CDR: Re: [ga] An open letter to Louis Touton (was) www.ester.dyson
Joe Baptista
baptista at pccf.net
Sun Oct 29 18:15:10 PST 2000
It is a pleasure to advise that I am under a gag order issued by Judge
Edmond Brown and as such am unable to take the bait ;-) No can I defend
myself ;-) Nor can I discuss any details concerning civil servants
sticking candles up little boy bums ;-).
How about that for justice - make ya sick - does it not?
regards
joe
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Me wrote:
> From: "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart at pobox.com>
> > This is also the same Joe Baptista who's not supposed to
> > email or fax the government* of (Ontario, I think?)
>
> Yes, but this is also the Joe Baptista who was served with this:
>
> CLAIM
>
>
> 1. The Plaintiff claims:
>
>
> (a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00;
>
>
> (b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of
> $500,000.00;
>
>
> (c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
> $500,000.00;
>
>
> (d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction
> restraining the Defendant from communicating with
> any person, group of persons, associations or
> corporations by facsimile transmission, computer
> facilities, including electronic mail and the
> "Internet" or in any manner whatsoever except
> direct individual communication, wherein such
> communication, either directly or indirectly,
> refers to or concerns the Plaintiff;
>
>
> (e) costs on a solicitor and client basis;
>
>
> (f) such further and other relief as this Honourable
> Court deems just.
>
>
>
> 2. The Plaintiff is and at all material times was the Chief
> of Police of the City of London Police.
>
>
>
>
> 3. The Defendant resides in the City of Toronto and is a
> self-described: harasser of the police; critic of
> government; bulk user of government services; and,
> administrative burden to the police.
>
>
>
> 4. On or about the 5th day of February, 1995, the Defendant
> falsely and maliciously wrote and published of and
> concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his
> office as Chief of Police to Robert Riley and the public
> at large by electronic mail over the Internet, the message
> set out in Schedule "A" attached hereto.
>
>
>
> 5. On or about June 27th, 1995, the Defendant falsely and
> maliciously wrote of and concerning the Plaintiff and of
> him in the way of his office as Chief of Police by
> letter addressed to the attention of "all concerned
> citizens"
> as set out in Schedule "B" hereto.
>
>
>
> 6. The said letter was published by the Defendant by facsimile
> transmission to:
>
>
> (a) the police departments of the following municipalities
> in
> the Province of Ontario:
> (i) LaSalle
> (ii) Durham Region;
> (iii) Kingston;
> (iv) Lakefield;
> (v) Brockville;
> (vi) Desoronto;
> (vii) York Region;
> (viii) Anderdon Township;
> (ix) Chatham;
> (x) Niagara Region;
> (xi) Amherstburg;
> (xii) Essex;
> (xiii) Kemptville;
> (xiv) Sudbury Region;
> (xv) Lindsay;
> (xvi) Windsor;
> (xvii) Gananoque;
> (xviii) Collingwood;
>
>
> and others not presently known to the Plaintiff; and
>
>
>
> (b) the following media outlets in the City of London:
>
>
> (i) 6X Radio, Fanshawe College;
> (ii) CJBK Radio 1290;
> (iii) CKSL Radio 1410;
> (iv) CFPL Radio 98;
> (v) CFPL Television;
> (vi) The London free Press;
>
>
> and other outlets not presently known to the Plaintiff.
>
>
>
> 7. At or about the same time, the aforesaid or similar letter
> was further published electronically by the Defendant to the
> public at large over the medium of the Internet,
> a global computer network.
>
>
>
> 8. On or about the 6th day of July, 1995, the Defendant
> falsely and maliciously wrote of and concerning the
> Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as
> Chief of Police, as set out in Schedule "C" attached
> hereto, submissions to the Information and Privacy
> Commissioner of Ontario, purportedly pursuant to an Inquiry
> being conducted under the Municipal Freedom of Information
> and
> Protection of Privacy Act.
