Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

Can Nenshi do a cop out apology and say 'I'm sorry...you took offense' or 'I'm sorry....you're stupid'.

Nah, I think that train has sailed.

If this goes then Wenzel is going to want either a prosecution verdict or a settlement offer with an apology.

The barn door is open, the cow is caught in a bear trap and a horse is doing the farmers wife.

Its too late for a simple apology I expect.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by fotze

Can Nenshi do a cop out apology and say 'I'm sorry...you took offense' or 'I'm sorry....you're stupid'.

it would be intersting to see if a simple swallow his pride and

cop out apology and say 'I'm sorry...you took offense

would make this go away for Nenshi, personally i do not believe he has it it him to appologize for his mouth. Perhaps he will suprise and do just that.
I think most of us many times apologize about something in the work place just to resolve the situation and move on.

[Minnie]

He hasn't even been served yet. So, for now, still just a lot of bluster from Wenzel?

[mykalberta]

I think defending yourself by saying what Wenzel said was illegal is a slippery slope since it hasnt been proved and if its proved to be false then you look like an ill-informed idiot. Thinking about robbing the bank across the street to pay for a new car isnt illegal (if it was there would be no one not behind bars).

Giving gas cards to people is only illegal if you tried to circumvent the normal donation limits. Since the video came out before the election I cant see how anyone would have been short sighted enough to go over the limits even if that was their intent before the video was made public. On the other hand I wonder if you took a picture of all the vehicles that came to assist in the Nenshi campaign - could any of them been company vehicles which then should have been added as a donation cost.

As per donations to the Manning Centre. From what I have heard its only illegal from a Manning Centre tax exempt perspective. If they accepted money and Wenzel and friends directed how it was spent for their own gain then its tax fraud. If the Manning Centre came to them and said we are looking to start up a municipal government training centre because we believe to many grass roots politicians are left of centre then its not tax fraud.

Why Wenzel is suing is the same reason there is so much dislike for him. He has direct business ties to the City and how it operates was trying to circumvent the Mayors public image and popularity (which he will undoubtedly use to get issues passed by playing to the press) that goes against Wenzel's buisness interests. Wenzel and this group of like minded business associates had a plan to simply outvote Nenshi. The problem is that isnt illegal and by all accounts thats what the Mayor was indicating. After the video first came out there was little mention of the possible above illegal activities and alot about the "out-voting" strategy. Being in such a twitter/email/facebook connected era I do wonder if some of the evidence Wenzel is using against Nenshi is from those sources.

If a group on environmental companies thought that certain MPs or MLAs wernt protecting the environment is it illegal for them to donate money and time to a competing politician. The "goody-goody" nature of the reasoning doesnt change the fact that both are completely legal.

I personally dont like defamation lawsuits but when public figures attack a private citizen (Wenzel wasnt running for Mayor or Alderman the last time I checked) for nothing more then a cell phone video of a private business meeting then how do you stop it other public figures from attacking other private citizens - what if he attacked a person with much less means to fight back. A lawsuit is the only way and to get a good sense of how Wenzel's reputation has been tarnished would be to scour the Interwebs for posts about him "how hes an idiot" or a "scumbag" from people so ill-informed about most issues that it makes you weep for democracy.

Personally I think the City should pay for the defence but only as a way to show others that such lawsuits would not be easy to win. The problem is Wenzel has the means to take this to court. If somehow a judgement came down against Nenshi then he should have to personally pay IMO.

[Stay Golden]

^
^
Well said.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was with you up until your last paragraph. This is all on Nenshi the individual, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Its not up to the city to pay court costs for an individual because you don't like the idea of the ramifications.

On top of that the city bears no responsibility for Nenshi the candidates actions since he went after Wenzel as a big part of his re-election strategy painting him as a boogey man influencing candidates.

As a taxpayer I would be heavily opposed to the city paying either his defense costs, or providing city representation or paying the settlement.


I would be very surprised if because the city wasn't named it would be legal for them to foot the bill. In that way Wenzel did a smart thing, He isolated Nenshi.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think defending yourself by saying what Wenzel said was illegal is a slippery slope since it hasnt been proved and if its proved to be false then you look like an ill-informed idiot. Thinking about robbing the bank across the street to pay for a new car isnt illegal (if it was there would be no one not behind bars).

