Monday, June 15, 2020

"... and if you don't like that feeble rationalization, we have others."

Recently, my current (and only) Twitter account, "rpjday", was unceremoniously suspended by Twitter. Unsurprisingly, I was given no reason whatsoever, other than Twitter's standard "You have violated our terms of service" -- no precise alleged offense(s), no reference to the relevant tweet(s), and, therefore, no opportunity to delete anything to recover my account. In short, when it comes to giving us left-wing progressives the heave-ho, it was just Twitter being Twitter.

I made a few desultory attempts to appeal, with utterly predictable results -- a relentless and meaningless repetition of the original suspension notice, and nothing more. I was prepared to finally say, oh, fuck it, the bigots, racists and Nazis can have the fucking platform since they seem to own it already, anyway.  Until this morning when, after one more appeal attempt where I insisted on escalating this to a manager, Twitter suddenly moved the goalposts entirely, and it's that story I'll describe so that others who get shafted the same way will at least expect it, and will understand the fundamental dishonesty of Twitter as a fair and balanced social media platform.

You see, it was this morning when I received this response to my latest appeal attempt, where even a bloviating airhead like Pierre Poilievre can see what Twitter is now saying, and I'm going to screencap this since, if I didn't, you'd swear I was making this up:


So, for the very first time, this would be Twitter being a little more precise about the justification for my suspension (still without examples), but before we get into the above-mentioned "platform manipulation rules," let's pause to appreciate something critically important -- that I am being accused of "multiple or severe" violations of said rules. What this means is that, whatever these violations might be, they should be blatant and unambiguous -- they cannot be simply misinterpretations or possibilities. To describe said violations as "multiple or severe" means they had better be massively, screamingly obvious -- anything less than that won't fit Twitter's own description.  And so, to work. (And lest you suggest I am cherry-picking the facts, you're welcome to follow along here at Twitter's own page that explains "platform manipulation.")

I had never really paid attention to the concept of platform manipulation until reading the opening of Twitter's page this morning, which introduces the idea thusly:

Ah, says I, so what we're talking about are the various ways that people, quite simply, "game the system" -- that is obviously what the above is describing. But what, I ask myself, does this have to do with me, as I have never indulged in any of that sort of nonsense. On the other hand, since Twitter is making the accusation, it behooves us to look up the definition of the word "behooves." No, wait, that's not right; rather, it behooves us to go through that page to figure out what my Twitter-related sins might be and, once again, I will emphasize that those sins must be right out front and screamingly clear for Twitter to describe them as "multiple or severe," so let's wander through that page to see what fits the bill, shall we?

I feel comfortable in suggesting that I haven't been engaged in anything even remotely resembling any of the above -- I don't get involved in spam, and I certainly don't "coordinate" my commentary with anyone else in a regular way (it's not as if anyone would want to coordinate with me in the first place). So I don't think any of the above applies to me. Onward.

Here's the very next section:

I'd say I'm in the clear with respect to this section as my profile pic is mine, and all of the bio information is accurate, so I think we can conclude this part is not the problem. Moving on ...

Um, OK ... I'm fairly sure I'm safe with this section as, given that I had just the one active account until Twitter fucked me over, I don't see how I could be guilty of overlapping accounts, mutually interacting accounts or coordination. And as for the rest of that silliness, I think most people would accept that most of what showed up on my Twitter timeline was original content, with the occasional retweet of someone else's work, along with regular lambasting of people who so thoroughly deserved it. In short, I'm going to say that I'm not guilty of anything listed above in any "multiple or severe" way. Once again, onward ...

... where the next category of violations appears to involve trying to game the system in the sense of inflating metrics or analytics or some such thing:

I can safely say I have never engaged in anything even remotely resembling the above so, as before, this section again has nothing to do with me. (Are you starting to sense a pattern?)