>
>
>
> 9. On or about July 10th, 1995, the Defendant published the
> document
> attached as Schedule "C" to all of those parties referred to
> in paragraph 5 above and others, by facsimile transmission
> and
> other means of communication.
>
>
>
> 10. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
> "A",
> the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
> within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
> with the complained of words contained in Schedules "B" and "
> c ".
>
>
>
> 11. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
> "B",
> the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
> within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
> with the complained of words contained in Schedules "A" and
> "C" but particularly in the following words:
> (a) "Dr. ";
>
>
> (b) "Attention: all concerned citizens";
>
>
> (c) "an upcoming inquisition";
>
>
> (d) "an investigation into the background and
> activities of Julian Fantino";
>
>
> (e) "family and employment history";
>
>
> (f) "known, suspected or rumoured criminal
> activities";
>
>
> (g) "known, suspected or rumoured homophobic,
> sexist, or racist activities
> (including actions and statements)";
>
>
> (h) "any other information of a nature that
> might bring Mr. Fantino into
> disrepute, and/or before justice".
>
>
>
> 12. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule
> "C",
> the Plaintiff pleads that the following words, on their own
> and in
> conjunction with the complained of words contained in
> Schedules
> "A" and "B", are maliciously false and defamatory of him:
>
>
>
>
> (a) "the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been
> victim to a criminal conspiracy from within the
> ranks
> of the London Police Services Board";
>
>
> (b) "This process is nothing more than the police version
> of the silent scream. A futile and miscalculated
> adventure by them to avoid or minimalize
> prosecution
> under the Criminal Code of Canada.";
>
>
>
> (c) "Although the old Chief is a principal in this
> crime -
> he has not been a driving force in its
> application.
> That honour goes to another who will be
> later named." (referring to the Plaintiff);
>
>
> (d) "the actions by the various police agencies to the
> court application only merit consideration as
> they
> relate to criminal behaviour";
>
>
> (e) "this action has only been taken by the police with
> the
> intent of avoiding and deflecting criminal
> responsibility";
>
>
> (f) "I only present these facts in support of any claims
> of wrongdoing I herein level against the various
> irresponsible police authorities as they respect
> the
> Commissions inquiry.";
>
>
> (g) "I accuse former chief McCormick and chief Julian
> Fantino of an offence against authority and
> public
> order. Both have conspired to maintain
> confidences
> with respect to my criminal activities and as a
> result have assisted me in achieving my goals ...
> the police have at all times known and been aware
> of my criminal activity ... the police abstained
> from the proper criminal procedures and that said
> actions were with intent.";
>
>
> (h) "Apart from having his private telephone ...
> disclosed
> to me and details of a dysfunctional family life,
> I was
> also able to confirmed(sic) Fantino is not
> altogether a
> law abiding citizen.";
>
>
> (i) "they (referring to the police and the Plaintiff)
> have
> in turn become criminal".
>
>
>
> 13. The Plaintiff pleads that the words set out in Schedule "A"
> are defamatory of him and, in their natural and ordinary
> meaning,
> meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously
> written
> and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean,
> in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set
> out
> in Schedules "B" and illicit that the Plaintiff is:
>
> (a) porcine;
> (b) greedy;
> (c) dirty;
> (d) an annoying person;
> (e) an unpleasant person;
> (f) a slovenly person;
> (g) a slob;
> (h) a despicable person;
> (i) a Neanderthal;
> (j) primitive;
> (k) unintelligent;
> (l) aesthetically challenged;
> (m) intellectually challenged; and
> (n) prehistoric.
