The Chronicle-Herald defense to Douglas Handshoe's claims: How to write a libel defense in Mississippi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS HANDSHOE PLAINTIFF
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-cv-106-LG-RHW
THE HALIFAX HERALD LIMITED AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANT
ANSWER AND DEFENSES



(any and all formatting errors are the result of pasting text--apologies)

Reserving first hereby, and not waiving, each and every defense, objection and matter in avoidance presently applicable, or which may arise hereafter, comes now The Halifax Herald Limited (hereinafter “The Chronicle Herald”), by counsel, and, in response to the allegations of the Complaint, or to so many thereof as the Defendant is obliged to response, would very respectfully show unto this Honorable Court the following:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state any claim against The Chronicle Herald upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
The Plaintiff has not complied with the process requirements of the treaty law extant between
the Commonwealth of Canada and the United States of America, more particularly The Convention
on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
The process which Plaintiff attempted was not authorized and was invalid.
THIRD DEFENSE
The process required by The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters was not served in compliance therewith, and service
was, therefor, not authorized and thus was invalid.
FOURTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff also has not complied with the substantive or the procedural requirements of
Mississippi Code Section 13-3-57. The process which Plaintiff attempted was not authorized and
is invalid.
FIFTH DEFENSE
That process contemplated by Mississippi Code Section 13-3-57, when and if authorized,
must be served in compliance therewith. The Plaintiff’s attempted service of process did not comply
with the substantive and/or the procedural requirements of Mississippi Code Section 13-3-57.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff may have failed to join a necessary party.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts sufficient to authorize bringing a civil action in this District or Division; venue is improper.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
The “claim” asserted is barred by Miss. Code Section 15-1-35.
NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the claim he has asserted against The Chronicle Herald.
TENTH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald owed the Plaintiff no such “duty” as Plaintiff has concluded exists or
attempted to allege.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald has not breached any actual duty at law respecting any matter of which
the Plaintiff complains.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not specifically alleged wherein any words used concerning the Plaintiff himself
was factually false.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff asserts, in conclusory fashion, that the blog he calls “Slabbed New Media, LLC”
(hereinafter the blog “Slabbed”), a non-party, published or reported in this District and Division
matter which is not specifically described in the Complaint. Plaintiff further alleges, and in like
fashion, that certain of that specifically undescribed, but allegedly reported matter (which was
allegedly published on a date or dates likewise not specified in the Complaint) was “categorized”
thereafter by The Chronicle Herald. And Plaintiff further asserts, in like manner, that the category
into which the blog’s reporting was placed by The Chronicle Herald was what plaintiff contends was
“homophobia,” but all without specifying the particular form or forms of “homophobia” to which
Plaintiff is referring, and without even generally describing to what unspecified, undated reporting
by Slabbed he is alluding. Plaintiff’s conclusions and any “allegations” intermingled therewith are
not actionable as libels stated of the Plaintiff himself by The Chronicle Herald.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff avers or implies that The Chronicle Herald, as a Canadian newspaper, owed to
the Plaintiff himself a legal duty to conduct one or more independent, conclusive investigations into
the alleged merits of each of five separate, but unnamed, civil actions allegedly filed by others
against the Plaintiff himself and, apparently, his defenses thereto, these civil actions filed somewhere
(not alleged) on unspecified dates, in unspecified courts in the Commonwealth of Canada or in the
State of Louisiana. However, the Plaintiff does not allege: any specific allegation anyone made
about him personally in any one or more of those five “suits,” or that any specific allegations were
made against him personally in any of those “suits,” or that any such unspecified allegations (if made
against him in any of those five “suits”) was factually false or wherein it was false, or that The
Chronicle Herald itself had originally made any of those unspecified allegations or had itself filed
any of those five “suits.” Plaintiff’s conclusions and any “allegations” intermingled therewith are
not actionable as libels stated of the Plaintiff himself by The Chronicle Herald.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff avers, in conclusory fashion, that the five unidentified suits filed against him
personally were filed not by The Chronicle Herald but, by individual persons who obviously are not
named parties to the instant civil action, and that those several suits by others, allegedly brought
against him personally, were “designed to harass and defame Plaintiff.” Even if that were true, the
Plaintiff does not aver, not even in a conclusory manner, that The Chronicle Herald designed to
harass or defame the Plaintiff himself thereby; nor does he allege that the Defendant filed any of
those five “suits” against him. Plaintiff’s conclusions and any “allegations” intermingled therewith
are not actionable as libels spoken of the Plaintiff himself by The Chronicle Herald.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Those individual persons, to whom the Complaint alludes as having brought “five” suits
against him, had individual duties to determine the existence of good faith bases in fact and in law
allegedly underlying any civil actions they actually brought against the Plaintiff himself in the courts
of the United States and to do so before they filed those suits. The Chronicle Herald, however, was
under no such duty as bound Plaintiff’s adversary litigants. And The Chronicle Herald owed no
such or any other “duty” to the Plaintiff himself to preinvestigate (before reporting thereon) the
ultimate merits of any suits those persons brought against the Plaintiff in the courts of the United
States concerning any unspecified (in his complaint) allegations any of those individuals actually
made or implied therein against the Plaintiff himself. Moreover, these unnamed persons’ allegations
against the Plaintiff himself, if any, were themselves protected by the litigation privilege so that no
defamation claims could be brought against those persons by the Plaintiff, unless their litigation
privilege was overcome by Plaintiff in respect of each of those five “suits.” Moreover, The
Chronicle Herald’s own reporting on those privileged proceedings was and is separately privileged.
The Chronicle Herald was privileged to report upon activities occurring in proceedings covered by
a separate litigation privilege.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
