Cal Wenzel suing Mayor Nenshi for $6M

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, that's true, but remember that Nenshi threatened to sue I think the Calgary Sun over one of their columns a while back, so he should be familiar with what you can and can't say in the public light.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

For those who are defending Nenshi here, there is one thing you should keep in mind: legally speaking, his defense has no merit. None. Zero. Zilch. Like a 0% chance of any outcome other than his huge ego gratification. Plus, the taxpayers' money to defend it.

So why didn't Wenzel ask for $50million then?

[SebC]

I don't feel Nenshi should apologize for the sake of avoiding this lawsuit. If he apologized any time someone sued him, he'd effectively lose control of his agenda.

Heck, even if he genuinely feels an apology is owed, he might still want to show strength in order to avoid "rewarding" Wenzel's lawsuit. Of course, the worst outcome for him would be to lose the lawsuit, so if he's been advised that he is likely to lose, then perhaps he should apologize.

If Wenzel did somehow win $6M from the mayor, I have to think it would be an absolute PR nightmare for Wenzel. It would be interesting to see Wenzel forced to drop the suit in order to avoid winning it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a settlement that does not include an apology. Nenshi needs an out that saves face.

[Stay Golden]

Rod Sykes was the last Calgary Mayor from the 1970's to be sued privately. Taxpayers did not pay for his defense does anyone remember what that law suit was about? Was it also a defamation of character type lawsuit?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't feel Nenshi should apologize for the sake of avoiding this lawsuit. If he apologized any time someone sued him, he'd effectively lose control of his agenda.

Heck, even if he genuinely feels an apology is owed, he might still want to show strength in order to avoid "rewarding" Wenzel's lawsuit. Of course, the worst outcome for him would be to lose the lawsuit, so if he's been advised that he is likely to lose, then perhaps he should apologize.

If Wenzel did somehow win $6M from the mayor, I have to think it would be an absolute PR nightmare for Wenzel. It would be interesting to see Wenzel forced to drop the suit in order to avoid winning it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a settlement that does not include an apology. Nenshi needs an out that saves face.

Winning a lawsuit is hardly a PR nightmare? That gives it complete legitimacy, and shows he was "right all along". The PR nightmare is the judge laughing in his face and saying its frivolous.

I don't actually care whether Nenshi apologizes, its up to him. But if he doesn't, and that could avoid the whole thing, why should taxpayers pay for that decision?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would normally agree with you, but Nemshi

fyp

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

For those who are defending Nenshi here, ther
e is one thing you should keep in mind: legally speaking, his defense has no merit. None. Zero. Zilch. Like a 0% chance of any outcome other than his huge ego gratification. Plus, the taxpayers' money to defend it.

I know you're trying to be cute, but Nenshi has not filed a statement of defence yet, so there is no way to assess the merits of his defense. Since his lawyer is slightly more reputable than Wenzel's, my guess is that you will be proven wrong.

My point is this: if the city pays for Nenshi's defence, that is on Wenzel, not the mayor.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Winning a lawsuit is hardly a PR nightmare? That gives it complete legitimacy, and shows he was "right all along". The PR nightmare is the judge laughing in his face and saying its frivolous.

I didn't just say winning the suit, I said winning $6M. There's no way you would take $6M from Nenshi unless you are a highly vindictive person, especially considering that Nenshi's parents live with him. If you think people are mad at Wenzel now, imagine what would happen if he were somehow able to bankrupt the mayor because his feelings were hurt. If he genuinely wants to be viewed as a good guy, that's not an outcome he can allow to happen.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Developers and builders don't support political candidates to make them their proverbial puppets, it is just not possible in today's politics. Most of the time they just don't wanna get on politicians' black list.

Really? Because the best way to not get on someone's "black list" as you call it, would be to be seen and not heard. Which just happens to be the exact opposite of what Wenzel is doing.

You're being extremely disingenious if you really believe that is the only reason companies like Shane Homes and other builders donate money.

Businesses are generally concerned about what generates profits. Nenshi's policies are cutting into those profits, so trying to derail his policies by getting other candidates elected or discredit him is the best way to accomplish that agenda.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I know you're trying to be cute, but Nenshi has not filed a statement of defence yet, so there is no way to assess the merits of his defense. Since his lawyer is slightly more reputable than Wenzel's, my guess is that you will be proven wrong.