>
>
>
> 14. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words as
> contained
> in Schedule "B" and particularized in paragraph 11 above, in
> their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were
> understood
> to mean and were maliciously written and published by the
> Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and
> in
> conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "A" and "C"
> that the Plaintiff:
>
>
>
> (a) was guilty of wrongdoing and is the subject of an
> officially sanctioned investigation being
> conducted
> by the Defendant;
>
>
> (b) was and is engaged in criminal activity;
>
>
> (c) is homophobic and was and is engaged in homophobic
> activities;
>
>
>
> (d) is sexist and was and is engaged in sexist
> activities;
>
>
> (e) is racist and was and is engaged in racist
> activities;
>
>
> (f) does engage in and has engaged in disreputable
> and discreditable activities;
>
>
> (g) has engaged in unlawful activities that should be
> subject to judicial sanction;
>
>
> (h) has breached his oath and duty as a police officer
> and Chief of Police; and
>
>
> (i) has not conducted himself as a police officer and
> Chief
> of Police in accordance with law, honesty and
> integrity.
>
>
>
> 15. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words in Schedule
> "C"
> hereto, as particularized in paragraph 12 above, in their
> natural
> and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and
> were
> maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be
> understood
> to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the
> words set
> out in Schedules "A" and "B", that the Plaintiff:
>
>
>
> (a) has contravened the criminal law;
>
>
> (b) is a criminal;
>
>
> (c) has engaged in a criminal conspiracy;
>
>
> (d) has, by a criminal action, victimized the
> Information
> and Privacy Commissioner;
>
>
> (e) has breached his public duty as a police officer
> and
> Chief of Police;
>
>
> (f) has engaged in civil proceedings involving the
> Information and Privacy Commissioner in order
> to
> subvert the criminal law and/or to prevent
> exposure and prosecution for his own criminal
> acts;
>
>
> (g) is a criminal ringleader;
>
>
>
> (h) is participating in wrongdoing and unlawful
> activities;
>
> (i) has covered up criminal wrongdoing; and
> is an unfit husband and father.
>
>
>
> 17. The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words published
> by the
> Defendant were calculated to and did disparage the Plaintiff
> in his
> calling as a police officer and Chief of Police.
>
>
>
> 18. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant
> published the
> complained of words out of malevolence or spite towards the
> Plaintiff,
>
>
>
> 19. By reason of the publication of the complained of words by
> the
> Defendant, the Plaintiff has been much injured in his credit
> and
> reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium and
> contempt
> and has thereby suffered damage.
>
>
>
> 20. The Defendant intends to continue the publication of the same
> or
> similar defamatory charges against the Plaintiff;
>
>
>
> 21. Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiff pleads that the
> complained of words set out in Schedules "A", "B" and "C"
> and as
> particularized in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, were
> published with express malice and constitute malicious
> falsehoods.
>
>
>
> 22. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon Section 19 of the Libel
> &
> Slander Act, R. S. 0. 1990, Chapter L12 as amended.
>
>
>
>
> 23. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City
> of
> London, in the County of Middlesex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And responded, unsuccessfully, with this:
>
>
>
> STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
>
>
> 1. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs
> 2, 3
> and 8 of the statement of claim.
> 2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs
> 1, 7
> (page 3), 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the
> statement
> of claim.
> 3. The defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations
> contained in paragraphs 6, 7 (page 5), 9 and 19 of the statement
> of claim.
> 4. The defendant is the system administrator to planet earth.
> 5. The defendant is an internet god.
> 6. The defendant is at war with the government of Canada du jour.
> 7. The defendant is the government of Canada de facto.
> 8. The defendant is inquisitor to Alberto Araujo Cunha, sometimes
> known as Albert Araujo, Albert Cunha, Alberto Cunha, and Alberto
> Araujo,
> a priest to the roman catholic order and reformed cocaine dealer.
> 9. The defendant is inquisitor to Julian Fantino the plaintiff to
> this action.
> 10. The defendant by act of war warns this court that it has no
> jurisdiction in this action.
> 11. The defendant by inquisition advises the court that limited
> jurisdiction is granted this court with respect to facilitating
> the
> continued inquisition of Julian Fantino a plaintiff to this
> action.
> 12. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2
> of
> the statement of claim. The defendant has been successfully at
> war with
> the government of Canada du jour, and associated entities since
> April 1993.