Those individual persons to whom the Complaint alludes as having brought “five” suits
against him, had individual duties to determine whether there were proper bases in fact and in law
underlying other suits, if any, brought against the Plaintiff himself in the courts of the
Commonwealth of Canada. The Chronicle Herald, however, as a newspaper reporting current
events, had no such investigatory “duty” to the Plaintiff himself as to any suits brought by others
against the Plaintiff elsewhere or as to any unspecified allegations any of those individuals made
therein and elsewhere against the Plaintiff here. The Chronicle Herald was privileged to report on
contemporaneous news.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
Whether or not the judgment predicated thereupon was enforced in Canada or was
enforceable elsewhere after its rendition, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia nevertheless made a
finding of fact in its Decision dated February 14, 2014, in Trout Point Lodge, et al. Handshoe, which
recited in material part the following:
[6] The present and former actions are . . . a response to Mr.
Handshoe’s defamatory actions conducted through the Internet
[i.e. by “blogging”]. Justice Hood summarized Mr. Handshoe’s
activities:
. . . .
[7] . . . The [defamatory] statements contained anti-gay rhetoric
and homophobic content.
. . . .
[10] • Mr. Handshoe has continued to repeatedly publish
words referring to the personal [i.e., individual] [male]
plaintiffs as “[redacted],” “[redacted],” “[redacted],”
“[redacted],” “[redacted],” and “[redacted].”
• Mr. Handshoe republished the following: “I’ll add
here, in case it is not self-evident, that I built dossiers on all
the players in the social group and I intend through time to
roll out each and every one in excruciating detail. . . . The
reason for this is that this band of gay men act as a unit that
will also scatter like [redacted] when the heat is applied.”
• . . . Handshoe referred to . . . the Plaintiffs as “the
[redacted].”
Id. (Emphasis added.) It is incontrovertible that such a finding was made in the courts of the
Commonwealth of Canada and that the Decision was legally issued and the Court’s act legally done
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Canada. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found the
Plaintiff had made homophobic or anti homosexual utterances in the words quoted hereinabove.
The findings of fact within this Decision by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and published
there by that court, standing alone, were an ample factual basis for any opinion contemporarily
published in Canada to the effect that Plaintiff had so comported himself and/or so operated his
business as to cause reasonable inferences that he was and had been (a) a blogger, and (b) an “anti
homosexual blogger,” (emphasis added) which, if a mere opinion, and/or if factual or substantially
true, cannot be a libel actionable by the Plaintiff. Moreover, The Chronicle Herald is privileged to
publish contemporaneous reports on court proceedings. Fair comment on these court proceedings
in which there is a public interest is not actionable.
NINETEENTH DEFENSE
Heretofore, the Plaintiff wrote to a sitting judge of this District Court that certain named
individuals (persons whom Plaintiff had earlier characterized as homosexuals) were “anonymous
[redacted]” (Civil Action no. 1:13-cv-00254-HSO-RHN, ECF No. 10, P. 2), indicating his personal
animus against persons whom he also claimed were homosexuals. Such statements on the public
record of this District Court bespeak both a general and a specific, anti-homosexual animus on the
part of Plaintiff.
TWENTIETH DEFENSE
This civil action was facetiously brought; Plaintiff himself appears to court the public to
conclude that he is, inter alia, an “anti homosexual blogger,” not a pro homosexual blogger,
wherefor no public opinion formed consistent with his designs or posturing to that effect can
plausibly constitute his sustaining a cognizable “injury” or “loss” proximately caused by any true or
substantially true utterance to that same effect.
TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The phrase “anti homosexual blogger” is not a statement constituting defamation per se under
settled Mississippi law.
TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
The phrase “anti homosexual blogger” is not defamatory whether in the abstract or as applied
to the Plaintiff himself whether in an opinion or in any factual statement which is true or
substantially true.
TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
The words complained of and attributed to the defendant are protected by Freedom of the
Press as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
The words complained of and attributed to the defendant are protected by Freedom of Speech
as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Any statement actually written by The Chronicle Herald about the Plaintiff himself and
concerning which Plaintiff has not specified wherein it was factually false as concerning him is not
actionable as a “libel.”
TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Any factual statement actually written by The Chronicle Herald about the Plaintiff himself
which is substantially true is not actionable.
TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not averred any statement allegedly written about himself by The Chronicle
Herald that was of a nature that the Plaintiff himself has regarded as arising to the level of a nonactionable
“insult” and therefore such clearly could not constitute any actionable “libel,” a greater
offense that offering an insult.
TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s mere conclusory averments that unspecified false statements were written about
him personally, or that even specified statements allegedly written concerning him personally were
“false,” does not suffice to show Plaintiff himself was libeled without his explicitly pleading wherein
what was said about him was entirely false and, thus, was not substantially true.
TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald reported the news as it occurred and fairly commented upon it, as was
its right and privilege.
THIRTIETH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff was and is a public figure, and he voluntarily became such.
THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The Plaintiff was and is a vortex public figure, and he voluntarily became such.
THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE
The Plaintiff has not alleged that, or wherein, The Chronicle Herald has acted toward the Plaintiff himself out of an animus of actual malice toward the Plaintiff personally.
THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE
None of what the Plaintiff alleges was written about him personally by The Chronicle Herald
is actionable under the laws of the United States of America or of the State of Mississippi which
laws are, rather, directly repugnant to the “claim” purportedly made in this civil action.
THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff did not properly demand before filing this civil action any retraction of the allegedly libelous statement he has pleaded as being allegedly written about the Plaintiff himself; because the Plaintiff did not specify wherein the alleged falsity of any words allegedly written about him personally were false in fact but merely offered a conclusory, non-specific, general assertion of
“falsity” which does not suffice.

THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
ANSWER
I. PARTIES
1. The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint are admitted, save and except any
conclusory implication meant to be conveyed by the adjective “investigative” as modifying the noun
“weblog.” The conclusions set forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint require no response.
2. The Halifax Herald Limited is organized under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Canada, a sovereign treaty signatory, with the United States of America, to The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and the Halifax Herald Limited is located at the physical address alleged in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Any allegation in paragraph 2 which is not explicitly admitted is denied, including Plaintiff’s
characterization that The Chronicle Herald so stands in relation to the Plaintiff as to be fairly
characterizable as a “defendant” concerning any “fact” pleaded in the Complaint. (The Chronicle
Herald was that phrase herein for the sake of brevity only and without conceding anything related
to the point here made.) The conclusions set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint require no
response.
3. The conclusory assertions of paragraph 3 of the Complaint require no response.

II. “JURISDICTION AND VENUE”
4. The allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are denied. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint require no response.
5. The allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint require no response.
6. The Chronicle Herald does not dispute that the Plaintiff is seeking a recovery in excess of $75,000 in actual damages, exclusive of interest and costs, plus punitive damages. The Chronicle Herald denies each and every other allegation of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint require no response.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. The allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not the
responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 7 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 7 of the Complaint require no response.
8. The allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not the
responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 8 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 8 of the Complaint require no response.
9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not the
responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 9 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 9 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 9 of the Complaint require no response.
10. The allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not
the responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 10 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 10 of the Complaint require no response.
11. The allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not
the responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 11 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 11 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 11 of the Complaint require no response.
12. The allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, were those true as stated, are not
the responsibility of The Chronicle Herald, and the Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff therefor.
Nevertheless, The Chronicle Herald demands that the Plaintiff provide strict proof of each and every
fact alleged in paragraph 12 of the Complaint because The Chronicle Herald specifically denies any
allegation thereof which Plaintiff purports is chargeable to The Chronicle Herald, and it denies
generally every other allegation of paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in
paragraph 12 of the Complaint require no response.
13. The actual pertinent reportage of The Chronicle Herald, in its entirety, literally speaks
for itself. Any allegation of paragraph 13 of the Complaint, or any implication by the Plaintiff
related thereunto, which is or may appear to be at variance with The Chronicle Herald’s actual
reportage, and/or any fair comment by The Chronicle Herald, is denied. The conclusions set forth
in paragraph 13 of the Complaint require no response.
14. The allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied as worded. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint require no response.
15. The Chronicle Herald specifically denies that the Plaintiff has pleaded the occurrence of any alleged publication by The Chronicle Herald of anything actionable ex delicto by the Plaintiff
himself as against The Chronicle Herald. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 15 of the
Complaint require no response.

