Request For Retraction

EDITOR'S RESPONSE To Lisa F. Cook:

Dear Ms Cook,

Since this is an open forum, which allows both members and anonymous users to post articles, opinions, and information with minimal moderation (moderation is provided only to clear up format and to prevent the posting of hate or discriminatory material), it would be much more effective to publish a prompt and careful rebuttal to Janis Schmidt's statements than to pursue a comparatively ponderous and ineffectual defamation case, which would likely be made more complex by the facts that this is a Canadian site and that we --the editors-- have no real way to verify the identities of either yourself or Janis Schmidt.

Defamation cases are far more suited to conventional media, which provides little opportunity for quick and equal rebuttal to statements which may be defamatory--newspaper retractions, for example, are rarely given the same prominence as the articles which they correct. However, since this website is an alternative form of media that allows you to answer to any statements almost immediately, whether by using the comment function or by posting your own articles, and with equal prominence to the original article, in this case defamation law will do far less to restore your reputation than a rebuttal. This is especially true since the legal system can take years to reach resolutions due to appeals etc, only a small portion of these cases ever make it to court, and belated apologies and monetary pay-outs do little to restore reputation.

If you can demonstrate on this forum that the poster who uses the name Janis Schmidt has her facts wrong, then she will quickly lose all credibility and your reputation will be far more effectively restored than it would be through a defamation case. If her charges against you are correct and you are unable to demonstrate otherwise, then you have no grounds for a defamation case. By submitting your own article, with a link to your website, you have already taken steps to do this, and demonstrated the equitable and interactive nature of this forum.

So, we are publishing your request for a retraction in full and equal manner to the way we posted the user who writes as Janis Scmidt's articles. You are also free to write rebuttals of any of her articles and we will give anything else you post fair and equal space as well. We are even willing to provide links to your rebuttals within the original related articles by the user posting as Janis Schmidt.

However, the owners and managers of this site, including myself, refuse to be intimidated into constricting the free speech of our members and users. Although in theory defamation laws are meant to protect people's reputation from unfair attack, in practice they are often used to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scutiny. At vivelecanada.ca we are well aware that defamation is the most common law used against citizen protest, and this sort of use of the law has been dubbed "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs. The main object in a SLAPP is to intimidate citizens, discouraging them from speaking out. As you can see from our mission and vision statements and the way we conduct our affairs, Vivelecanada.ca is dedicated to improving democracy and providing a forum for free speech, and we consider this case no different.

Respectfully,
- Susan Thompson
Managing Editor



---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I am against complying with any such request unless furnished with some proof of identity and/or legal documentation. Email and web forums are hardly authenticatable. I'd only consider doing such an action if legally required to by the canadian government.

(yup, I'm ornery)

---
Jesse

note that after looking through the logs, this does look reasonably legitimate, as far as actually probably being written by Lisa Cook. That doesn't say too much, but hey.

---
Jesse

I should like to know what Lisa Cook's qualifications are that qualify her to be a judge. In striking out at me, a self-sufficient, elderly woman, whom she deprieved me of the house I was building, many of my belongings, my orchard of over 100 fruit trees, and large garden which I depend on for my years supply of food, and a way of life which is now ruined. I find it quite astounding and quite amoral that this woman, who deprived me of everything I own and worked so hard for, has the unmitigated gall to insist that I retract my stories. Not only do I not retract them, I have been encouraged to write a book about my incredible courage and heroism to stand up to the corruption and the corrupt officials on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Let me help you, Lisa, with a few points of law:

4. Actual Malice must be Shown by "Convincing Clarity."

Where the plaintiff is a public official, he must prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth with "clear and convincing proof". New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342; Hepps, 475 U.S. at 773.

7. Right to Petition for Grievance Creates Privilege against Defamation

Statements made to the government and its representatives, in the course of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, are absolutely protected from defamation claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. See Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). "his deference to the right to petition not only in antitrust cases but in other cases involving civil liability." Gorman Towers, Inc., v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607, 614-15 (8th Cir. 1980).

