Bryan Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 Really. Then why isn't Harper suing the author? One thing at a time. I'm sure he will. Lets see how the book sells first so we know how much to clean him out for. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Posted July 10, 2008 One thing at a time. I'm sure he will. Lets see how the book sells first so we know how much to clean him out for. I look forward to seeing the lawsuit. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 Well, we certainly know Cadman wasn't swayed by the Tory offer or we would have seen an election back then.As far as the rest of your overreaction, Mrs. Cadman had plenty of time to dispute what the author said before now and didn't. You may call it an overreaction but to me it just seemed fair comment on how far you will stretch a premise. I guess to some Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Tories. You lose credibility when you stretch too far, like someone who sees a $40,000 used car and puts in an initial offer of $500. It's so low the salesman sees no point in further negotiations. With your accusations of the Cadman "affair" you can come across as merely a blind partisan. Usually, you do much better, I will admit. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) You lose credibility when you stretch too far, like someone who sees a $40,000 used car and puts in an initial offer of $500. It's so low the salesman sees no point in further negotiations. With your accusations of the Cadman "affair" you can come across as merely a blind partisan.Usually, you do much better, I will admit. I never made the accusations. It was Dona Cadman herself who made the allegations. I'm curious as to why she is now saying that the author was not there with her. It seems to me that it was something she might have mentioned when the story came out. Edited July 10, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
Bryan Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 I look forward to seeing the lawsuit. I haven't read the book (nor do I have any plans to), so I can't say if there is anything specifically libelous in it. Media and political parties are notorious for making claims that books and articles say things that they clearly do not, especially if the claim can be twisted to sound especially inflammatory. The recent 'vindication' of Chretien is a perfect example. Chretien was not exhonorated in any way by Judge Teitelbaum, but that didn't stop the media and the Liberals from proclaiming it. Likewise, Harper's focus is probably on the Liberals specifically because what they were proclaiming on their web site misrepresents both what is on the tapes and in the book. Quote
Fortunata Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 Dona Cadman seems to be playing both sides; whatever whenever it might suit her. She doesn't seem to have the ethics that her late husband did. But it's she that has to live with herself. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 11, 2008 Author Report Posted July 11, 2008 Likewise, Harper's focus is probably on the Liberals specifically because what they were proclaiming on their web site misrepresents both what is on the tapes and in the book. Given how many times Harper has lost in court on various things, you have to wonder why he even bothers. Quote
jbg Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 CTV confirms the tape has been doctored..... Did a proctologist get their hands on the tape? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 Dona Cadman seems to be playing both sides; whatever whenever it might suit her. She doesn't seem to have the ethics that her late husband did. But it's she that has to live with herself. Would she benefit from book sales? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 or just more knee jerk reactions from the Liberals LOL Jdobbin is so predictable. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Posted July 13, 2008 Experts contradicts the first two experts. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080713/...l/harper_cadman A former FBI scientist hired by Stephen Harper's lawyer in the prime minister's $3.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal party has contradicted two other experts who said an audio tape at the centre of the legal action was doctored, court documents reveal.The resume of the latest expert Harper's legal team consulted demonstrates the extent to which the prime minister is prepared to go in his claim the Liberals defamed him over allegations of bribery in offers the Tories made to late MP Chuck Cadman as a government confidence vote approached in 2005. Former FBI special agent Bruce Koenig - who lists expert evidence about former U.S. president Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes and analysis of gun shots in the assassination of John F. Kennedy among his accomplishments - said more evidence is needed to judge the veracity and integrity of the disputed tape recording. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 Experts contradicts the first two experts.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080713/...l/harper_cadman He didn't say the other experts were wrong - just that in his opinion, he needed the original tape to be completely sure. He noticed some funny business on the media copy as well. All three experts were hired by the Conservatives so at least you have to acknowledge that they've used competent people and publicised their findings. Koenig, who also performed an authenticity analysis of the Linda Tripp telephone recordings in the investigation of former U.S. president Bill Clinton, reported irregularities in the copy tape and portions where an earlier recording had been taped over, but concluded Zytaruk's original recording, his tape recorder and an external microphone if Zytaruk used one "are required to conduct a conclusive authenticity examination in a forensic audio laboratory." Quote Back to Basics
jdobbin Posted July 14, 2008 Author Report Posted July 14, 2008 He didn't say the other experts were wrong - just that in his opinion, he needed the original tape to be completely sure. He noticed some funny business on the media copy as well. All three experts were hired by the Conservatives so at least you have to acknowledge that they've used competent people and publicised their findings. But the Tories only mentioned two of them. Makes you wonder. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 But the Tories only mentioned two of them. Makes you wonder. Wonder no more....If you read the article in it's entirety, you'll find that the third expert seems to have been employed subsequent to the intial two experts and as the article says, it provides pressure to get the Author to release the original recording. Dearden filed both opinions, along with sworn affidavits, in the swelling Superior Court file of Harper's defamation claim, but added Koenig's analysis as he began attempts to get Zytaruk to provide his original version of the interview with Harper. The first two examinations done by Harper's experts were limited to copies of the tape recording Zytaruk had provided Dearden. Quote Back to Basics
Shakeyhands Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 again, can't wait until Harper takes the stand, then we can finally find out what was offered... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
