Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[Savvy27]

I think Nenshi would have been well above 80% with higher voter turnout.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by GGG

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)

I think when you try to link peoples general dislike with all home builders and developers and attach that to one person (the Godfather (example I hate homes by Avi and their stupid adds at flames game, oh this Wenzel guy is a builder who is the developers Godfather - I hate him by association) its wrong IMO for a public official to go after a private citizen like that for political gain no matter what you think of them. If you think what they are doing is illegal report it to the authorities and the courts will handle it.

I am just guessing that alot of people havent seen the movie the Godfather because to call someone the Godfather is to make the accusation that the person while has some sense of justice is corrupt and does nothing but illegal activities. Im not implying that Wenzel is 100% clean but neither is Nenshi's purposefully framed subsidy argument.

And to then insinuate or outright say that the outvote strategy is illegal which it clearly is not is at the very least extremely slimey. Whether its lawsuit worthy I dont know. But this is Wenzels only way of clearing his name, he obviously has no chance of doing that otherwise which is why lawsuits exist.

Nenshi knows that by trying to tie in developers/homebuilders + shady video + questionable legal activities to the outvote strategy that most people who are ill-informed at the best of times about political issues will take that argument and think that the outvote strategy is illegal. And then you hammer against the outvote strategy that the general voting lemmings now think is illegal.

Obviously Wenzel is embarrassed about being caught on video. He has a billion+ dollars so 5M wont make any difference. I initially thought it was about trying to find out who took the video as the story would become very juicy if it happened to be someone with ties to Nenshi. Now I think its about what can be learned from discovery or whatever the legal process is called and trying to kill Nenshi's future either Provincially or Federally.

I think Ive posted the last I will on this and just watch from the sidelines until more comes out. I hate defamation suits but I am interested to see how this plays out. Wenzel is about the last person you would want to cheer to win but if a public official can go after a private citizen who hasnt thrown his/her name into the political ring - then its a slippery slope and everyone should be concerned.

[Daradon]

Yeah, I'm not sure the under 80% figure means much. Obviously a lot of Nenshi supporters stayed home knowing it was going to be an easy win. It's the people that want change that make it out in those situations.

As well 80% is a huge number in a multi candidate race, even with a clear leader. There's always going to be some votes spread around.

[rotten42]

Nenshi just doesn't play well with the other children in the sandbox. Even before he got elected I knew this would happen. Nenshi is media savvy but I don't think he is political savvy. There are ways to get things done in politics. Calling out everyone that disagrees with you isn't one of them.

It is one thing to bring attention to a lobby group that is contrary to your position. It's another thing to demonize them to makes it sound like the builders are some sort of evil entity that is trying to take over the city and rape your children. (yes...an exaggeration...get over it)

What I hope with this term for Nenshi is that he grows up a bit in how he deals with issues. He could end up being a good mayor......but right now he is just a whiney bitch who seems more focused on his media persona than the issues at hand.


(flame away Nensheep lol)

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Nenshi just doesn't play well with the other children in the sandbox. Even before he got elected I knew this would happen. Nenshi is media savvy but I don't think he is political savvy. There are ways to get things done in politics. Calling out everyone that disagrees with you isn't one of them.

It is one thing to bring attention to a lobby group that is contrary to your position. It's another thing to demonize them to makes it sound like the builders are some sort of evil entity that is trying to take over the city and rape your children. (yes...an exaggeration...get over it)

What I hope with this term for Nenshi is that he grows up a bit in how he deals with issues. He could end up being a good mayor......but right now he is just a whiney bitch who seems more focused on his media persona than the issues at hand.


(flame away Nensheep lol)

Speaking of growing up.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Speaking of growing up.

Typical response from a Nenshi hater. I hope he doesn't have trouble sleeping with Nenshi becomes Premier.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Speaking of growing up.

I'm not the mayor so I don't have to.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Typical response from a Nenshi hater. I hope he doesn't have trouble sleeping with Nenshi becomes Premier.

I have no problem with people not agreeing with who other people vote for, it's the nature of politics and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

But just because other people vote differently than them it doesn't make them wrong or "sheep".

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I'm not the mayor so I don't have to.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

But just because other people vote differently than them it doesn't make them wrong or "sheep".