On now to alleged misuse of Twitter product features (whatever the hell that means), which is described thusly:

You know what ... if the relentless use of the word "JUXTAPOSE" falls into this category, I might just be guilty, but I'm finding it hard to see how any of the above applies to me. So let's keep going to the very next section:

Um, no ... I'm inordinately lazy in terms of following people at the best of times, and for the life of me, I can't remember adding anyone to a list or tagging a moment. Ever. And as for the next category of alleged violations:

Jesus, I rarely use hashtags at the best of times, so there's no conceivable way this could apply to me. And, finally, we have the alleged violation:

I have never, to my knowledge, posted a link to anything other than what I wanted to use to bolster the tweet it was part of, so if you put all this together, I'm fairly confident I am not guilty of any of the above even once, much less "multiple or severe" examples, as I suspect my regular readers will attest to. But, wait ... here's the best part, as having listed in detail the alleged violations that fall in this category (none of which I am guilty of), Twitter hilariously, right after that, explains the exceptions to all of the above, and I'm sure you will piss yourselves with laughter upon reading what Twitter grants as exceptions:


That's right ... accounts that fall under the category of "parody" or "commentary" are explicitly exempted from these violations. I'm sure you can see the mouth-breathing idiocy in all of this.

In any event, it will be amusing to see how frantically Twitter moves the goalposts when this latest excuse falls flat on its face. I'm sure it will be epic.

Saturday, November 23, 2019

What's the point in asking if they won't answer you, anyway?

As part of an existing update over at my fundraiser to take on Ezra Levant in court, I thought this short snippet would be enlightening. In his Statement of Claim of June 2016, Ezra explicitly called me out for not having contacted him directly to clarify the claims I had been making.



Now, this complaint is more than a little hypocritical since Ezra had already blocked me on Twitter, so it's not clear how one can explicitly refuse to see communications from someone else on social media, then proceed to complain about how those people subsequently don't communicate with you on social media but that's neither here nor there.

What is interesting is that others did in fact try to get information out of either Ezra or other Rebel Media staffers and, for their trouble, they were ignored, or simply mocked and ridiculed while being told nothing.

I present to you the case of one "Camron" who, as you can see, over the course of two days, simply wants to know if Indiegogo waived their standard 5% processing fee for Ezra's boutique fundraiser.





As you can clearly see, despite Camron's relentless quest to get a simple answer to a simple question, staffers at Rebel Media simply ridicule him, without telling him what he wanted to know.

Under the circumstances, it seems more than a little hypocritical for Ezra to criticize me for not trying to get clarification from him, when others tried exactly that, and they were sent packing.

UPPITY DATE: It's worth adding a couple extra examples of Ezra Levant's hypocrisy, wherein he insists he would have been happy to explain all of the inconsistencies and implausibilities related to his fundraiser, if only I had taken the time to ask.

As I have already demonstrated, others did go the trouble to ask, and were invariably mocked, insulted and/or ignored by various staffers at Rebel Media. Here's another example of someone asking a very precise and specific question about the fundraiser's claim to be able to fully and completely match all donations:

As anyone familiar with Twitter can tell from the above, "Justin" is asking a very specific question about the matching, and you can clearly see that, despite tagging both Ezra Levant and Rebel TV, he never gets a reply, even to this day.

As one more example, the very next day, we have exactly the same thing:

Again, despite "Real Urban Su" replying directly to Ezra and additionally tagging Rebel's Sheila Gunn Reid, there is no reply. And yet, despite this, Ezra's position is that I needed only to ask to have everything explained to me.

The evidence pretty clearly suggests otherwise.

UPPITIER DATE: It's worth reproducing a further tweet from Twitterer "RealUrbanSu":

wherein Su finally lays to rest the claim that all one had to do was ask Ezra Levant or Rebel Media for clarification and they would have provided it.


Monday, July 22, 2019

Making sure Patrick Ross is aware of his upcoming court date.

UPDATE, JUL 25: As this blog post has served its purpose, I'm taking it down.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Hammer to fall -- Part Deux.

In my last post, I described how undischarged bankrupt Patrick "Outlaw Tory" Ross was invited to show up at a hearing on June 5 with the Saskatchewan Registrar in Bankruptcy, so he could explain his utter failure to make any payments pursuant to the bankruptcy discharge judgment that was handed down against him back in 2014. To no one's surprise, Patrick (despite being properly and adequately served with notice of that hearing) chose not to appear. But that is far from the most interesting thing that happened at that hearing, and I will be very careful about how I word the rest of this, as I was not present at that hearing and have to go on what I was told.

Rather than allowing my lawyer to make her presentation as to why Patrick should no longer be entitled to the protection of bankruptcy (for, quite simply, not fulfilling any of his obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada), the registrar simply punted this case upwards to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, which has at least one significant consequence.