> 13. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7
> (page 3) of the statement of claim. The electronic mail
> communication
> set out in Schedule A of the plaintiffs statement of claim is a
> forged
> communication which does not comply with network news transfer
> protocol
> standards employed by the posting agent at the host server at
> planet.earth.org.
> 14. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5
> of
> the statement of claim. The defendant believes the document set
> out in
> schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim originated from
> the
> ExtraTerrestrial Archives (ETA) an independent agent and
> archivists to
> the inquisition of Julian Fantino. The defendant however is
> unable to
> verify the ETAs authorship of the stated document since ETA
> archive
> access to internet public inquisitors is denied.
> 15. The defendant further claims that any individual with an
> internet
> account may access the necessary documents and files that can
> reproduce
> the defendants letterhead and signature in electronic form.
> 16. The defendant further claims that the document set out in
> schedule B to the plaintiffs statement of claim is in form and
> content
> acceptable to the defendant as a inquisition document.
> 17. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8
> of
> the statement of claim but denies that the submissions made under
> the
> Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to
> the
> Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario were in any way
> false or
> malicious. The defendant further claims that the document set out
> in
> schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim is not a true
> copy of the
> original text published by the Information and Privacy
> Commissioner of
> Ontario.
> 18. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has
> contravened
> the criminal law of Canada, is a criminal and has engaged in a
> criminal
> conspiracy with one William McCormick a former police chief to
> the
> Metropolitan Toronto Police.
> 19. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff has engaged
> in
> unlawful activities and has breached his public duty as a police
> officer
> and Chief of Police.
> 20. The defendant further claims that as a result of this
> criminal
> activity the public and the Information and Privacy Commissioner
> have
> been victimized by the plaintiff.
> 21. The defendant further claims that as a result of this
> criminal
> activity government processes and democratic principals have been
> jeopardized by the plaintiff.
> 22. The defendant by declaration of war further claims that the
> criminal behavior exhibited by the plaintiff is good and has
> served the
> defendants purposes and goals in destabilizing government
> structures and
> systems.
> 23. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph
> 10,
> 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the plaintiffs statement of claim.
> The
> defendant did not author the documents contained in schedule A
> and B to
> the plaintiffs statement of claim and therefore any reference to
> these
> documents in support of any allegation is void and irrelevant.
> 24. The defendant pleads that he agrees with the interpretation
> of
> schedule C to the plaintiffs statement of claim contained in
> paragraphs
> 15. (a), 15. (b), 15. (c), 15. (d), 15. (e), 15. (f), 15. (h) and
> 15. (i).
> 25. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegation contained in
> paragraph 15. (g) of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The
> defendant
> pleads and believes that the plaintiff does not have the
> necessary skills
> or competence to be a criminal ringleader.
> 26. The defendant has no knowledge of the allegations contained
> in
> paragraph 15. (j).
> 27. The defendant pleads that as inquisitor to Julian Fantino,
> the
> defendant has received privileged information concerning the
> sexual and
> private activities of the plaintiffs family.
> 28. The defendant further pleads that this information was
> discussed
> at length with the defendants associates.
> 29. The defendant further pleads that these conversations were
> private and have not yet been placed on the public record.
> 30. The defendant further pleads that the plaintiff has
> unlawfully
> gained access to transcripts of these conversations.
> 31. The defendant further pleads the plaintiffs allegations
> contained
> in paragraph 15. (j) that he is an unfit husband and father is a
> reflection not of the plaintiffs interpretation of schedule C but
> an
> interpretation of information from transcripts unlawfully
> obtained.
> 32. The defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph
> 18
> of the plaintiffs statement of claim. The plaintiff at all times
> has
> been manipulated and directed to serve the defendants authority.
> The
> defendant further pleads the plaintiff has been instrumental in
> furthering the defendants objectives.
> 33. The defendant pleads that he has no malevolence or spite
> towards
> the plaintiff.