Giving gas cards to people is only illegal if you tried to circumvent the normal donation limits. Since the video came out before the election I cant see how anyone would have been short sighted enough to go over the limits even if that was their intent before the video was made public. On the other hand I wonder if you took a picture of all the vehicles that came to assist in the Nenshi campaign - could any of them been company vehicles which then should have been added as a donation cost.

As per donations to the Manning Centre. From what I have heard its only illegal from a Manning Centre tax exempt perspective. If they accepted money and Wenzel and friends directed how it was spent for their own gain then its tax fraud. If the Manning Centre came to them and said we are looking to start up a municipal government training centre because we believe to many grass roots politicians are left of centre then its not tax fraud.

Why Wenzel is suing is the same reason there is so much dislike for him. He has direct business ties to the City and how it operates was trying to circumvent the Mayors public image and popularity (which he will undoubtedly use to get issues passed by playing to the press) that goes against Wenzel's buisness interests. Wenzel and this group of like minded business associates had a plan to simply outvote Nenshi. The problem is that isnt illegal and by all accounts thats what the Mayor was indicating. After the video first came out there was little mention of the possible above illegal activities and alot about the "out-voting" strategy. Being in such a twitter/email/facebook connected era I do wonder if some of the evidence Wenzel is using against Nenshi is from those sources.

If a group on environmental companies thought that certain MPs or MLAs wernt protecting the environment is it illegal for them to donate money and time to a competing politician. The "goody-goody" nature of the reasoning doesnt change the fact that both are completely legal.

I personally dont like defamation lawsuits but when public figures attack a private citizen (Wenzel wasnt running for Mayor or Alderman the last time I checked) for nothing more then a cell phone video of a private business meeting then how do you stop it other public figures from attacking other private citizens - what if he attacked a person with much less means to fight back. A lawsuit is the only way and to get a good sense of how Wenzel's reputation has been tarnished would be to scour the Interwebs for posts about him "how hes an idiot" or a "scumbag" from people so ill-informed about most issues that it makes you weep for democracy.

Personally I think the City should pay for the defence but only as a way to show others that such lawsuits would not be easy to win. The problem is Wenzel has the means to take this to court. If somehow a judgement came down against Nenshi then he should have to personally pay IMO.

For Nenshi to successfully defend the defamation case he only needs to prove part of what he said was fact. Then any opinions based on that fact are fair comment.

The video shows Wensel couciling people on how to get around donation limits. Therefore Nenshi's comments about Wenzel counciling illegal donations is factual. And any of the surrounding comments are included under fair comment.

Yes, the reputation of Wensel was dragged through the mud but it was based around factual statements by him trying to get around election laws and him trying to elect a slate of candidates. These things are facts. And anyone is allowed to make extreme comments based on fact.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why Wenzel is suing is the same reason there is so much dislike for him. He has direct business ties to the City and how it operates was trying to circumvent the Mayors public image and popularity (which he will undoubtedly use to get issues passed by playing to the press) that goes against Wenzel's buisness interests. Wenzel and this group of like minded business associates had a plan to simply outvote Nenshi. The problem is that isnt illegal and by all accounts thats what the Mayor was indicating. After the video first came out there was little mention of the possible above illegal activities and alot about the "out-voting" strategy. Being in such a twitter/email/facebook connected era I do wonder if some of the evidence Wenzel is using against Nenshi is from those sources.

I don't think the 'illegal' issue stems from the attempt to outvote Nenshi. It stems to Wenzel directing people about how they can help candidates over and above monetary donations, in ways that Wenzel's opinion, do not violate election law (ie. providing use of vehicles). But which, in Nenshi's opinion, does violate election law.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Minnie

He hasn't even been served yet. So, for now, still just a lot of bluster from Wenzel?

Not only has Nenshi been served, but his lawyer has already submitted a response - it's in the press release Bunk linked to on the last page.

[Minnie]

Huh. Noon news claimed he hadn't been served yet.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not only has Nenshi been served, but his lawyer has already submitted a response - it's in the press release Bunk linked to on the last page.