As I understand it, while the bankruptcy registrar can make rulings only within the strict confines of a bankruptcy, a judge on the Court of Queen's Bench is not so limited, and is apparently within his or her rights to make whatever findings they like, which means that at that upcoming hearing on July 30, it will be interesting to see how that judge takes to bankrupts who have never made a payment towards their conditional discharge and, further, have never made any payments towards the numerous cost awards against them, going all the way back to 2010.

I'm going to leave it at that, but it will be fascinating to see whether Patrick Ross, who will again be adequately and properly served with notice of this hearing on July 30, chooses to once again be a no-show.

UPPITY DATE: Apparently, the Court of Queen's Bench judge will still restrict himself/herself to ruling on the status of the stay of proceedings -- subsequent rulings will come, you know, subsequently.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

You know it's time for the hammer to fall.

Just taking care of some unfinished business from back in 2010 ...






UPPITY DATE:  To no one's surprise, the properly and adequately served Patrick Ross did not show for his hearing. It did not end well for him -- details to follow when they are formalized.

UPPITYER DATE:  I believe I'm fairly safe in announcing that, while there will be further developments, the bankruptcy registrar made it exquisitely clear that, due to Patrick Ross' ongoing non-compliance with his obligations under the bankruptcy regime, the normal stay of proceedings that protects bankrupts is no longer in place with respect to Patrick, which means that my original judgment of $85,000 is now back on the table and fully and completely enforceable.

Oh, and it's been growing by 2 per cent per year since 2010. There's that, too.

MORE UPPITY DATE: As I mentioned above, undischarged bankrupt Patrick Ross failed to appear for his July 5 hearing before the Registrar in Bankruptcy. There are consequences for Patrick's no-show that I will explain in detail when the time is appropriate.

Thursday, January 31, 2019

You keep using that word "anonymity" ...

While I wait for the tea to brew, I can throw out another, short episode related to my upcoming s. 137.1 appeal against Rebel Media's Ezra Levant, and this relates to a head-scratchingly bizarre submission in the Responding Party's recent factum.

One of the more significant issues to be addressed at the upcoming appeal is whether, under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act (LSA), I was entitled to a Notice of Libel within the mandated six weeks that the LSA requires given that I was posting on Twitter. In other words, the question being asked is, "Is public expression on Twitter covered by the LSA"?

I'm not going to get into the nuances of that here, but in arguing that Twitterers are not entitled to a Notice of Libel, the Responding Party makes a very weird argument. I will present it via screenshots since, if I reproduced it manually, you would swear I was pulling your leg.

In arguing that the LSA does not apply to Twitter, the Responding Party suggests, well, I'll just let you read the opening paragraph of that argument, because trying to summarize it could not possibly do it justice:


If I read this correctly, Ezra is suggesting that he had no obligation to serve me with a Notice of Libel because of ... a Twitter user's potential anonymity.

Pause.

I will admit that this is a rather novel argument, and clearly applies to me because of my nefarious, closely-guarded, secret identity, oh, wait ...

Further pause for muffled laughter.

Not knowing when to quit, Ezra (or his lawyer, it's not clear who conjured up this novel argument), continues:


"... whose identity ... can be readily ascertained." You mean by, oh, I don't know, asking Google? You mean like that?

In any event, having beaten that argument senseless, Ezra sums it all up:


In short, Ezra's argument seems to be that he had no obligation to serve me with a Notice of Libel since ... he had no idea who I was.

I won't bother pointing out that my true name has been public knowledge for, oh, a decade.

I won't bother pointing out that, having failed to serve me with a Notice of Libel because of my alleged anonymity, Ezra's lawyer delivered the subsequent Statement of Claim to me at my real-life e-mail address.

I won't bother pointing out that, for someone who claims he had no idea who I was, Ezra seemed to have every idea who I was, given:


and:


and:


and:


and:


and:


and:


I'm just saying that, when it comes to knowing who I was, Ezra seemed to have a pretty good handle on the situation, so we'll see how well that argument flies at the Court of Appeal.

P.S. It's worth noting that this is the very first time this argument has appeared in any pleadings in this case, so it remains to be seen how the CoA enjoys getting sandbagged with an argument never argued before in lower court.

