Non-publication and MERB

[Mod 8]

Hello everyone,

Moderators do not post warnings for the fun of it. This details of this case which are public may be discussed in this thread. The identities of those involved may not be. Any publication of such details could open MERB to legal action. I have just banned one poster for 3 days for ignoring my previously posted instructions. If anyone else does the same, the next ban will be for 3 months.

Smarten up.

Mod 8

 

[obvio007]

mod8,

i thing its better you close the thread before more peoples get banned!

 

[Mod 8]

Hello everyone,

I posted previously that any speculation on the identity of the individuals involved is forbidden. Many people have posted that it is obvious who this individual is and that everyone knows who it is. If that is the case, there is no reason to post any hints or speculation on MERB.

Three posts have been removed. Any more posts referring to anyone's identity will result in a 3 month ban. Is it worth it?

Mod 8

 

[Mod 9]

After reviewing the law books, I must inform members that anyone revealing the names of the parties involved in this case can be prosecuted in Criminal Court.
So, if you have not been arrested for hobbying yet, this is something you might want to think about. Sure you can hint and tempt the system, but if we do receive any court order, be advised that you are not posting anonymously. 3 months ban is minor to what you might receive from a bailiff.
I also edited the post I did in this thread.

 

[Possum Trot]

I'd be really really annoyed if the courts felt that it was a judicious use of taxpayers money to pursue a possible breach of a court publication ban resulting from a posting on Merb. Particularly when it concerns something that is clearly already in the public domain. I doubt that a jury pool would be tainted or a reputation damaged by gossip here.

Personally, I have no particular interest in who it is and only a passing interest as to the precedent setting nature of the case. As to how a Quebec baliff is going to cause any kind of disruption to a ( just an example) Boston based hobbyiest with a GMail address and a truckers nick name for saying that Boom Boom Geoffrion is getting ripped by his ex-mistress (just kidding I know he's dead) is beyond me.

The Board obviously has the right to delete posts that it feels may cause it grief with the authorities but please - baliffs knocking on our door ? Seriously just nonsense

 

[Mod 8]

LeGuy and everyone else,

Whether the information is posted or published where Canadian laws do not apply is irrelevant. This site is subject to those laws as it is hosted in Canada. Even if US news papers, magazines or television reveal the identities of the parties involved, the JdM or Gazette still would not be permitted to publish the information.

If this thread continues to focus on the identities of the parties involved instead of the subject of the lawsuit, it will be closed and removed.

Mod 8

 

[Possum Trot]

Just curious:

1)Do you have a legal opinion that posting on Merb constitutes "publishing" under the terms and definitions of the publication ban;
2) How far, geographically, does the jurisdiction of the Quebec court extend ?
3) How many Quebec based billionaires are there ? Does not allowing that to be published - saw this all over the news wires and other internet sites such as Yahoo- not narrow the field considerably? I can only think of two actually.

The enforceability of this is of more interest than the actual story.

 

[Dee]

Mod9,

Since you reviewed your law books you might have an answer. It is written in the sky that US newspapers will reveal the identities. It is reported that NewYork Times and Vanity Fair assisted the trial yesterday. Since they are not covered by the non-disclosure law will it become public after they reveal the names? I would be tempted to say not. Remember the Sports Illustrated article about David Hilton where it was revealed that the visctims were his daughters, nevertheless it took a Court Order to "officially" unseal the names.

With communication not knowing any boarders this is now always a problem for sensational cases. It also happened for Picton in BC and also (I believe) for Holmoka.... My guess is that despite the leakage any order for nondisclosure in Canada is effective in Canada.

I think the victims in the Hilton affair wanted their names revealed.

Read in the G & M today that since the breakup the lady has had affairs with 4 guys (not that there is anything wrong with that - it didn't say whether or not Techman was one) including the guy financing her action.

As a general proposition it seems fair to me that there be an equal division of assets accrued during a marriage or common law relationship (I say this even having paid handsomely twice) but if one has earned a gazillion dollars through her own efforts it might be reasonable to have some very high cap on the splitting.

Having a known/predictable 50/50 split can save a lot of money fighting about it in court.

 

[Possum Trot]

The identity has already been posted on Yahoo.ca comments on the news story. let's see what happens to Yahoo

 

[ocean]

I find something very interesting about this case. When I was reading various publications covering the stories, I noticed that the "comments" section where people can reply to a story seems to have an interesting tone from women posters. A lot of them were supportive of the guy.

My personal opinion is that as women start to actually see how difficult it is to earn their own money their tune is changing from oh I am impovrished femme I should get half of everything he will ever earn for life to........ let that beeeeyatch earn his own money.

 

[Mod 9]

This story spanned out of control in the last 48 hours with a voyeuristic curiosity on the life of a Quebec billionaire.