My point is this: if the city pays for Nenshi's defence, that is on Wenzel, not the mayor.

Out of curiosity why do you think that its on Wenzel? Who pays for the lawsuit is really of no concern to him.

If the city pays for the lawsuit and loses and then covers the award, then that's on the mayor isn't it?

Especially if it in theory could be settled cheaper.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

I didn't just say winning the suit, I said winning $6M. There's no way you would take $6M from Nenshi unless you are a highly vindictive person, especially considering that Nenshi's parents live with him. If you think people are mad at Wenzel now, imagine what would happen if he were somehow able to bankrupt the mayor because his feelings were hurt. If he genuinely wants to be viewed as a good guy, that's not an outcome he can allow to happen.

So if the $6M could be avoided with a simple apology, you would still thing Wenzel is the bad guy? Sure, if Nenshi does everything he can to avoid that outcome and mitigate then I can see why you might think that way. If he just fights it on principle of not wanting to apologize though, that's his decision IMO.

[bluck]

Nenshi's ego is larger than $6 Million dollars hence we are headed to the courts.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...
My point is this: if the city pays for Nenshi's defence, that is on Wenzel, not the mayor.

It absolutely will be on Nenshi. He has the ability and control to make it go away without a penny spent further.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I know you're trying to be cute...

I am not trying, I am adourable. Just wanted to show you that there are two sides of this coin. You can't take away one party's right to react to an insult while giving the other party all benefits of that insult regardless of how you personally feel about the merit of the insult.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I know you're trying to be cute, but Nenshi has not filed a statement of defence yet, so there is no way to assess the merits of his defense. Since his lawyer is slightly more reputable than Wenzel's, my guess is that you will be proven wrong.

My point is this: if the city pays for Nenshi's defence, that is on Wenzel, not the mayor.

I'm very interested in seeing the statement of defense. I would expect that we're not going to see that for a while.

As much as I believe that Wenzel would probably want vindication proclaimed by a judge, I personally believe that there will be a settlement long before this gets to the courts.

If the city decides not to cover the defense, then its likely that the mayor will be forced to settle this to reduce the risk of losing.

If the city decides that they are going to cover the legal defense and possible award, how much are they going to want to risk a reward of 6 million bucks plus legal fees.

Does the city have insurance on this kind of thing? Its not like its a malpractice suit.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would normally agree with you, but I don't think looking at the lawsuit that its completely frivolous, I agree that the demand for compensation is ridiculous.

But you can't throw out blind accusations that's not free speech at all.

I'm not defending Wenzel or attacking Nenshi.

But there's a line that you skirt in terms of free speech and Nenshi blew right by it.

As far as the question of wasting public funds, that's under debate right now and is the most interesting part of this.

Since this was in the middle of an election campaign, and Nenshi was in effect campaigning and the comments went towards election conduct, the argument is that Nenshi was speaking as a mayoral candidate and not the mayor, and if that's what the council recognizes then this lawsuit will cost taxpayers nothing except the time that Nenshi is not on the job.

What exactly is that line that you skirt in terms of free speech? Speaking up when you believe that one of your opponents is advocating actions that are, in your view, in violation of election law? Blind accusations? Hardly. It's an accusation based on video that we all saw, put against the elections act that we all have access to. It's about as far from blind as you could get. Ultimately, you've already decided that there's a line that Nenshi's comments have crossed. But the whole reason that we have defamation laws is to set out what those lines are. If the courts find Nenshi defamed Wenzel, his comments went too far. If the courts find that they were true and fair, then they clearly didn't go too far.

As for the public funds, it's a 'meh' issue for me. The city has an internal process that they use to determine it, and whatever conclusion that internal process comes to is fine. It's the least interesting part of the process. Though I fully expect outrage from the Sun and some commenters on here if the city decides it's covered, because people with no view of the process can claim that something wildly inappropriate was done. I strongly suspect that when it's all over, Wenzel's going to be paying those legal fees anyway.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if the $6M could be avoided with a simple apology, you would still think Wenzel is the bad guy?

