certainly meet at least that bar.)

That definately covers the godfather comments. I think it still leaves some opening around the illegal contributions comments as you still need to base even the most ridiculous opinion on facts.

However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that if those facts are set out accurately (or are otherwise expected to be known to the audience) and the statements are obviously an expression of opinion and are rationally connected with those facts, even “outrageous” and “ridiculous” remarks will be protected. The Court also reiterated that the determination of whether a statement is “fact” or “comment” is to be generously interpreted to ensure that strong opinion, figurative speech or hyperbolic language is not unduly restricted.

[Voodooman]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I sincerely hope that old fool Wenzel takes a heart attack and dies. What a massive tool.

[KTrain]

Originally Posted by Voodooman

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I sincerely hope that old fool Wenzel takes a heart attack and dies. What a massive tool.

Wishing death on pedophiles or murderers is one thing. Wishing death on someone because they sue the mayor makes you look like a fool.

[Voodooman]

Oh, it's not because he sued the mayor. It's because he adds nothing of value to our city (unless you count shoddily built, cookie cutter houses in yop gobbler land), but expects the city to bow down before him. The 21st century robber baron, with about as much moral authority as J.J. Astor.

But your opinion is noted. And is of equal value to mine.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by SebC

A good read: http://www.torys.com/Publications/Do.../LDR2008-5.pdf

I don't think there's any way Wenzel's suit meets this threshold.

(For those who won't read it, it essentially says that Nenshi's statements don't need to be true, nor does Nenshi need to believe that they are true... they only need to be things that one could rationally believe to be true on the basis of things that are true - and to me, they certainly meet at least that bar.)

This article is about the defense of fair comment so it's not Wenzel who has to meet this threshold, but it is a good one to link.

Really, defamation is a screwy tort because from my recollection of law school you don't have to really prove anything, other than that the statement you're upset about was published. The law makes a presumption not only that the statement was harmful and caused damages (proving damages is often the biggest hurdle to get over in a tort case), and that the person publishing the statement did so with actual malice, but it assumes that the statement is FALSE. That's always seemed messed up to me: the plaintiff doesn't even have to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that the defamatory statement isn't true. Truth is a defence - the burden is on the defendant.

So I think Slava's right, technically, that the statements are pretty clearly defamatory, because of the way the tort works. It's pretty obvious that the statements were published - they were made on a radio program. However, because of the link quoted about it's far easier than one might think to make out a defense.

[Acey]

So realistically, how much can we expect Nenshi to pay, if at all? Does he settle? My knowledge of law is limited to American court dramas.

[1stLand]

When you are mayor, you are in the public spotlight and you need to be able to take criticism and understand you will have vocal opponents.

Going after and vilifying 1 businessman is unbecoming of a mayor. I don't remember Duerr or bronco getting into a public *issing match with a vocal opponent outside of the mayoral race.

It doesn't make the lawsuit right, but it could have been avoided if Nenshi was a more mature person.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Acey

So realistically, how much can we expect Nenshi to pay, if at all? Does he settle? My knowledge of law is limited to American court dramas.

I think that the settlement would be nominal, like $1 and an apology. Unless there are actual damages that can be proven.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that the settlement would be nominal, like $1 and an apology. Unless there are actual damages that can be proven.

Wouldn't that be funny if the damages are proven by referencing CP's Municipal Election Discussion Thread?

Lot's of commenters on here saying they will never buy a Shane Home again.
That's got to be a few Mil in lost revenues right there.

lol

The only winners of this lawsuit are going to be the Lawyers

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Wouldn't that be funny if the damages are proven by referencing CP's Municipal Election Discussion Thread?

Lot's of commenters on here saying they will never buy a Shane Home again.
That's got to be a few Mil in lost revenues right there.

lol

The only winners of this lawsuit are going to be the Lawyers

But as Wenzel has stated, he is not Shane Homes. This is a personal suit, so any damages associated to Shane Homes loss of business doesn't damage Wenzel personally. I mean, if he wants to draw that line, then doesn't that open him up to the same thing he's distancing himself from? That Shane Homes not him donated or provided gas cards for "volunteers" for Taylor's campaign.

[killer_carlson]

I wonder when/if the Mayor parks his ego and apologizes to mitigate his damages.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

Wouldn't that be funny if the damages are proven by referencing CP's Municipal Election Discussion Thread?

Lot's of commenters on here saying they will never buy a Shane Home again.
That's got to be a few Mil in lost revenues right there.

lol

The people saying they will never buy a Shame Home are doing so in response to Wenzel's ridiculous hurt feelings SLAPP suit, not because of anything Nenshi said or did.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its obvious because his reputation and otherwise good standing was tarnished. I don't think that is really debatable at all? The question is was that a result of Nenshi himself, Wnezel himself or other people? That's where it gets murky.

Without the video there is no issue. Nenshi and company may have amplified it but the root injury to reputation lies at Wenzel's feet