Effectively, there are three news media that leaked, or partly leaked, the information. One leaked live and one printed paper pushed the lines with photos. So far there are about 50 blogs that cite the names. There are also outside Canada medias that identify the parties involved. If you do find it great, but again, in this case it involves the three children who deserve their privacy.

MERB is not interested in challenging the non-publication orders.

Lawless, yes, there was a name mentioned in this thread. As a matter of fact, it was the title of the thread.

PS: Vasco just earned a 3 months ban.

 

[Lilly Lombard]

I really do wonder if anyone will have time to go around the internet and send subpoena to every single bloggers who decided to post the information or every single blog/message board owners. Many websites are used by people or owned by people located in a certain area but are hosted elsewhere; worse, many websites are register under fake names, fake addresses etc.

A lawyer somewhere was writing that this kind of court order applies to the official information medias : Newspapers, radio, television but they cannot control every day Joe's speculation. To some extend, if it was the case, half of the province right now should get a subpoena very soon since people are talking to each other about it.

Also, isn't this a provincial case? Wouldn't the court order apply only on a provincial level, meaning this has no effect in the rest of the country? And from what I know, Merb is based out of Ontario, not Quebec.

I might be wrong here, I am just wondering what is the extend of this...

 

[ocean]

Two points here:

POINT#1: Guys stop whining about teh merb publication ban. You can give all teh logic you want to the moderators they won't listen to you.Even if you say , in all practical senses, it would, for lawyers of the billionaire plaintiff be very difficult/costly/fruitlessto sue given the constitutional implications of free speech and blogging/opinion rights on the net, it woun't change a thing.

POINT#2: To fruthur my point that all shelter and vehicles used for communal life a pratitonable marriage or not and in the past that has in cluded family boats and in the case of the billionaire and hoochie

DRUM ROLL PLEASE..........................................his private jet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sHE TRIED TO HAVE THAT SEIZED, (SHE FAILED THOUGH).

 

[misunderstood]

I am also wondering how can a court order be applied in every single blog in this country...

 

[ocean]

WHY WAS MY POST REMOVED FROM TEH ORIGINAL THREAD ???

I HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION THAT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE JOURNAL DE MONTREAL re the private jet, that was printed in today's JDM.

Two points here:

POINT#1: Guys stop whining about teh merb publication ban. You can give all teh logic you want to the moderators they won't listen to you.Even if you say , in all practical senses, it would, for lawyers of the billionaire plaintiff be very difficult/costly/fruitlessto sue given the constitutional implications of free speech and blogging/opinion rights on the net, it woun't change a thing.

POINT#2: To fruthur my point that all shelter and vehicles used for communal life a pratitonable marriage or not and in the past that has in cluded family boats and in the case of the billionaire and hoochie

DRUM ROLL PLEASE..........................................hi s private jet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sHE TRIED TO HAVE THAT SEIZED, (SHE FAILED THOUGH).

 

[Lawless]

A Court Order is valid across the country (Canada)....criminal proceedings could be launched against foreign entity...in Canada (Quebec)...but....end results....heavy fine and seizure of revenues generated in Canada....not much else!!!..Magazine sold in Canada could be affected!!!..As far as foreign TV is concerned..would CRTC do anything??

 

[Mod 8]

To all those who are constantly whining about the policy we have taken here:
GET A LIFE and stop behaving like a bunch of old ladies gossiping at the hairdresser's.

Ocean, how difficult do you think it would be for the plaintiff in the case to send a letter to the hosting company that hosts MERB on it's servers and threaten them with legal action if they do not take MERB offline? Do you think the hosting company would spend any time or money at all to fight them or would they simply take MERB offline to avoid any problems? This is not a question we wish to see answered and would prefer to avoid any possible problems in the first place.

This is not open for discussion. The decision has been made and those who do not abide by it will be banned. If any of you are so intent on discussing the identity of the people involved in this case, there are plenty of blogs and message boards on the net where you can do so to your heart's content. Do not do it here.

Mod 8

 

[ocean]

I have not been intent on identifying the people in volved in this case. But why has if I have not revealed the identity of people are my posts being moved out of its original thread.

In all honesty, I think I have been teh only one to back up my words with Candian news sources.

I understand if you want to make rules baout not posting personal information , but now you are moving posts just because you feel like it.

 

[Mod 8]

Some posts have been moved to this thread as they do not pertain to the original subject of the original thread. That thread is for discussion on the case and it's possible repercussions to Quebec law regarding common law unions in Quebec. It is not about publication bans and the policy we have adopted regarding such.

M8

 

[Possum Trot]

It is not about publication bans and the policy we have adopted regarding such.

M8

Except that you re-titled the thread and made it so