IV. CAUSE OF ACTION [SIC]
COUNT 1: DEFAMATION [SIC]
16. The Chronicle Herald reavers all of its defenses, responses and affirmative defenses
to every preceding and every subsequent numbered paragraph of the Complaint as and for its
response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17. The allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint are denied by The Chronicle Herald. The Chronicle Herald specifically denies that the Plaintiff has expressly and specifically pleaded what was allegedly false in any statement actually published in Canada by The Chronicle Herald, and it further specifically denies that the Plaintiff has expressly and specifically pleaded that any publication by The Chronicle Herald of a false statement about the Plaintiff has occurred in this district and/or division, or to whom the alleged “publication” was made, or when. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint require no response.
18. The allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint are denied by The Chronicle Herald. The Chronicle Herald specifically denies that the Plaintiff has expressly and specifically pleaded what was allegedly false in any statement actually published in Canada by The Chronicle Herald and further specifically denies that the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that any publication by The Chronicle Herald of a false statement about the Plaintiff has occurred in this district and/or division, or to whom the alleged “publication” was made, or when. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint require no response.
19. The allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint state nothing specific or material
to Plaintiff’s “claim” and are therefor unintelligible; each and very “allegation” of paragraph 19 of
the Complaint is denied. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint require no
response.
20. The Chronicle Herald reavers the responses to paragraphs 7 through 19 of the Complaint as and for a part of its response to paragraph 20 of the Complaint and, further, specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint. The conclusions set forth in paragraph 20
of the Complaint require no response.
21. The Chronicle Herald specifically denies each and every allegations of paragraph 21
of the Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Plaintiff has wholly failed to allege his alleged
special damages in the manner and with that specificity expressly required by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Plaintiff reavers its denials as to any implied, but unpleaded and unspecified,”
falsity,” as to any alleged, but unspecified, “publication,” and as to any attempt to imply that the
essential “causation” may be presumed to have stemmed from any matter, the actual, specific falsity
of which and the actual publication here of same were, neither one, specifically pleaded, at all. The
conclusions set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint require no response.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Having pleaded neither the actual falsity of any alleged libel allegedly uttered by The
Chronicle Herald, nor any publication thereof in this district or division, nor any causation of any
actionable effect thereof upon himself, The Chronicle Herald declares that the Plaintiff is entitled
to no relief that may be granted by this Honorable Court, wherefore, The Chronicle Herald denies
that the Plaintiff may demand judgment against it for “actual damages,” or punitive damages, or any
other form or manner of relief alluded to in his Complaint.
AND NOW, having answered the allegations of the Complaint, The Chronicle Herald would
show the following additional and alternative objections, defenses and matters in avoidance, as
contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
The claim asserted is barred by the statute of limitations.
THIRTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
For the reasons explicitly set forth in this pleading, The Chronicle Herald avers that this
action was filed pro se and filed in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and that it is also violative of the
Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act. Moreover, the filing and the maintenance of this civil
action was intended to vex the Defendant and Plaintiff’s actions since the filing of it likely will
unlawfully multiply these proceedings.
THIRTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Any statement yet to be shown to have been actually uttered by The Chronicle Herald about
the Plaintiff himself will be shown to have been justified as the contemporaneous reporting of the
occurrence of a local court decision and thus privileged and, if shown to have been published here,
then to have been published under circumstances in which that privilege was not actionably
exceeded.
THIRTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Any statement shown to have been actually written by The Chronicle Herald about the
Plaintiff himself will be shown to have been true or substantially true.
FORTIETH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff voluntarily instigated or injected himself into each of the controversies alluded
to but not described in the Complaint and assumed thereby all risks attendant to his doing so. The
Chronicle Herald exercised no dominion or control over the Plaintiff’s deliberately chosen and
pursued courses of action or over the responses of other persons thereto, whether reasonable in
nature or not.
FORTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The Plaintiff is estopped to complaint of the reportage of The Chronicle Herald and all fair
comment related thereto.
FORTY-SECOND DEFENSE
By injecting himself into various controversies as aforesaid, the Plaintiff waived the privilege
of complaining, against The Chronicle Herald, or anyone else, in respect of any matters of fact or
opinion that he invited or authorized others to comment upon, whether in agreement or in opposition,
or that were the subjects of judicial findings of fact about himself, or that might be regarded as noncomplimentary, even insulting, and whether or not and however those matters were published or reported about by others, including by The Chronicle Herald.
FORTY-THIRD DEFENSE
“Homophobia” is a defined term having a general acceptance as to meaning. If, as implied
in his Complaint, Plaintiff himself is in fact not afraid of or averse to homosexuality and/or not afraid
of or averse to alleged homosexuals, nevertheless he has so expressed or published opinions or
descriptive words of a pejorative suggestion and/or so comported himself as to create a fair inference
that he is or may be so averse or afraid, thus a homophobe, as that term is generally defined and as
he and his statements have been characterized by various courts here and in Canada.
FORTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald’s actual actions and writings are protected by freedoms of the press
and of free speech to the full measures set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America, The Constitution of the State of Mississippi (1890) and the case decisions
thereunto appertaining (as well as by the common law and the laws of the Commonwealth of
Canada).
FORTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff is the so-called moderator, editor and/or publisher of all content allowed to be
posted to “slabbed.org.” Nothing is published or can be published thereon which Plaintiff himself