I hear they really enjoy that sort of thing, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, about that "matching" ... (Part Deux)

A followup to my previous post, wherein I believe I established conclusively that, despite Rebel Media's Ezra Levant's public assurances that all donations to his May 2016 hubris-driven boutique Indiegogo fundraiser page would be matched both federally and provincially when turned over to the Red Cross:


Ezra did, in fact, come up way, way, way short in handing over those donations by the hard matching deadline of May, 2016, as confirmed in this Jan 2017 e-mail from the Red Cross' Sue Larkin:


that is, $60,921 short, meaning that that amount failed to be matched both federally and provincially, depriving the Red Cross of double that amount, or $121,842. (Having used Indiegogo rather than encouraging his followers to donate directly to the Red Cross lost an additional 5 per cent of all donations to Indiegogo's processing fee but, at this point, that 5 per cent loss is insignificant compared to the loss of well over $100,000 due to Ezra's failure to get that money to the Red Cross in time. But ... onward.)

What is curious, as I pointed out last time, is that, having assured everyone for the entire month of May that matching would happen, neither Ezra nor anyone else at Rebel Media responded to pointed criticism and questioning from numerous people, asking quite specifically how that matching could possibly happen, given Indiegogo's time requirements on when you can withdraw your collected funds. Having assured everyone on May 6, 2016 that this would happen, neither Ezra nor any other Rebel staffers had a further word to say about this, until this puzzling tweet from Ezra on June 1, 2016, the day after the matching deadline:


Out of nowhere, Ezra is finally announcing that he has gotten around the Indiegogo withdrawal restrictions by using some unknown "financing" that allowed him to transfer funds by the deadline of the previous day, which inspires a number of questions and observations.

The first obvious observation is that Ezra is clearly (and finally) admitting what everyone had been telling him throughout the month of May -- that it was impossible for him to withdraw the Indiegogo money in time for matching. Let's be clear -- with that tweet, Ezra is conceding what everyone on social media had been saying that whole time, something he refused to acknowledge for that entire month, even as everyone was saying it. In short, Ezra was admitting that he was wrong and everyone else was right. But there's more (as there always is).

Note also (as I mentioned last time) how Ezra very carefully does not claim that all funds collected were matched by his mysterious financing; rather, he soft-pedals his claim and describes only how his mysterious financing allowed him to make "a" payment which, as I demonstrated last time and as you can see above, was only $96,000, a massive shortfall from the amount of $162,476 that was in the Indiegogo account, and here's what's so amusing about that shortfall.

To the best of my knowledge, at no time before, during or after his fundraiser, to this day, am I aware that Ezra has ever publicly admitted the precise and horrifying size of that shortfall. I have searched hither and yon and, while perhaps I missed it, I have never, ever found any public acknowledgement by Ezra Levant as to how much he cost the Red Cross in terms of federal and provincial matching money. Never. Rather, if one searches, one finds only vague references that admit to a shortfall of some kind, if an admission exists at all.

For example, here's a snippet from a June 16, 2016 Rebel Media web page wherein Ezra clearly admits to a shortfall of some kind but, astonishingly, tries to spin the fact that some money was handed over in time as some weird reason for celebration:


Even more hilariously, here's an August 13, 2016 tweet from Ezra, wherein he thanks the Red Cross for its assistance with "gov't matching funds", with no hint whatsoever of the massive shortfall he was responsible for:


Even Ezra's June 7, 2016 Statement of Claim to me refuses to be specific about this, stating only:


It is something to behold -- even while suing me, Ezra can't bring himself to admit to the actual amount he handed over, choosing to describe it only as a "majority." As I said, to this day, I am unaware that Ezra Levant has ever quantified the loss of matching funds he was personally responsible for, but there's one more point worth examining.

Given that Ezra admitted that he managed to transfer $96,000 in time for matching due to some mysterious "financing" that he worked out, the obvious question is -- what kind of "financing" did Ezra use and, if he had the ability to front the money, why did he stop at $96,000 and not front the entire $162,476? So let me provide the answer to that in the form a series of e-mails between Rebel Media and the Red Cross in the final hours of May 31, 2016, as Ezra realizes he needs to get that money moved before the end of the day for matching to happen.