jdobbin Posted July 14, 2008 Author Report Posted July 14, 2008 Wonder no more....If you read the article in it's entirety, you'll find that the third expert seems to have been employed subsequent to the intial two experts and as the article says, it provides pressure to get the Author to release the original recording. They added the Koenig when media reports said that he had analyzed the tape but would not reveal who paid him. It was inevitable that he would be asked to appear in court. It leads one to believe that the Tories didn't like what the Koenig was telling them and it was better to attack with the other two experts. Quote
Fortunata Posted July 15, 2008 Report Posted July 15, 2008 (edited) again, can't wait until Harper takes the stand, then we can finally find out what was offered... I don't think we'll ever find out. It leads one to believe that the Tories didn't like what the Koenig was telling them and it was better to attack with the other two experts. That sounds like Harper's m.o. Isn't that exactly what he did in committees and every day in Question Period? Wait... he even distributed procedures to all the Con MP's on how to how to do that very same type of thing didn't he? Edited July 15, 2008 by Fortunata Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2008 Author Report Posted July 26, 2008 Judge orders court supervised investigation of the tape. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080725/...l/harper_cadman A Superior Court judge has ordered a court-supervised analysis of a controversial audio tape at the centre of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party. Perhaps this will shed some light on the whole thing. Quote
Visionseeker Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 Judge orders court supervised investigation of the tape.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080725/...l/harper_cadman Perhaps this will shed some light on the whole thing. Does the court have the original recording device and microphone to test for base line? If it doesn't, then it will settle nothing. Regardless, the Conservatives will lose unless they come up with more than they have. Based on their complaint, their target should’ve been the author, not those who repeat his assertions. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 26, 2008 Author Report Posted July 26, 2008 Does the court have the original recording device and microphone to test for base line? If it doesn't, then it will settle nothing. Regardless, the Conservatives will lose unless they come up with more than they have. Based on their complaint, their target should’ve been the author, not those who repeat his assertions. I believe it is supposed to include the original tape and equipment. I agree that Harper should have gone after the author based on his complaint. The assertion came from Cadman's widow. The recent Supreme Court Raif Nair ruling might have a major impact on the issue of what was on the Liberal website. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 Does the court have the original recording device and microphone to test for base line? If it doesn't, then it will settle nothing. Regardless, the Conservatives will lose unless they come up with more than they have. Based on their complaint, their target should’ve been the author, not those who repeat his assertions. Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if someone printed a book that libeled you and then I or someone else repeated the libel on a website to the world, that only the author should face a lawsuit? That I or anyone else should get off scott free? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Fortunata Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if someone printed a book that libeled you and then I or someone else repeated the libel on a website to the world, that only the author should face a lawsuit? That I or anyone else should get off scott free? You partisanly claim that it is libel when it has not been proven to be untrue. If the book is published and released to the public with the "libelous" quote and then that passage is used by another parties; who is to blame? The originator or the subsequent vehicles who has only taken the author at his word? Harper has been known to spin, misconstrue and mislead about things - why would anyone take his word over someone else's? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 You partisanly claim that it is libel when it has not been proven to be untrue. If the book is published and released to the public with the "libelous" quote and then that passage is used by another parties; who is to blame? The originator or the subsequent vehicles who has only taken the author at his word? Harper has been known to spin, misconstrue and mislead about things - why would anyone take his word over someone else's? You're confusing me again! How can we know ANYTHING is libelous until proven in court? That's WHY we go to court! I mean, who else is going to define the act as libel? You? Anybody who's NOT a Tory? Your post makes no sense to me. I suppose if you hacked someone up with a chainsaw you should not be charged, because since you haven't been to court it hasn't been proven to be murder. I guess I'm just a partisan for thinking we need courts. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Fortunata Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 You're confusing me again! How can we know ANYTHING is libelous until proven in court? That's WHY we go to court!I mean, who else is going to define the act as libel? You? Anybody who's NOT a Tory? Your post makes no sense to me. I suppose if you hacked someone up with a chainsaw you should not be charged, because since you haven't been to court it hasn't been proven to be murder. I guess I'm just a partisan for thinking we need courts. You are claiming it is libel without it going through the courts first. The Libs are guilty (not the author) until they prove themselves innocent in a court of law, isn't that what you have essentially claimed? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2008 Report Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) You are claiming it is libel without it going through the courts first. The Libs are guilty (not the author) until they prove themselves innocent in a court of law, isn't that what you have essentially claimed? Not me! Although of course I have an opinion. Still, Geez Louise! Of course the Tories must think it libel or they wouldn't be suing! I can picture the situation now. Harper wakes up one morning to read on a liberal website that he said some things to an author that implies that he knew about an unethical attempt to bribe a dying MP, an MP that he had known personally for years as someone for whom bribery attempts would be a waste of time. The claim is being made on a Liberal website for the whole world to see. Now, he knows he never said any such thing. He's also pretty upset at the accusation. However, he decides not to sue them since after all, since they haven't been convicted yet (a very hard thing to do before you make your charge) and so he can't be sure if it is indeed libel! I didn't understand Visionseeker's original argument and I don't understand your defense of him. Perhaps you both just got a little excited... This is just nuts! There's partisanship and then there's thinking that is just nuts! Edited July 26, 2008 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.