does not pre-approve for publication or re-publication and/or personally endorse by such publications, whereby he invites further such content to be posted there and foreseeably invites all
controversies related thereunto, whatever the sources, whatever the contents thereof, and whatever
motivates same.
FORTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Prior to the alleged “publication” by The Chronicle Herald of unspecified false matter using
the phrase pleaded in the Complaint, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
expressly held concerning the Plaintiff that this District Court (in Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00090-
LG-JMR) had noted that, by using “Slabbed” to do so, Plaintiff had posted information “which can
be [fairly] characterized as derogatory, mean spirited, sexist and homophobic.” (Emphasis added.)
These filings are matters of public record, in both courts. But, the Plaintiff did not seek any manner
of redress in this Court or in the Court of Appeals regarding either of those findings as just quoted;
neither had he filed or prosecuted any cross-appeal respecting same, to any purpose or any effect,
in the Court of Appeals. Neither did the plaintiff seek any manner of relief against substantially
similar findings of fact made in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
FORTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff must prove that The Chronicle Herald has acted toward him with actual malice and must do so by clear and convincing evidence but The Chronicle Herald has no such animus; thus, the Plaintiff has no evidence of this sort or that may plausibly be so construed.
FORTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald’s neutral reportage of court decisions and other contemporaneous occurrences of matters of interest in Nova Scotia was justified.
FORTY-NINTH DEFENSE
The United States Court of Appeals has now so ruled in No. 13-60002 that this District Court
may take judicial notice of this Plaintiff’s website’s content and of juridical filings by Plaintiff in this
and other jurisdictions in the context of proceedings upon, inter alia, the First Defense. Plaintiff is
estopped to deny the contents of any of same.
FIFTIETH DEFENSE
The Plaintiff may not seek damages for statements of opinion contained in substantially
accurate reports by The Chronicle Herald concerning any statement or opinions that the Plaintiff has
expressed, published or pleaded, however inappropriate or grotesque, and even if Plaintiff’s opinions
or pejoratives are not themselves legally actionable by those whom the Plaintiff describes or of
whose actions he apparently disapproves.
FIFTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiff must prove that he is not possessed in fact of and that he does not express an
irrational fear of, aversion to, or is not inclined to discrimination against homosexuality or
homosexuals, and that The Chronicle Herald has actually published in this district and division a
false statement of purported fact about him that explicitly said that he is and Plaintiff must prove that
that statement about him was not substantially true but was actually false and wherein so.
FIFTY-SECOND DEFENSE
If the Plaintiff is a homophobe, then any actual fear or aversion which the Plaintiff himself
may have had or still has towards homosexuality and/or alleged homosexuals has been, by definition,
irrational and, thus, is not legally sanctionable by this Court, and the Plaintiff may not seek
“damages” from The Chronicle Herald for his harboring any such irrational fear. However, any
pretense by which the Plaintiff may have feigned (or encouraged any conclusion) that he is
homophobic, if done for commercial reasons, would be sham and false and thus could not be
actionable, in any context.
FIFTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff has sustained no cognizable or non-cognizable direct loss or injury to himself.
FIFTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
No such “injury” as Plaintiff alleged is cognizable in the context Plaintiff has alleged.
FIFTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Any alleged injury or loss which the Plaintiff claims he has sustained by being characterized
as an “anti homosexual blogger” falls within the ambit of the doctrine of de minimus non curat lex.”
FIFTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
The publication, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Commonwealth of Canada, of an opinion or a
statement of fact fairly characterizing the Plaintiff as being an “anti homosexual blogger” cannot
plausibly have impaired any cognizable interest he might possess or have plausibly diminished his
public persona or reputation as an anti homosexual blogger, moreover it addressed a contemporaneous decision in a local court proceeding. The Chronicle Herald was not chargeable
with any error in the court decision reported or any offense taken to that decision by the party against
whom the decision issued. The Defendant reported the local current news with reasonable accuracy
when describing the Supreme Court’s findings.
FIFTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate, or avoid entirely, any alleged direct loss or injury he has claimed conclusorily.
FIFTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
The defendant avers, upon information and belief, that the plaintiff may have received, or accepted, or agreed to accept or receive things of value or other assistance whatever the form thereof,
as an inducement to commence or to prosecute this civil action.
FIFTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff is estopped to assert that any direct loss or injury he has allegedly sustained was
caused by The Chronicle Herald as opposed to being caused by some other actor or circumstance,
and whether actionable or otherwise.
SIXTIETH DEFENSE
The Chronicle Herald invokes Section 85-5-7, Mississippi Code.
SIXTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The Plaintiff has confected or exaggerated any alleged direct “loss” or “injury” to himself for
which he seeks recovery of compensatory damages from The Chronicle Herald.
SIXTY-SECOND DEFENSE
Any direct loss or injury the Plaintiff himself may have sustained was proximately caused or contributed to by Plaintiff’s own actions or by the actions of other individuals or entities for which
The Chronicle Herald is neither answerable nor liable.
SIXTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not properly asserted a claim for any special damages.
SIXTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Punitive damages against this Defendant cannot be justified in this case, and any award of punitive damages to Plaintiff against this Defendant would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in that the basis for awarding punitive damages is vague, standardless, and not rationally related to any legitimate
governmental interest.
SIXTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Punitive damages against this Defendant cannot be justified in this case, and any award of
punitive damages to Plaintiff against this defendant would violate the due process clause in Article
3, Section 14, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi in that the basis for awarding punitive
damages is vague, standardless, and not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest.
SIXTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Punitive damages against this Defendant cannot be justified in this case, and any award of