11:43 AM: Rebel's Eitan Gilboord e-mails the Red Cross' Matthew Auld, trying to confirm that everything is in place and (curiously) still seeming unsure as to whether matching will still happen:


2:06 PM: Matthew Auld replies, apparently confirming that everything is ready to go, and wondering how the transfer will take place, as time is getting short:


2:08 PM: And here's the money (screen)shot, wherein Rebel's Eitan Gilboord explains that Ezra is going to make the transfer on (God help us) his American Express card:


His American Express card.

His. American. Express. card.

The mind reels, as some things perhaps become clear. With Ezra bragging about how he used "financing" to transfer some of the money in time for matching, it's natural to wonder why he didn't just finance the entire amount to salvage the situation, and one is left only to speculate that even American Express has its limits as to how much money they're willing to allow Ezra to drop on his card at one time.

This is, of course, all speculation, but given the PR nightmare that would naturally ensue if/when it came out how much money Ezra had cost the Red Cross in matching funds, one can only wonder why Ezra didn't mortgage heaven and earth to somehow come up with the full amount. But the fact that Ezra dropped $96K on his AmEx card inspires one more question, which is -- how many bonus air miles did Ezra collect for a transaction of that size?

I have no idea how AmEx cards work, or what type Ezra had at the time, but most credit cards have programs that give you bonuses of some kind based on your transactions, and one can only ponder what Ezra might have received in personal perks in exchange for a transaction of $96,000. One can only speculate.

P.S. Apropos of nothing, I'm going to once again remind everyone that, after having established conclusively and inarguably that Ezra Levant came up way, way, way short in turning over funds to be matched, it's worth revisiting my October 2016 questioning for discovery, wherein Ezra's lawyer tried to bullshit me by claiming that all money had "ultimately" been matched:


This claim is, of course, absolute nonsense, and is totally and utterly contradicted by the subsequent Jan 2017 e-mail I received from the Red Cross' Sue Larkin, which makes it absolutely clear what the final numbers were:


And in a contest of credibilities between Ezra's lawyer and the Red Cross' Susan Larkin, I'm going with Larkin. I just thought you needed to know that.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

You keep using that word "matched" ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

As my last major post in this series related to my upcoming February 12 anti-SLAPP appeal against Ezra Levant, I'm going to describe what was easily the most misleading, deceptive and expensive aspect of Ezra's 2016 Indiegogo fundraiser for the Red Cross, and that was Ezra's unambiguous assurance that all donations to his Indiegogo fundraiser page would be properly "matched" when turned over to the Red Cross. And to understand what that means, we need to review the general timeline of the Fort McMurray fire, for reasons that will become excruciatingly obvious in short order.

It was on May 1, 2016 (according to Wikipedia) that the Fort Mac fire started, at which time the Red Cross swung into action and began soliciting donations specifically for Fort Mac fire relief. The Red Cross was suitably prepared for situations like this, already having a reliable and established online donation infrastructure, which guaranteed a number of things regarding donations:
  • donations made through the Red Cross' online donation portal were immediately available to the Red Cross (unlike with fundraisers such as Indiegogo),
  • the RC's online portal (unlike fundraisers such as Indiegogo) did not charge a processing fee, and
  • money donated through that online portal was timestamped as having been received by the Red Cross at the time of the donation.
That third point might not seem like a big deal right now; it will be soon.

In other words, given all of the above advantages of the Red Cross' online donation infrastructure, donating that way directly to the Red Cross was the obvious and most cost-effective strategy, so it's no surprise that Rebel Media's Ezra Levant ignored it completely and did something else.

Rather than encourage his followers to donate as above, Ezra chose instead, on or about May 3, 2016, to (without the Red Cross' knowledge or permission, as I have previously explained) register a separate Indiegogo fundraising page, ostensibly for Red Cross Fort Mac assistance, with the public assurance that all donations would be turned over to the Red Cross at the conclusion of the fundraiser. I have already pointed out how Ezra's assurance of "100%" turned over turned out to be misleading, but that issue is small potatoes compared to the dumpster fire that was the subsequent matching issue, so let's continue with the timeline.

Perhaps surprisingly, that Rebel Media fundraiser was immediately successful, as only three days later on May 6, 2016, Rebel's Sheila Gunn Reid gloated online about how Rebel's Indiegogo page had already brought in $140,000:


And that is when the sky fell in on Ezra, as it was on that very day (or possibly late the night before) that both the federal and Alberta provincial governments announced their program for "matching" donations to the Red Cross, and it was the details of that matching program which caused Ezra's sky to fall.