I have filed my complaint with the Justice Department in Washington DC, Civil Rights Division. This is the 2nd paragraph of rights and privileges when filing a complaint:

"The laws and regulations which govern Dept. of Justice's compliance and enforcement authority provide that no person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any individual because he/she has made a complaint, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted under DOJ's jurisdiction, or has asserted rights protected by statutes DOJ enforces."

I guess that means you, Lisa. Are you threatening to file a defamation suit against me because I spoke up and told my story and filed a complaint? I think I will be on the phone tomorrow to the DOJ.

Thank you so much for your kind words of support. It is quite astounding just how far this woman thinks her jurisdiction reaches. Case in point: now you have a small sample of the kind of justice we must endure on the Pine Ridge Reservation. She's going to take you Canadians to court as well as myself for allowing me to tell my story. Incredible.

Well this is interesting, we are instructed to go to her website to learn more about her, but not to email as she will probably not respond. Firm but not interactive. Statement but no debate. Very interesting.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Quote from above:'I specifically request retraction of the following articles as defamatory per se as they accuse me of, among other things, criminal conduct and they are either patently false or portray me in a false light:'

This is an interesting statement, for which we are to take the posters words at face value. I would like to see an argument indicating the patently false or false light accusations. If they are untrue then it should not be difficult to state that they are, ' either patently false or portray me in a false light' and support that statement with proof of same.

I have read Janis'articles and if they are not as she says, it would be prudent for Lisa Cook to show us examples of the untruth. Janis' situation is portrayed as desperate and hostile, if that is not the case we should hear the other side. Apparently the only other person that can do so is Lisa Cook. I await such documentation.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Yes, indeed. I also await the documentation.

Upon re-reading the Articles mentioned, especially Response To Subpoena And Grand Jury, I must say I stand behind what I said 100 per cent. I cannot and must not retract true statements. Check it out:

"http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040918114459798&mo"

Janis you are an inspiration, to all who hold truth in high esteem! Stand tall, you certainly do in my eyes.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Well said, Susan.

Like Catherine, I also read all of Janis's pieces ... a couple I read more than once. I saved them to my hard drive for further reference and have just finished re-reading the whole lot of them. Where's the defamation? Even if Janis has some of her facts wrong or her recollection of past events is cloudy, I see no defamation. At best, I see a difference of opinion about what certain events might have meant in a wider picture.

"Don't email me"?!? Beyond the obvious arrogance, how does she expect you to respond to her?

As an attorney she should know a little more than she lets on about defamation laws. When something is written or said about you that you consider defamatory, the first step is to point out the error and ask for apology. If that is unsuccessful, then legal action might be required to force that apology and to extract damages. When and if Ms Cook is able to offer examples of any falsehoods, Janis and Vive can consider how to respond but at this point, there is no reason to do anything except get on with your day.

She is, I think, blowing smoke.

Paul Harris

Janis, we've made Vive an equal opportunity site, under the laws of Alberta, Canada. Judge Cook is welcome to post articles and comments just as you are, and they will be given equal treatment as yours have been. I understand her (assuming this is Judge Cook) reasons for seeking to remove your articles; to do nothing is to admit their truth.<p> Assuming the poster of the article is indeed Judge Cook, she would know the laws of the Pine Lake reservation do not apply here. The Board of Directors of Vive Le Canada is in agreement on this: We <b>absolutely will not delete</b> any of your stories (or any stories or comments that do not violate our code) without an order from the Court of Queens Bench in the Province of Alberta, and even then we'll fight it. Barratry is not practiced in Canadian courts, and we're not about to let it start now.<p> In this changing world, we must fight for those rights people seek to take away from us, and to challenge those in positions of authority who would seek to use that authority to shape society. For a scary big brother thing, look what happened to IndyMedia yesterday, courtesy of the FBI.<p> <p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />

american judges are elected through payoffs, intimidation, and the purging of voter lists, which explains their ignorance of american law and therefore their complete lack of credibility. I hope this does not cause them to launch a military intervention to free us from ourselves.

<i>I hope this does not cause them to launch a military intervention to free us from ourselves.</i><p> Whereas, I hope it does.<p><p>---<br>"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill <br />