punitive damages to Plaintiff against this Defendant would be violative of the procedural
safeguards provided to this Defendant under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America (as applied to Mississippi and other individual states through the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America) in that punitive
damages are penal in nature, and this Defendant is entitled to the same procedural and evidentiary
safeguards accorded to those charged with crimes against the United States of America or against
any individual state thereof before any such penalty can be assessed.
SIXTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Punitive damages against this Defendant cannot be justified in this case, and any award of
punitive damages to Plaintiff against this Defendant would violate this Defendant's right to
protection against "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America (as applied to Mississippi and other individual states through the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America).
SIXTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained, because an award of punitive
damages under Mississippi law by a jury, who, before retiring to consider the issue, (1) is not
provided a standard constitutionally sufficient for determining the appropriateness of, or the
appropriate amount of, a punitive damages award, (2) is not instructed on the limits on punitive
damages imposed by the applicable principles of deterrence and punishment, (3) is not expressly
prohibited from awarding punitive damages or determining the amount of an award of punitive
damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the
corporate status of a Defendant, (4) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for
determining liability for punitive damages that is vague and arbitrary as to damages permissible,
and/or (5) is not subject to judicial review on the basis of objective standards, would violate this
Defendant’s substantive and procedural due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the double jeopardy
clause of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and by the
Mississippi constitutional provisions providing for due process, equal protection and the guarantee
against double jeopardy.
SIXTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Any award of punitive damages in this case would violate this Defendant’s right to
procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States of America and corresponding provisions of the Mississippi
Constitution, if the jury is not authorized to apportion damages separately and severally against joint
tortfeasors where the punitive damages are predicated upon the alleged enormity of the wrong
committed by each alleged tortfeasor.
SEVENTIETH DEFENSE
The submission of punitive damages to a jury, upon the pretext of having the jury make
"findings of fact" about the degree of reprehensibility of this Defendant’s alleged conduct, is
violative of this Defendant’s rights to the due process of law. No jury can engage in such a finely
tuned exercise of deterrence calibration. No jury is institutionally competent to make such a
necessary determination to justify a constitutionally permissible deterrence calibration.
SEVENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The submission of punitive damages to a jury, upon the pretext of having the jury make
"findings of fact" about the disparity between the harm, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff and the
punitive damages sought and/or any punitive damages awarded, is violative of this Defendant’s
rights to the due process of law. No jury can engage in such a finely tuned calculation of a
constitutionally acceptable disparity between the harm, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff and the
punitive damages sought and/or any punitive damages awarded. No jury is institutionally competent
to make such a necessary determination to justify a constitutionally permissible disparity or
correlation.
SEVENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
The submission of punitive damages to a jury, upon the pretext of having the jury make
"findings of fact" regarding the differences between the punitive damages awarded by themselves
and those imposed in comparable cases, is violative of this Defendant’s rights to the due process of
law. Jurors have no such information, experience or competency and go well beyond their lawful
fact-finding function when allowed to make such determinations without any basis or competency
for doing so.
SEVENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because an award of punitive
damages under Mississippi law without proof of each separate element by evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt would violate this Defendant’s substantive and procedural due process rights under
the due process provisions of the Mississippi Constitution and the Constitution of the United States
of America.
SEVENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Any imposition of punitive damages based upon theories of respondeat superior, agency,
vicarious liability, or joint and several liability violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the corresponding provisions
of the Mississippi Constitution.
SEVENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Any imposition of punitive damages against this Defendant would violate the due process
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and the
Mississippi Constitution, in that the bases for imposing liability and for awarding punitive damages
are vague, retroactive, limitless, standardless and not rationally related to any legitimate
governmental interests.
SEVENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
Any imposition of punitive damages against this Defendant based upon wealth would violate
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America.
SEVENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
To the extent that it seeks punitive damages, the complaint violates this Defendant's rights
to substantive due process, as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America, and therefore, fails to state a basis upon which punitive damages
can be awarded.
SEVENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because Mississippi law regarding
the standard for determining liability and the amount of punitive damages fails to give this Defendant
prior adequate notice of the conduct for which punitive damages may be imposed and is void for
vagueness in violation of this Defendant's due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
SEVENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because, under Mississippi law,
a jury award of punitive damages, to the extent not subject to post-trial and appellate court reviews
under constitutionally adequate, objective standards to insure that the award is rationally related to
the state’s legitimate goals of deterrence and retribution, further violates this Defendant's due process
rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
EIGHTIETH DEFENSE
Any removal of homophobic, anti homosexual(s), or anti homosexuality matter or content
from his blog or other records or date compilations would constitute spoliation of evidence.
WHEREFORE The Halifax Herald Limited denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff, in any
amount, and it demands to be dismissed.