The details of that matching program can be read here, but this screenshot isolates the only two features of that program that matter here:


those two features being:
  • both the federal and Alberta provincial governments were going to match all donations, thereby fully tripling the value of everyone's donation, and
  • the matching program had an absolutely hard deadline of May 31, 2016 -- any donations made after that date would, of course, be received by the Red Cross, but they would not be matched and thereby tripled in value.
and it was at that point that one can imagine Ezra Levant realizing what a PR nightmare he had on his hands.

Having chosen to effectively compete against the Red Cross for donations for Fort Mac, and having chosen to register his fundraising page with Indiegogo, Ezra was now utterly screwed since one of the inviolable rules regarding Indiegogo fundraisers is that you cannot -- absolutely cannot -- withdraw any of the money deposited until well after the fundraiser has officially ended.

Here, let me prove that with a screenshot from Indiegogo's web site:


Note well how Indiegogo is absolutely adamant that you don't get any of your collected funds until around 15 business days (three weeks) after the official end of the fundraiser. And since Ezra had registered his Indiegogo page on May 3, and had selected a 30-day fundraiser, I believe you can understand Ezra's mounting panic -- regardless of how much money he raised in the month of May, 2016, there was absolutely zero chance of getting that money to the Red Cross by the hard deadline of May 31 to be matched. Quite simply, Ezra had totally and utterly screwed his donors out of the possibility of having their contributions tripled in value. But, as always, it gets worse.

Since Ezra's fundraiser was only three days old, a trivial solution would have been to simply shut it down, take the hit for three days worth of donations, and frantically tell everyone to go straight to the Red Cross, to guarantee that matching would happen for donations for the rest of the month. That might have been a plan, except for this:


That would be Rebel Media's Sheila Gunn Reid, bragging on May 6 about having already pulled in "140k".

Whoopsie.

I'm sure you now understand's Ezra's dilemma -- having refused to work through the Red Cross but instead deciding to register his own boutique Indiegogo fundraiser page, Ezra had already hoovered up around $140K in donations, not a single dime of which he could withdraw from his Indiegogo page and transfer to the Red Cross in time to be matched.

Think long and hard about that -- Ezra is now sitting on $140K which, if it had instead been donated to the Red Cross directly, would have magically turned into triple that, or $420K; instead, that money is now going to sit quietly in Ezra's Indiegogo fundraiser page until well into June, at which time, when Ezra transfers it, it will be nothing but the original $140K (and whatever comes in after that). Buh bye, at least $280K in matching federal and provincial funds.

Lest you think I exaggerate, many, many people on social media immediately excoriated Ezra for having screwed his donors this way, but Ezra had a very curious comeback -- he simply insisted that matching would still happen:


without explaining how that could possibly happen, and then he never mentioned it for the rest of the month of May, ignoring all questions about this on social media.

Oh, and lest anyone think Ezra might have misspoke, here's ex-Rebeler Faith Goldy making the same implausible public promise a couple days later:


So that's two people from Rebel Media assuring the public that all donations to Ezra's fundraiser will be matched, with no conceivable explanation as to how that would be possible, whereupon we jump ahead to June 1, 2016, almost at the end of Ezra's fundraiser, to read the following utterly jaw-dropping tweet in which Ezra, having ignored everyone else for the entire month of May, thinks it's critically important to address me personally with the following incredible explanation:


Now, take your time to really and truly appreciate what Ezra Levant, for the first time anywhere, is now explaining to not just me but the world at large -- he is, for the first time, acknowledging that everyone has been right this whole time about him not being able to withdraw the money from Indiegogo in time for matching and is, again for the first time, claiming that matching will still happen because he used some mysterious "financing" to front the money to get it in before the deadline.

Huh.

Except that's not quite what that tweet says, is it? What it says is that, using his mysterious financing, Ezra was able to make "a" payment -- not a payment matching the full amount in the Indiegogo page (which at that time was up to $162,476), but only "a" payment, which certainly leaves one to wonder, how much, which Ezra does not reveal. Because if Ezra was unable to front the entire contents of the Indiegogo page, he would still be depriving the Red Cross of the matched amount of whatever he was unable to transfer by May 31, an amount he does not in fact reveal in that tweet.