But no you see, supporting a centrist politician in Alberta is totally what all the sheep do.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

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.

I don't know if we'll see eye to eye. I always have this argument with companies that I deal with in terms of the second paragraph with the we pay them anyways.

There is an inherent cost where a lawyer working on a candidate case instead of doing city business for example. That means another lawyer will have to pick up the slack.

Everything costs something, and would the city use its lawyers, or would they go outside the city and contract litigators who are more intune with this kind of law suit.

And in terms of dangerous precedents. Once you open a Pandora's box in terms of defending a candidate, then aren't you opening yourself up to defending other candidates in different lawsuits with a similar foundation? Or defending an alderperson who commits a actionable item when not at work?

Nenshi said this as a candidate in a campaign to get elected, he was represnting himself and his campaign and not the cit, any legal cost obligation, settlement costs or verdicts should be up to him to pay if it comes to it.

I have no interest in seeing taxpayer money going towards a verbal war between two loud mouths who should know better.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

would you be able to find the date of this, It might be here somewhere, but I don't have time to look.

October 9. CBC's blurb:
Mayor Naheed Nenshi expresses his thoughts on the Manning Centre's five economic policy recommendations for the city.


http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/episode/...anning-centre/

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I have no problem with people not agreeing with who other people vote for, it's the nature of politics and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

But just because other people vote differently than them it doesn't make them wrong or "sheep".

Maybe you should move to my riding and watch all the CP sheep that live there to vote for Rob Fricking Anders. the most useless politician in Canadian history.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

October 9. CBC's blurb:
Mayor Naheed Nenshi expresses his thoughts on the Manning Centre's five economic policy recommendations for the city.


http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/episode/...anning-centre/

If you listen to that when he goes into the segment about the manning center meeting, he was talking about this in relation to his campaign he was not talking about it as the mayor.

To me its pretty clear.

And Oct 9 when it went up it was during the election campaign.

Prior to when he pretty much went into his rant he was comparing the manning 5 suggestions to his agenda, which to me is campaigning or platforming.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Maybe you should move to my riding and watch all the CP sheep that live there to vote for Rob Fricking Anders. the most useless politician in Canadian history.

I still can't figure out why people always vote for him.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by rotten42

I still can't figure out why people always vote for him.

Cal Wenzel is prob funding his campaign with money, signs and his trucks and people....

[octothorp]

There's something I can't get my head around here: it seems like a significant portion of the arguments center on whether or not Wenzel did anything illegal. But the court that's hearing this lawsuit wouldn't actually be in a position to rule on whether Wenzel did anything illegal, would it? Because it's not like Wenzel has been charged with anything or has had a complaint filed against him. Yet part of Nenshi's defense is likely the truth defense: that his comments were justified because Wenzel did break the law. So at that point, how can the court avoid ruling on whether Wenzel did break the law, and if it rules that he did, what happens then? Obviously it's far worse for Wenzel's PR: rather than just a mayoral candidate saying he broke the law, now he's had a court say the same thing. Would Wenzel open himself up to additional complaints under the election act? Even if not, essentially he's unnecessarily put himself on trial.

[Smartcar]

The Local Authorities Election Act limits contributions by any person, corporation, trade union or employee organization to a candidate to $5,000 per year but if they give more they are only "guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than" $5,000 for a person and $10,000 for an organization. Sounds a bit like a traffic ticket to me.

[GGG]

The basis of the slander claimmis as follows

Since the plaintiff proved the elements of defamation, it fell to the defendant to establish the defence of fair comment – that is, that the statement was opinion, reasonably held, on the basis of true facts and on a matter of public interest.

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

Nenshi's opinion that wenzel broke the election laws was reasonably held, based on the tapes, and an individual circumventing election laws is in the matter of public interest. So in my non legal opinion they dont need to make any kind of judgement on whether Wenzel broke election laws just that based on the facts on the tape a reasonable person could hold that opinion.

[getbak]

This shows all contributions over $2,000 received by all winning Alderman candidates as well as McIver, Higgins, and Nenshi for the 2010 election: http://globalnews.ca/news/504875/cam...il-candidates/

Shane Homes gave $6,000 to Jim Stevenson, which appears to be violation of the Elections Act.