DATED: March 30, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,
THE HALIFAX HERALD LIMITED

Slapping down Douglas Handshoe's and "Jack Etherton" Truitt's hilarious SLAPP motions: New Orleans Civil District Court

The "Slabbed Nation" is crumbling. The House of Handshoe teeters, fated to fall. "Super Lawyer" Bobby Truitt can't seem to BS his way out of this one, either for himself or his former client.

A now-erased comment left by former Douglas Handshoe attorney, financier, and alleged co-conspirator "Jack Etherton Truitt" on Handshoe's hate-filled blog "Slabbed" caused curious minds to wonder what exactly was going on in the year-old litigation brought by New Orleans civil rights attorney Daniel Abel against the alleged perpetrators of Slabbed's vicious and unceasing campaign to damage and injure others (including Abel) through the Internet. On July 2, Handshoe had published a check list of his blog's "accomplishments" and Truitt was adding to the list with his comment. Handshoe quickly removed the quip from publication. Now, why would he do that?

Turns out July 2, 2014, was the same day Chief Judge Piper Griffin of New Orleans Civil District Court considered various motions brought by Truitt trying to get out of the multi-count defamation lawsuit. Abel had opposed them all. Truitt denied that he was part and parcel of Handshoe's defamatory publishing activities. Too bad, at the end of the day, Truitt remains a defendant alongside Handshoe. Truitt's public showing of "having fun" using civil legal process might just backfire on him.

Also turns out, according to informed courthouse sources, Chief Judge Griffin has in fact flatly denied various motions by homophobic blogger Handshoe, slip-and-fall lawyer Truitt, and former Asst. Jefferson Parish Attorney Anne-Marie Vandenweghe in the defamation litigation against them. All three claimed that Abel's lawsuit was a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" or "SLAPP" suit. Some sources indicate Handshoe attempted to have his anti-SLAPP argument heard twice. Judge Griffin has repeatedly found no SLAPP, and that the lawsuit seeking redress from all three will go forward to trial in New Orleans. "Denied" is a simple word Handshoe, Truitt, and Vandenweghe do not appear to understand.

Judge Griffin also denied repeated motions by Truitt trying to change the venue out of New Orleans, and to dismiss the suit against him for being too "vague." In evidence presented by Abel, Truitt has admitted to giving money to Handshoe to publish the hate-filled and homophobic blog, and also frequently contributes to it.  

The consequences of Judge Griffin's decision for defendants Handshoe, Truitt, and Vandenweghe are serious. Handshoe has unceasingly crowed on his web site Slabbed that lawsuits from various individuals against him involving defamation were frivolous SLAPP suits and that he is being pursued by "SLAPP-happy nut jobs"; now a court of law has said decisively otherwise. In this case, purported "free speech" will meet head on with longstanding standards of civil decency and defamation in the Internet context.

Under Art. 971 of the Louisiana rules of civil procedure, Judge Griffin's decision has precedential value and can be used in later parts of the trial. This is not good news for Truitt and his pals Handshoe and Vandenweghe. In addition, Art. 971 mandates that any loosing party in a motion made under the article must pay attorney's fees to the prevailing party, in this case Mr. Abel.

Looks like Truitt will have to pony up for "having fun with Danny Abel."

Handshoe & "Concrete Busters." Blogger's lies betrayed, no more hands to stand on for Handshoe -- An Easter Surprise!

An interesting letter from a court filing came to light today. Remember that coincidentally just as the Federal District Court in southern Mississippi was considering enforcing Trout Point Lodge's $427,000 Canadian defamation judgment against homophobic blogger Doug Handshoe, attorneys for Concrete Busters of Louisiana just happened to file an amended lawsuit against federal criminal probe target Frederick Heebe that just coincidentally mentioned Trout Point Lodge as well as that very Mississippi lawsuit?

Here's what Handshoe said at the time on Slabbed:
 

Civil District Court lawsuit filed by Concrete Busters against River Birch terms Trout Point Lodge Ltd. of Nova Scotia a “shell company”

They did folks. In fact Concrete Busters amended complaint filed Wednesday against The River Birch Landfill et al unifies several themes we’ve covered here on Slabbed through time. But alas those nasty Goatherders and I have an outstanding  matter in United States Federal District Court in Gulfport before Judge Louis Guirola that my lawyer, Bobby Truitt has me barred from commenting upon. But that does not mean that we can’t let Concrete Busters tell part of that story . . .

Handshoe published a scan of the entire lawsuit he somehow got the same day it was filed, and that self-same scan also just happened to end up published on nola.com too, giving it really wide exposure. The suit was later removed to federal court, and Handshoe published on that too:

Trout Point Lodge, Cerro Coyote, Aaron Broussard and others named as co-conspirators/defendants in federal racketeering suit.

The Concrete Busters suit really helped shore up Handshoe's credibility. The gist was: "If actual lawyers were making these serious allegations about Trout Point Lodge and its owners, there really must be something to it all." It gave Handshoe an excuse for lots of Slabbed posts full of real malice.

Unfortunately for Trout Point Lodge, Charles Leary, and Vaughn Perret, the federal district court in Gulfport, Mississippi, noticed the Concrete Busters amendment as well, and mentioned it's now clearly false allegations that they were involved with Aaron Broussard in criminal wrongdoing in the December, 2012, Order denying that important summary judgment motion--a case of first impression for the federal SPEECH Act. One might say it played an important role in the judge's decision.

Handshoe also used the Concrete Busters suit to accuse Leary & Perret of crimes in a letter he wrote to a Supreme Court justice in Nova Scotia in February, and has published extensively on it since then.

Well of course Handshoe wanted to let the Concerete Busters suit "tell the story"--because it was his own made-up conspiracy theory reproduced word for word in the lawsuit . . .  and now retracted, laying the blame at Handshoe's feet. Here's the astounding letter:

 

 

Talk about an about-face!!! Duping of others in self-interest might be called a theme here.

Concrete Busters was one mighty big piece of seeming justification in Mr. Handshoe's multi-year "campaign to damage" Leary, Perret, Trout Point Lodge, and others. (Those are the words of that Mississippi federal court, which recently also denied Handshoe's request for $60,000 in attorney's fees). Handshoe can probably be held liable for this republication of his false and injurious words too. Surely, Daniel G. Abel--who is suing Handshoe for defamation-- will find this all very intriguing & useful.