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: Note well that Ezra's tweet above is dated June 1, 2016, whereas the hard deadline for donations to be received by the Red Cross in time to be matched was the day before, May 31. What this means is that, when Ezra published that tweet, he absolutely knew how much he had been able to finance and transfer before the end of the previous day. Also, note well that, once the deadline of May 31 had passed, there was no way to ever retroactively get money to the Red Cross that could be matched. Put another way, if you did not get money to the Red Cross by May 31, there was absolutely no way to somehow make up for that later; no way to say that "hey, we eventually got it all matched afterwards." You'll see why this matters shortly.

Resuming our narrative, we have the above June 1, 2016 tweet by Ezra, for the first time claiming that matching was accomplished by some unknown financing which managed to transfer some unknown amount in time to be matched, and that's where it ends, which would be ultimately unsatisfying, except that only a few days later, on June 7, is when Ezra decided to sue me for defamation for claiming, among other things, that donations to his Indiegogo fundraiser would not be matched, which required Ezra to (among other things) address that accusation in his Statement of Claim, which he did thusly:


Once again, make sure you understand what Ezra has written in his own June 7 Statement of Claim above -- after assuring everyone publicly way back on May 6 that all donations to his Indiegogo page would be matched:


Ezra is now suing me, in part, for saying that donations to his fundraiser would not be matched, even as he clearly admits in his own Statement of Claim that, even fronting the money himself, he failed to deliver all the donations, while still not admitting how much was actually sent, only that it was a "majority."

Make sure you appreciate the significance of all of this. Every dollar received by the Red Cross by the matching deadline would have been matched by both the federal and Alberta provincial governments, and thereby tripled in value. Consequently, every dollar collected that Ezra failed to deliver by that deadline would not have been matched, and would never be matched. Whatever money was not handed over to the Red Cross by May 31 had no chance whatsoever to be matched later, meaning that every dollar of shortfall in that transfer deprived the Red Cross of two dollars in matching funds.

So how large was the shortfall? While Ezra has never revealed it, I will put you out of your misery and reproduce a Jan 10, 2017 e-mail I received from the Red Cross' Sue Larkin, documenting, to the dollar, what was received in time for matching, and what was not:


I am going to give you time to catch your breath, as you realize that Ezra Levant was not just a wee bit short in handing over the $162,476 that was donated to his Indiegogo page ... he was massively, spectacularly, jaw-droppingly short. Larkin makes it absolutely clear that, while $96,000 was handed over in time for matching, the outstanding balance of a full $60,921 was not received until the end of June, and was therefore not matched, thereby depriving the Red Cross of double that amount, or $121,842.

$121,842.

That is how much Ezra Levant cost the Red Cross by refusing to use the Red Cross' donation infrastructure and setting up his own ego-driven Indiegogo page.

$121,842.

Lost.

Not stolen. Not skimmed. Not embezzled. Simply lost because it was not handed over in time. And just to make absolutely sure I was not misunderstanding this, I e-mailed Larkin back to ask for confirmation:


and received it:


I'm going to let you digest all of that for a minute, as you finally begin to appreciate how Ezra's ego and hubris drove him to register his own fundraiser which, in the end, wiped out well over $100,000 that could have gone to the Red Cross. (And that doesn't include the 5 per cent processing fee that Ezra inflicted on all donations that would not have been necessary, either.)

$121,842.

That kind of money could have been useful. What a shame.

P.S. While this is a side issue, it's worth noting how Ezra's lawyer, during questioning for discovery in October of 2016, tried to bullshit me completely on the subject of this matching. While, at that time, Ezra had already admitted both on Twitter and in his Statement of Claim that he had not managed to deliver all the funds for matching (so it was already established that not all donations had been matched), after a tedious discussion on the matching issue, Ezra's lawyer and I had the following brief but jaw-dropping exchange:


I answered that that would surprise me since I already knew (given Ezra's admissions) that that had not happened, so it was beyond me that Ezra's lawyer seemed utterly unaware of his own client's Twitter feed and, more embarrassingly, his own client's Statement of Claim.

One hopes he is up to speed come February 12, when he will have the opportunity to explain all this to the Court of Appeal.