> COUNTERCLAIM
> 34. The defendant claims:
> (a) damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00;
> (b) damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of
> $500,000.00;
> (c) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
> $500,000.00;
> (d) an interim, interlocutory and final injunction
> restraining the plaintiff from communicating with any person,
> group of
> persons, associations, police forces, governments agencies and
> departments or media in any manner, including individual
> communication,
> either directly or indirectly, as it refers to or concerns the
> defendant;
> (e) a autographed color picture of the plaintiffs anus;
> (f) costs on a solicitor and client basis;
> (g) such further and other relief as this court deems
> just,
> or unjust.
> 35. The defendant is an inquisitor of the order of arcon.
> 36. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted himself
> professionally,
> honestly, with integrity and in keeping with the principals and
> teachings
> of the arconian committee of inquisition.
> 37. The defendant as inquisitor has conducted various aspects of
> inquisition on behalf of the committee of inquisition:
> (a) Robert George Spencer, being the investigation and
> promotion of political activities in fraud;
> (b) Thomas Clifford, being a report into political
> activities
> and crimes against children, inquisition pending due to health of
> subject;
> (c) John Eakins, being a report into political activities
> and
> crimes against children;
> (d) Roy McMurtry, being the purchase of the same,
> inquisition
> inactive;
> (e) James Kalan, being the purchase of the same,
> inquisition
> terminated due to death by random violence;
> (f) Sid Balcom, being a report into guardianship and
> crimes
> against children, application for inquisition pending the
> availability of
> an inquisitor;
> (g) Marion Boyd, being an investigation and application
> for
> inquisition pending the availability of an inquisitor;
> (h) Alberto Araujo Cunha, inquisition active and pending
> the
> investigation of the roman catholic order;
> (i) Julian Fantino, inquisition active and moved to
> public
> forum at the request of the subject.
> 38. The defendant claims the plaintiff has made wild, insane and
> malicious accusations against the defendant as an individual and
> inquisitor.
> 39. On or about September 1st, 1995 the plaintiff gave an
> interview
> to XTRA magazine, set out in schedule A, in which he referred to
> the
> defendant as:
> (a) This is a situation out of control,;
> (b) The hate mongering, the spreading of propaganda and
> malicious attacks on the institution of policing.;
> (c) Its more then societys prepared to take.;
> (d) I am a victim, am I not.;
> (e) I have merely incurred his wrath because I have
> professionally, honestly, with integrity, in keeping with my oath
> of
> office, brought to bring some relief to this anarchist movement
> he
> promotes - and got in his way.;
> (f) That suggestion is unfair.;
> (g) Mr. Baptista is attacking me for what I have done in
> my
> capacity as police chief.
> 40. On or about September 1st, 1995, Dianne Haskett, mayor to the
> city of London, in the county of Middlesex, did also give an
> interview to
> XTRA magazine in which she said of the defendant:
> (a) I believe other action would of been more effective.;
> (b) We have heard a lot about threatening communications
> made
> by Mr. Baptista.;
> (c) I think they should be explored to see if they
> violate
> the Criminal Code.;
> (d) To try to curtail someones access to the internet
> goes
> beyond what we are capable of, even in this lawsuit.;
> (e) This is something not even the computer community
> agrees
> you can do.
> 41. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff, and individuals
> associated and under the direction of the plaintiff, have with
> purpose
> and malice given interviews to various press and media persons
> with the
> intention of harming and damaging the defendants reputation.
> 42. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff has used his office
> as
> chief of police to the city of London, in the county of Middlesex
> to
> cause hatred and harm towards the defendant through hate
> mongering and
> the spreading of malicious propaganda.
> 43. The defendant pleads that the complained of words contained
> in
> schedule A are maliciously false and defamatory of him.
> 44. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff is a disgrace to his
> office and profession.
> 45. The defendant proposes that this action be tried before a
> jury at
> the city of London, in the county of Middlesex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: September 12th, 1995 Dr. Joe Baptista
> Inquisitor to Julian
> Fantino
>
>
>
--
Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
More information about the Testlist
mailing list