Thursday, October 29, 2009

And the Raphaelicious dishonesty continues ...

UPDATE: The Dr. weighs in.

I think I have two minutes to refer people here, where Adrian blatantly misrepresents history and some commenters are being just a wee bit suspicious of Adrian's accuracy and are now asking what really happened.

Oh, and there's Adrian's philosophical position that he can't comment on this matter, while simultaneously reproducing the Notice of Libel for his entire readership.

Stay classy, Adrian.

P.S. Feel free to identify Adrian's weaselitude in that post. It's not hard. Really.

: While it's not my business to meddle in this libel action, I am amused by Adrian's claim that, "An apology alone is not enough to satisfy the plaintiff, who is demanding a cash settlement."

Given that Adrian has been ridiculously forthcoming with all of the other details of this action, it would be enlightening to know just how much of a settlement is being demanded. Surely, if Adrian is publicly pleading for financial support, his potential financial supporters have the right to know just how much he's being asked to hork up.

I don't think that's an unreasonable question, do you?

: Over at Adrian's, commenter "KeyKeeper" asks a reasonable question:

Correct me if I’m wrong Raphael, but weren’t you offered the chance to apologize and retract your (alleged) defamatory statement by the plaintiff before he sued? And you refused?
I ask purely for information, not to try and start anything.

Adrian strenuously denies any such thing:


No, I wasn’t.

And yet ... and yet ... from back in September:

Four attempts to publish an earlier comment–all rejected by the Raphael entity.

OK, I have given fair warning, and will commence the action.

Huh. Maybe it's just me, but that certainly looks like Dr. Dawg trying to resolve this before it went any further, and being ruthlessly rebuffed and moderated out of existence. In short, Adrian certainly appears to be a liar.

So ... raising money under false pretenses. How tacky. How sleazy. And, with Adrian, how utterly predictable.

: Adrian tries to pass himself off as eminently reasonable:

Some readers mistakenly believe that I’m refusing to publish an apology and end the claim against me. An apology alone is not enough to satisfy the plaintiff, who is demanding a cash settlement. I write this in the hopes of making people understand that I am not trying to prolong this unpleasantness.

If I have followed the history of this little tiff accurately (and I believe I have), the above is a lie.

If I recall correctly, Adrian originally had the opportunity to apologize and retract, which would have made everything go away almost immediately at no cost to him. He chose not to do so, and additionally treated Dr. Dawg with total contempt, explicitly deleting a number of comments by Dr. Dawg asking for such an apology.

After sufficient time passed, Dr. Dawg -- having never received said apology or retraction -- launched his libel suit, at which point the possibility of Adrian making this go away with a simple apology was no longer an option.

Rather than admit that this is a situation entirely of his own making, Adrian is now posing as the unfortunate victim who is terrifically willing to apologize now when that course of action is not on the table anymore. But he's happy to paint that picture if it helps to separate his gullible readers from their cash.

The lies are adorable, are they not?


thebanana said...

"So ... raising money under false pretenses. How tacky. How sleazy."

Burn :)

deBeauxOs said...

"Raphael Alexander" is surely now a Depends customer.

Just think. He's joined the rightwingnutz 'big league', with the likes of Ezra, Shaidle, etc. which, for planet NeoCon residents means he can spin the history of the defamation action to suit his whims and his fundraising needs.

Yes, he'll need the the super-absorbent adult diapers, 'cause I'm sure he can't contain his excitement.

The Seer said...

Brother Adrian isn't being sued yet. The document reproduced on the page is a notice of intent to sue. Seems to me Brother Adrian still has time to retract.

There is the claim that Brother Adrian has made an offer to retract but the precision and specificity of the notice lends credence, to me, that someone competent in the law of defamation believes Brother Adrian's offers were insufficient. This is not a sloppy pleading put together by an amateur. Whoever drafted this notice knows what he is doing.

liberal supporter said...

In the real world, you try to mitigate. "Raphael" seems to be treating an apology as a kind of product or service that he can give or not give. He claims he was "not offered the opportunity". Whether that is true or not, it speaks volumes about his attitude. If you are in a situation that an apology could fix, you just do it. You don't wait to be begged for it, as if the other person is some supplicant that you deign to grant it to. You are the one alleged to have caused offense by defamation. You simply give the unequivocal apology because you see you were intemperate and wish to do the right thing.

