Friday, March 19, 2010

Dan McTeague Replies

Received in my inbox from Liberal MP Dan Mcteague. In fairness to Mr. McTeague I have posted his email to me to allow his statement of the facts to be available to anyone wishing to see.

March 19, 2010

I am contacting you regarding the March 16, 2010 posting on your blog, A CAW Workers Voice Of Reason (located at, entitled: “Questions Raised Over Dan McTeague’s Education Claims”.
The information contained in the posting contains statements that are erroneous and libelous in nature, and I hereby request that you remove it immediately.
For the record, an error did occur in my campaign literature for the 1992 liberal nomination of the then-called Ontario Riding. Regrettably, it went unnoticed for some time. However, corrective action was taken and a full and very public apology was given by me personally in front of my constituents and the media.
I wish now to advise you of some additional facts:

(1). In 1992, the Liberal nomination candidate referred to in the blog did seek the party’s nod for Ontario Riding as did I. He was soundly defeated and subsequently left the Liberal Party. He ran against me in 2006 General Election as a candidate for the Canadian Action Party. Regardless, since 1992, I can assure you that the individual has used every opportunity – whether in front of the electorate, local or national media - to vociferously attack my personal integrity.

(2). On the first day of the 1997 General Election, front page news in the Toronto Sun and on CTV’s National News was devoted to the issue of my academic credentials. I convened a press conference on that day and in front of the national media and the electorate I apologized for any errors made in any campaign materials. The story ran for several days and if anyone actually believes there was “nary a peep” from the national media they are severely mistaken.

(3).The individual in question has continued to attack my character for over fifteen years but he has not stopped with just me. As court documents note, the individual has been involved in numerous legal actions and activities involving over twenty different people.

(4). In February 2005 the individual was deemed a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Ontario. In September 2005, that ruling was upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. As such, the individual was prohibited from undertaking any further legal action against anyone unless first obtaining permission to do so from a Superior Court in Ontario. The individual was also ordered by the courts to pay me substantial awards.
The legal action taken against me that was noted by you was dismissed by the courts. However, there is no reference of that in the blog. Instead, your blog merely states that: “another Liberal candidate for the riding sued McTeague…” This leaves the impression that the candidate in question may have won his case. Moreover, you failed to mention the numerous other court rulings that went against the individual - culminating in the courts deeming him a vexatious litigant and taking away his right to legal redress without prior court approval.

The selective language used in your post can leave the impression that the lawsuit taken against me by that individual was successful. That is not a true reflection of the facts. In addition, I have been advised that the following sentences: “…a Liberal who did in fact falsify his academic credentials.” And “a prominent MP of a sitting government who falsified academic credentials…”, are statements void of substantiating facts and supporting evidence. As such, they are libelous and actionable.

It is my request that you remove the offending posting at the earliest possible opportunity.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Hon. Dan McTeague, P.C., M.P.

At Mr. McTeagues request, I will delete the blog posting in question. And I will also hope that in the future, members of the opposition parties will hold themselves to the same account, including Mr. McTeague, when trying to smear or sully the reputation of a Conservative MP or candidate.

To take it a step further, Mr. McTeague is free to post here on Rahim Jaffer. It seems members of the Liberal Party , not Mr. McTeague himself,have found Jaffer guilty even though he was not convicted during Question Period a few days ago. Understanding fully Parliamentry Privelage, there is no excuse for the line of questioning from some Liberal MP's.

"Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their “get tough on crime” rhetoric. They always say, “You do the crime, you do the time”. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?"


hunter said...

Ah...the threat of legal action, and well I apologized so that ends the issue. What about Helena, she apologized but Liberals seem to think only their apologies are worthy of forgiveness. It seems lots of lefties use the threat of legal action knowing that the average blogger is just someone trying to get their opinions out to the public. Look at what they are doing to Ezra Levant.

I think we should accept Liberal MP McTeague's apology, and Liberal MP Shawn Murphy's apology for clearly stating in Question Period that Mulroney should be hung (it's caught on tape, so there is no libel there). In return the Liberal's should also accept Helena's apology and stop going after female MP's, it makes them look really weak.

We need Debra Grey back to clue these lefties in.

Anonymous said...

And the Liberals always refer to Jaffer as a "dangerous driver" when he was only fined for careless driving. There is a huge difference between careless and dangerous driving. That alone is libelous

Paul M said...

I'm curious if Mr. McTeague or any of his associates in the opposition would have the guts to say those things about Jaffer OUTSIDE of Parliament where they don't have protection from lawsuits?

Anonymous said...

Paul M, what has Mr. McTeague said about Mr. Jaffer?

Canadian Argument Weasel said...

Funny this.

PaulStuff got spanked for his last post by commenters who pointed out how he had lied about what A BCer in Toronto had written and now he gets spanked by McTeague. He removes the post but instead of being honourable and gracious about it he continues to attack.

What is equally funny is how only the Liberals are at fault for criticizing, even attacking, Guergis for her rant (she did not really apologize by the way, read the "press release") and Jaffer for getting a slap on the wrist despite failing a DUI test and having cocaine in his car.

The many many many Conservatives who have attacked them both, of course, are A-OK. But whoa be it for a Liberal to do likewise.

Conservatives: Our principles do not apply to us.

Anonymous said...

You have nothing to worry about. The Supreme Court has recently decided that if you believed what you wrote to be true, as it was based on false information from somewhere else, you are not libel.

deBeauxOs said...