No, the response is to a letter dated October 31st, and says this in the first paragraph. The Statement of Claim has been filed with the clerk of the court, but there's no indication it's been served to Nenshi yet.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by GGG

For Nenshi to successfully defend the defamation case he only needs to prove part of what he said was fact. Then any opinions based on that fact are fair comment.

The video shows Wensel couciling people on how to get around donation limits. Therefore Nenshi's comments about Wenzel counciling illegal donations is factual. And any of the surrounding comments are included under fair comment.

Yes, the reputation of Wensel was dragged through the mud but it was based around factual statements by him trying to get around election laws and him trying to elect a slate of candidates. These things are facts. And anyone is allowed to make extreme comments based on fact.

Because the video is very short and no questions are asked how is it known whether what he said was trying to circumvent election rules. All you would need to do to prove that false is look at the last election donation record and see if any gas cards were claimed as donations and then that theory is blown out of the water. It probably was their intent to circumvent rules but its not like they were saying to have each of your 5th cousins donate the max amount of money like does go on. Of those who have helped in a campaign before have you ever brought pizza or donuts and not claimed them as a donation. If gas cards is the worst they were planning then I think anyone who has been involved in an election is at risk.

Also, if Nenshi spent equal time on possible illegalities as he did on the "outvote" strategy then you might be right. But I think a simple Interweb search would find that the outvote strategy was mentioned vastly more. I would guess a conservatively 90% more than the possible illegalities. Anytime Neshi mentions the video even without saying his name he is inferring to Wenzel.

I personally think the end game of this lawsuit is to catch Nenshi in a lie that can be used against him politically going forward. If he wants he would have a pretty easy ride to Premier if the Liberals and NDP collectively quit holding hands in a circle and crying about their misfortune. I think the money asked for in the lawsuit is simply a number thrown at a dartboard. It cannot be proved and likely has no chance of ever being awarded. If Wenzel did win the biggest loss would be to Nenshi's (and Alberta's IMO) future and maybe 100K to his pocketbook or something.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was with you up until your last paragraph. This is all on Nenshi the individual, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Its not up to the city to pay court costs for an individual because you don't like the idea of the ramifications.

On top of that the city bears no responsibility for Nenshi the candidates actions since he went after Wenzel as a big part of his re-election strategy painting him as a boogey man influencing candidates.

As a taxpayer I would be heavily opposed to the city paying either his defense costs, or providing city representation or paying the settlement.


I would be very surprised if because the city wasn't named it would be legal for them to foot the bill. In that way Wenzel did a smart thing, He isolated Nenshi.

I tend to agree but I do think that no matter where or when its stated (unless its obviously a personal matter between two people) then the City should at least look at the issue and its legal department choose the best course of action for the City. However if Nenshi were to disregard the advice of the city then yes he should have to pay for his own defence.

I dont like it but it doesnt cost the city any extra as the lawyers are already paid and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward as the lawsuit while not against the City does damage the Citys reputation and could harm its ability to acquire services etc.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by octothorp

No, the response is to a letter dated October 31st, and says this in the first paragraph. The Statement of Claim has been filed with the clerk of the court, but there's no indication it's been served to Nenshi yet.

Ahh crap. Yeah, you're right.

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was with you up until your last paragraph. This is all on Nenshi the individual, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Its not up to the city to pay court costs for an individual because you don't like the idea of the ramifications.

On top of that the city bears no responsibility for Nenshi the candidates actions since he went after Wenzel as a big part of his re-election strategy painting him as a boogey man influencing candidates.

As a taxpayer I would be heavily opposed to the city paying either his defense costs, or providing city representation or paying the settlement.


I would be very surprised if because the city wasn't named it would be legal for them to foot the bill. In that way Wenzel did a smart thing, He isolated Nenshi.

As a taxpayer I would be heavily opposed as well

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Because the video is very short and no questions are asked how is it known whether what he said was trying to circumvent election rules. All you would need to do to prove that false is look at the last election donation record and see if any gas cards were claimed as donations and then that theory is blown out of the water. It probably was their intent to circumvent rules but its not like they were saying to have each of your 5th cousins donate the max amount of money like does go on. Of those who have helped in a campaign before have you ever brought pizza or donuts and not claimed them as a donation. If gas cards is the worst they were planning then I think anyone who has been involved in an election is at risk.