"Raphael" should have simply published a retraction and unequivocal apology the moment the Notice arrived. Regardless of what was said in the Notice, his prompt apology and retraction would basically end the action. Dawg might be able to demand some legal fees, but he would find it difficult in the face of the matter being rendered moot by "Raphael" having already done the right thing.

But it seems "Raphael" is using defaming someone to try and "enfame" himself.

Kind of like Balloon Boy's family, no?

Ti-Guy said...

Raphael should try prostitution. Much more honourable than this questionable enterprise.

liberal supporter said...

Hey Dawg: I can't comment at your place because I can't use haloscan, and I can't read "Raphael"'s words because I can't use wordpress, so I can only go on what I have seen here and your place, and can only comment on it here.

I recall a divorce case where the main (if not only) point of contention was custody of the family dog. The lawyers involved were made a laughing stock in the local legal community, and after that, other lawyers in divorces would insist that it only be about property and minor humans. I suspect your respective lawyers are feeling the same. Hopefully "Raphael" is being lectured by his lawyer now.

That's why it looks to me like "Raphael" is going "balloon boy".

But I could be wrong.

CC said...

It's truly astonishing that Adrian's legal counsel is allowing Adrian to drag this case through the blogosphere as he's doing at the moment.

The Seer said...

Wud it surprise you guys to hear that some clients don't actually listen to their lawyers?

Zorpheous said...

It's crap like this that made me hang up my blogging hat. Though I have been thinking about coming out of retirement, but then shit like starts up and I think, why bother it ain't worth the hassle.

Then there is the whole outing business that happened to CC,...

Sigh,... Blogging just ain't fun any more

Unknown said...

Can't we all just get along!

"I'd like to teach the world to sing"... everybody now.

The Seer said...

OT: Has Steverino ever met returning dead from Afghanistan? If he did, Canadians would complain he's usurping the role of GG Jean again, but there's the Upstart doing just the thing he knows Steverino legally can't do.

This on a day when another federal judge dismisses Lawyer Orley's attempt to prove the Usurper was born in Kenya. Or someplace.

In the "can't get a break from the liberal press never" department, Taegan Goddard follows up coverage about what Sarah Palin said about "those who would sell their body for money," a reference to ex-future-son-in-law Levi Johnson, with "film at 11" tape of Sarah in the Miss Alaska swimsuit competition.

thwap said...

"I'd like to teach Wayne not to lie,
And practice honesty"

"I'd rather that Wayne just permanently log-off,
Than bother us with his crap"

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't Raphael Alexander worry about putting food on the table, given that the National Post is shutting down tomorrow without a last-minute bailout?

Cameron Campbell said...

Dawgs comment over at his place?


liberal supporter said...

Given that Dawg is in Ontario and "Raphael" is in BC, one or the other province's Apology Act should apply. So there is absolutely no reason for "Raphael" to avoid making a heartfelt and meaningful apology, even at this point, and mitigate the whole problem, possibly ending the action altogether.

Unless he is a dick, or uninformed. Or his lawyer is a dick, or uninformed. Or the National Post's lawyers are dicks, or uninformed. Or the liability insurers for "Raphael" or the National Post are dicks, or uninformed.

pierre poutine said...

Poor Ruffles.

If he doesn't apologize, he faces a lawsuit, probable damages and a possible early end to his pundit career (such as it is).

If he apologizes, he admits to being wrong (very hard for someone with an ego as big as his to do), becomes a confessed libeller (not to mention a laughingstock), faces some damages and sees his credibility as would-be pundit take a big hit.

Quite the mess he's got himself into.

Unknown said...

Why does it seem that everything is a lie to you thwap?

You use that word, in my opinion, an extreme amount.

mikmik said...

I got real problems. I live in Alberta.