Deborah Grey on Helena Guergis: "We can't give ourselves permission to lose control and have a hissy fit at an airport or wherever, in the House of Commons, because it will come back to bite us."

paulsstuff said...

"Conservatives: Our principles do not apply to us."

Really? McTeague felt the post was unfair, because even though the campaign literature had indeed contained incorrect info, the lawsuit launched against him was dismissed. And while the person who pursued the lawsuit against McTeague seems to have a personal vendetta, the fact remains that Jaffer was only convicted of careless driving. And yet McTeagues Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession.

Liberals, our principles are lower than the other guys, so don't complain about us.

Ti-Guy said...

The Supreme Court has recently decided that if you believed what you wrote to be true, as it was based on false information from somewhere else, you are not libel.

Please don't listen to this advice. What the recent Supreme Court decision specified is that you have to have expended some degree of effort to make sure your facts are accurate.

Admittedly, with Conservatives and their notorious "reading for comprehension" problems in addition to their spiteful, churlish, adolescent impulses, no amount of effort can stop them from vilifying and defaming people just because they don't agree with them.

But bear that in mind, at the very least.

Brian Busby said...

Paul, perhaps you'd be good enough to tell us which of "McTeagues [sic] Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession."

Oh, and while we're at it, I wonder whether Paul M would be so good as to relay just what it was that Mr. McTeague said about Mr. Jaffer in the House.

paulsstuff said...

"Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their “get tough on crime” rhetoric. They always say, “You do the crime, you do the time”. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?"

Brian Busby said...

Paul, this is no matter of semantics. The fact is that no one in the House has ever claimed that Mr. Jaffer has been "convicted of cocaine possession".

Did Ms. Neville say that the former MP was found to be in possession of illicit drugs? Yes, she did; as documented by the Ontario Provincial Police.

paulsstuff said...

Gimmee a break. McTeague was upset because I wrote he was sued, which he was. His semantics are that he was victorious fighting the lawsuit and therefore felt my post was unfair.

Charges against Jaffer were dropped for cocaine possession. So using your logic a person charged with murder and who has charges dropped is still a murderer?

Sheesh! You guys hold Tory bloggers to a higher standard than Liberal MP's. And yet they still can't figure out why they are in opposition.

Dave said...

So, Paul... your position would be that Rapudamin Singh Malik was not one of the Air India bombers and that a jury found him "innocent" of the charges against him.


paulsstuff said...

Like Jaffer, I have no clue what the facts are to the case. If he was found not guilty, I wouldn't be claiming he was guilty ublically.

Dave said...

You don't know the facts of either case yet you're claiming to be held to a higher standard than those who don't share your political beliefs?

How do you know what standard you're being held to if you are devoid of all the information necessary to form a cohesive argument?

Here's a fact. RP Malik is still presumed by the Attorney General's office of BC to have been one of the perpetrators of the Air India bombing. The charges were set aside because the witness against him suddenly "couldn't remember" anything. That witness is now on trial for 27 counts of perjury.

Jaffer was not prosecuted on a possession charge because, despite the admonition of the OPP, still, that the search was legal, the prosecution felt that a conviction might be subject to a Charter challenge... and Jaffer has deep enough pockets to follow that course of action.

The cocaine was in the vehicle, as documented by the OPP.

paulsstuff said...

So were any Liberal MP's or Chretien guilty in Adscam? Many think so but can't say so publically for fear of being sued.

And wasn't it Liberal MP Navdeep Bains who said the PM tried to smear his father-in-law who had alleged ties to the suspects in the Air India bombing? Did you miss the Liberal outrage over that?

Just a few days ago the court overturned the judgement on a court case of an idividual for child porn. Will NDP MP Joe Comartin demand an inquiry to look for political interference?

If former Ontario Liberal MPP Michael Bryant have charges dropped in his court case or walk away with a light sentence will the same media rail about political interference, ironically that would involve the same courts that dealt with Jaffer.

paulsstuff said...

"The cocaine was in the vehicle, as documented by the OPP."

Care to produce that document?

Dave said...

No Paul. I believe the police report. Don't you? If not, why not.

I find it difficult to fathom that the "Law and Order" constituency would suddenly suggest that the police are manufacturing evidence.

Again, (for the final time, since discussing this with you is obviously akin to attempting to divide by zero), the prosecution held that they lacked confidence that a charge could proceed without a Charter challenge; a common tactic used by defence lawyers in drug possession cases. (Using the argument that "others" had access to the vehicle at different times. Gee! Who could that be?)

I would say, "nice try", but you resorting to "produce a document" which has already been certified by the OPP in their swearing of information is a sign of pure desperation, as were the straw man attempts in the previous comment.

Your blog, so you'll obviously have the last word, but in the meantime look up Null Hypothesis and try to work it out as it applies to law.

paulsstuff said...

Jaffer deserved to lose the last election and the subsequent nomination for the next election.

And I have no issues with the police departments of any area or jurisdiction. Certainly Jaffer would appear to have had cocaine on his person or in the vehicle and was lucky to escape conviction.

My point that you didn't realize from my original post was that McTeague felt he was slighted because I had posted that he had been sued for campiagn literature that contained incorrect academic credentials. In fairness to McTeague, I posted his version of the facts, whcih I would expect any blogger to do.

I merely pointed out that he and his caucus collegues might want to show the same amount of respect for those in the Conservative party, and his email here will be used as a reminder when they show hypocrisy on their own side.