Also, if Nenshi spent equal time on possible illegalities as he did on the "outvote" strategy then you might be right. But I think a simple Interweb search would find that the outvote strategy was mentioned vastly more. I would guess a conservatively 90% more than the possible illegalities. Anytime Neshi mentions the video even without saying his name he is inferring to Wenzel.

I personally think the end game of this lawsuit is to catch Nenshi in a lie that can be used against him politically going forward. If he wants he would have a pretty easy ride to Premier if the Liberals and NDP collectively quit holding hands in a circle and crying about their misfortune. I think the money asked for in the lawsuit is simply a number thrown at a dartboard. It cannot be proved and likely has no chance of ever being awarded. If Wenzel did win the biggest loss would be to Nenshi's (and Alberta's IMO) future and maybe 100K to his pocketbook or something.

What is the issue with the Outvote strategy, You had a mayor who had one agenda and a private citizen with a different agenda. I see nothing wrong with the mayor campaigning against a builders slate. Unless one wants to deny there was a list of preferred candidates I don't see how that is slander.

I agree that the purpose of this lawsuit is to hurt Nenshi's reputation (which is ironic because it is a lawsuit alleging slander)

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by 1stLand

I just find it funny that Nenshi would choose to go after Cal Wenzel after that video surfaced and then make "Home Builder Subsidies" an issue in the election. It feels like a personal vendetta to me.

Politically, I think Nenshi alienated a lot of people who worked in the Home Building industry and understand how subsidies work and saw how badly Nenshi 'Dumbed down" the issue to make it seem like Tax Payers were subsidizing Millionaire Developers.

People fail to realize that Nenshi received less than 80% support in the election. Had he run on his record or 'status quo', I feel he would have been re-elected with closer to 90%.
(This guy was a friggin hero during the floods for crying out loud).

So for him to receive less than 80% in the polls says something about his Ego getting the best of him.

This wasn't "City of Calgary Taxpayers" vs Home Builders led by Cal Wenzel.

I felt this was more like "Nenshi vs. Home Builders led by Cal Wenzel".

Thats because there are still alot of ignorant red necks in Calgary. If Nenshi was white he would have gotten over 90% of the votes.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Because the video is very short and no questions are asked how is it known whether what he said was trying to circumvent election rules. All you would need to do to prove that false is look at the last election donation record and see if any gas cards were claimed as donations and then that theory is blown out of the water. It probably was their intent to circumvent rules but its not like they were saying to have each of your 5th cousins donate the max amount of money like does go on. Of those who have helped in a campaign before have you ever brought pizza or donuts and not claimed them as a donation. If gas cards is the worst they were planning then I think anyone who has been involved in an election is at risk.

FWIW, in Nenshi's lawyer's response to Wenzel's lawyers, he does not make mention of gas cards. He counts the donation of the vehicles themselves as a contribution with monetary value that would put Wenzel (technically, Shane Homes) over the limit.

I'm not sure why Wenzel brings up the gas cards that the candidate gave his staff at this point, but his suit does try to defend against the use of company vehicles by arguing that it was his employees acting on their own time without compensation from Shane Homes. Problem is, his claim that the employees/vehicles were being used independently is directly contradicted by Wenzel's own words in the video.

As to the rest of your comment, I tend to agree. Wenzel isn't trying to clear his name so much as take Nenshi down. This is definitely personal to him.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Because the video is very short and no questions are asked how is it known whether what he said was trying to circumvent election rules. All you would need to do to prove that false is look at the last election donation record and see if any gas cards were claimed as donations and then that theory is blown out of the water.

Here's the Land Authorities Election Act definition of a campaign contribution:

147.1(1) In this Part,
(a) “campaign contribution” means any money, personal
property, real property or service that is provided to or for
the benefit of a candidate or the candidate’s election
campaign without fair market value compensation from
that candidate but does not include services provided by a
volunteer who voluntarily performs the services and
receives no compensation, directly or indirectly, in
relation to

You can't expect to rent a truck and just pay for gas.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Thats because there are still alot of ignorant red necks in Calgary. If Nenshi was white he would have gotten over 90% of the votes.

Green text?