Unless he is a dick, or uninformed. Or his lawyer is a dick, or uninformed. Or the National Post's lawyers are dicks, or uninformed. Or the liability insurers for "Raphael" or the National Post are dicks, or uninformed.
I'll take all of the above for 1000, Alex but I'll give you a break for not mentioning that the far right also supports the bombing of Hiroshima and nuking Iraq, Iran, N,Kortea, The Press(CBC), Abortion Clinics and homeless people, not to mention anything not white male. Or christian. Can I get sued now?

Fuck are we evil, and I only thought we wanted people to have food and have shelter and not shoot the shit out of ea. other with 50 mil.Wait a sec, that is far left, or in othter words, compassion.

It was so cold in Edmonton that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
Sorry, I cant't comment and simultaneously reproduce weaseltude but I can give examples:
Some readers mistakenly believe that I’m refusing to publish an apology and end the claim against me.
I’m a working class trade worker

This is weasel:
who will likely go broke trying to fight this,
Yeah, going broke means you are fucking wrong, hey?

KEvron said...

too much fucking drama around here. somebody delete me.


wv = "comedgie". word to your mother.

mikmik said...

I agree

See my fucking stupid comments about AB

Where you from

wv = "composetit" nice to read but ultimaltely useless

Full of fat, Like Lait's gut, McFlatletly, and I hate my premierwhat the fuckshisnamestelackthestupidfuckingturncoatyouhavenoidea
Klien was fucking ignorant. This piece of shaet was, and is, a fucking lieing sack of shit. You have now idea what a virgin birth Harper is to Stelmack

And we gots all kinds of monies, tons of the shit but my bitch wants equalization, what a stupid cunt that freak is yet it get into fat fucks pockets I am not mad

I am past indignant. The stunned bitch Harper?

How fucking stupid is Ignatiof? How stunned? Let's imagine. Where is a trudeu? Where is a Laing,

It takes a mealy mouthed bitch to lead these days, dunn it?

Someone that makes a good pizza, I'm a baker and I like spicey sauce and maybey LuLus boots but I know brains has not one fucking thing to do with it but rthey don't hurt or does spelling

The Seer said...

Liberal supporter asks: Given that Dawg is in Ontario and "Raphael" is in BC, one or the other province's Apology Act should apply?

In defamation, you can try your case in any jurisdiction in which the libel is published. When you post on the internet, you literally "publish" in every jurisdiction in the world. The plaintiff just chooses the most friendly jurisdiction he can find. Which means, you find a county or judicial district that is known to have a plaintiff-friendly libel judge, find someone in that district to testify (s)he saw the libelous publication on the web, and you're in the door, and there's nothing the defendant can do about it.

The Seer said...

I meant to say — I was distracted by an eleven-year-old when I posted originally — you find a single-judge judicial district or county that has a judge known to be friendly to libel plaintiff's. It's "judge shopping" but it's legal. Dooty, in the form of an eleven-year-old, calls.

pierre poutine said...

He's "apologized," though only after posting a long-winded explanation about how none of this is his fault. It's really Wordpress's fault. And Dr Dawg's. And maybe "stalker" Peter's. If you don't believe him, you're not worth worrying about 'cause you're unserious.

He also dismisses Peter for posting pseudonymously. (Oh, noez, Raphael Alexender. Pesudonymously!)

In short, yet another non-apology apology from a con. Accountability's only for the other guys, eh, Ruffles?

wv: detica. Would that it were the earlier "phaker" (I kid you not).

Metro said...

Meh, Raphdrian posted his "apology" in a style that makes it sound as though he was skipping along to church when he tripped over a big, bad, libellous comment. Then Dawg leapt from the bushes, pummelled him with comments and email, and threatened to take his lunch money.

The big laugh is that Dawg's posted the amount of money poor Ade felt it necessary to pass the hat 'round his readership to cover.

It was $1K.

I can just see Dawg hunched over in the glare of his monitor, pinkie to his lips, sneering "We shall sue him for .... A THOUSAND DOLLARS! Wahahahaha! Ohohohoho!"

Wonder if any contributors to the Adrian McNair Foot-in-Mouth Legal Defence Fund will be asking for their dimes back?

Clearly the Post (appropriately soon to become the Zombie Post) pays crap.

Conservatives. So big and tough until someone actually says pardon?