Yes, and I doubt I'd be alone. With or without an apology, nothing Nenshi's said merits forcing him into bankruptcy. I imagine the court would agree, but were a judge to inexplicably give Wenzel everything he's asked for, my personal opinion, and one that I suspect would be quite common, is that it would reflect very poorly on Wenzel to follow through and take it. This is particularly true when you consider that Nenshi's parents would effectively be collateral damage.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by bluck

Nenshi's ego is larger than $6 Million dollars hence we are headed to the courts.

I'd rather have a Mayor with an ego than one that is corrupt and secretly meets lobbyists and builders in their office.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

What exactly is that line that you skirt in terms of free speech? Speaking up when you believe that one of your opponents is advocating actions that are, in your view, in violation of election law? Blind accusations? Hardly. It's an accusation based on video that we all saw, put against the elections act that we all have access to. It's about as far from blind as you could get. Ultimately, you've already decided that there's a line that Nenshi's comments have crossed. But the whole reason that we have defamation laws is to set out what those lines are. If the courts find Nenshi defamed Wenzel, his comments went too far. If the courts find that they were true and fair, then they clearly didn't go too far.

Ok, I've read the transcript of the secret meeting, and I've seen where Wenzel talks about donating campaign funds to builder friendly candidates, unless I'm missing something there's nothing illegal about that. So would someone be able to point out to me where the advocacy of breaking election laws is. Maybe the transcipt is missing something henous

In terms of free speech you can make opinions, however where it crosses the line is that you can't throw out blind accusations or allegations that can be potentially damaging.

I can't look at a picture of some guys wife and go on youtube and state in my opinion that he's a wife beater because she has a black eye.

Originally Posted by octothorp

As for the public funds, it's a 'meh' issue for me. The city has an internal process that they use to determine it, and whatever conclusion that internal process comes to is fine. It's the least interesting part of the process. Though I fully expect outrage from the Sun and some commenters on here if the city decides it's covered, because people with no view of the process can claim that something wildly inappropriate was done. I strongly suspect that when it's all over, Wenzel's going to be paying those legal fees anyway.

Nenshi was a candidate, he was not speaking on behalf of the city, he was campaigning. So sorry but its not a meh issue in terms of who covers.

Please enlightening me on the process?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I've read the transcript of the secret meeting, and I've seen where Wenzel talks about donating campaign funds to builder friendly candidates, unless I'm missing something there's nothing illegal about that. So would someone be able to point out to me where the advocacy of breaking election laws is. Maybe the transcipt is missing something henous

Wenzel said that he used trucks to assemble and place signs for Kevin Taylor, and that doing so allows people to support the campaign in ways over and above the maximum $5000 limit. Election act says that any money, personal property, real property or service provided to the candidate is a campaign contribution. So is this a violation of the election act? I don't know, that's for the courts do decide but I certainly think it's a reasonable argument.

In terms of free speech you can make opinions, however where it crosses the line is that you can't throw out blind accusations or allegations that can be potentially damaging.

I can't look at a picture of some guys wife and go on youtube and state in my opinion that he's a wife beater because she has a black eye.

Well you could, and chances are nothing would come of it because nobody cares what anyone else says on youtube. I mean, have you read some of the comments on there? But again, we're not talking about making assumptions. We're looking at one person's comments about his own actions, and determining if those actions are a violation of the law. Again, nothing 'blind' about it.

Nenshi was a candidate, he was not speaking on behalf of the city, he was campaigning. So sorry but its not a meh issue in terms of who covers.

Please enlightening me on the process?

I've got no idea what the process is. Like I said, it's internal. You can speculate all you want about what methodology is being used to determine coverage. I'm not going to.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, I've read the transcript of the secret meeting, and I've seen where Wenzel talks about donating campaign funds to builder friendly candidates, unless I'm missing something there's nothing illegal about that. So would someone be able to point out to me where the advocacy of breaking election laws is.

When he was giving his Ward by Ward evaluation of each of the Aldermen, this is what he said in reference to Druh Farrell:

Uh, I had 13 trucks out, uh, last election delivering signs and assembling them and I got called by, uh, Druh and the elections, uh, because they said I’d given 5000 in cash, so therefore my trucks that were out delivering put me over the 5000 and they were gonna take us to court so, obviously, Druh and I don’t see eye-to-eye

He admits to donating his employees' time (which has "in kind" value as a political contribution) in addition to giving $5000 to Taylor's campaign, which technically violates the contribution limits (although, I'm sure this sort of thing happens a lot).

It's not exactly a confession to murder.