Former allegational ringmaster Anne-Marie Vandenweghe, her (sock) puppet Doug Handshoe, and their coincidentally mutual attorney Jack "Bobby" Truitt must not be too happy right now. No wonder Mr. Doug looks so grim . . .

 

Douglas Handshoe, CPA & blogger

Some say public official Vandenweghe had links to people in the U.S. Attorney's Office too, past and present, including some with Italian surnames. . . . including some who, it is said, were once investigating her then-husband Ray Valdes. This was coincidentally the same prosecutors' office pursuing Aaron Broussard and Frederick Heebe. Might she have been duping third parties as well, in the name of self interest?

Vandenweghe surely was connected to federal prosecutors in 2009-10. She was "cooperating" and "informing" for the USAO on alleged Jefferson Parish corruption, according to her own taping of Jefferson Parish President Steve Theriot placing her on administrative leave for blogging on government time about the government back in that year. (As well as in comments made on Slabbed under pseudonyms like "unslabbed"). Vandenweghe's USAO contacts included prosecutors who just happened to also be spearheading the Aaron Broussard prosecution. Could the USAO have been misled and duped by Vandenweghe, just like Handshoe did with Concrete Busters?

Handshoe/Vandenweghe attorney Mr. Truitt was surely really looking forward to his $60,000 in supposed attorney's fees after Trout Point et. al. lost the summary judgement motion. Too bad he didn't get it. Guess that "win at all costs" attitude that federal Judge Englehardt wrote about in the context of the U.S. Attorney blogging scandal might just have transcended the boundaries of that office.

"A foundation of straw": analyzing Slabbed's extrinsic and intrinsic evidence of supposed wrongdoing at Trout Point Lodge

In a February, 2012, post published just after a Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge found Doug K. Handshoe liable for $425,000 worth of defamation against Trout Point Lodge, Charles Leary, and Vaughn Perret, Mr. Handshoe laid out his total argument against them, including full elaboration of all the "evidence" he had.

Why is this important? Because over a period of years Handshoe has accused the Lodge and its owners of a series of felonies, including money laundering and racketeering,  purportedly based on his reliable "investigative blogging."

Handshoe says he invites debate, so let's go through his accusatory screed point by point.

With that said I welcome intelligent discourse on this topic from both sides of the border that considers all the blogging we’ve done.  Our readers may remember Leary asserted to the Times Picayune certain things about his, Perret’s and Trout Point Lodge’s association with Aaron Broussard, the guy who helped peddle minority ownership of the Lodge to certain connected area residents. Let’s start there:

Broussard, “does not and has never had any ownership or management involvement with Trout Point Lodge, Limited.” The message went on to say Broussard owns a “vacation home on the same road.”

Now we all understand that all the T-P’s reporting on Trout Point has been retracted and they repeated Leary’s meme in their retraction. Of course when the backtracking at the Times Picayune began we discovered that on a website controlled by the girls, Broussard’s name popped up along side Charles Leary’s as board members of the Billy’s Hill Trail Society. Just as quickly as I posted the link the girls took the web page down though it remains online at Archive.org to this day.  Now why is this important?  Actually it was a question that Richard Brennan asked me yesterday in a different way when said something along the lines of so what if they (the girls) handled  Broussard’s rentals. There is nothing wrong in them conducting business correct?  My answer was if  it were arms length absolutely nothing is wrong.  The better question is why did Leary insist that Broussard was completely unconnected to the Lodge, especially when it was not true.  After all the Mille Ball piece from 2001 featured the Aaron Broussard connection and clearly the girls were heavily involved with Ball in developing it. Funny how they had no objection to Broussard’s name being mentioned in connection with a travel piece on the Lodge back in 2001.

Handshoe says that if Leary, Perret, and Trout Point truly only had an arms-length business relationship with admitted federal felon and former Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, President Aaron Broussard, then "absolutely nothing is wrong." What is Mr. Handshoe'e evidence there there is wrong involving the Lodge and its owners? The first smoking gun? Handshoe says Charles Leary insisted that Broussard was "completely unconnected" to Trout Point Lodge. 

Where is his evidence of this? He refers to an initial letter Leary sent to the Times-Picayune asking for a retraction. Handshoe knows the full contents of the letter, because he published it on his Scribd account here, after it was posted on nola.com by the newspaper. Does the letter insist that Trout Point was "completely unconnected"? Quite obviously, no. It simply clarifies in great detail the exact relationship between Broussard's properties and the Lodge, and even refers the newspaper to its own prior reporting, making clear that there was no mystery.

In a comment to that same post, Handshoe explains his logic:

Tom the original allegation was Aaron Broussard used his position as Parish President to force Parish contractors and venders to rent his vacation property in Nova Scotia. The Louisiana Ethics Board could not bring the allegations home but given Karen Parker's plea deal it sure looks like the FBI is hot on the trail given what was said in her factual basis for that plea which I linked above. Leary and Perret inserted themselves into that news story. If they had simply said something like "We've handled Broussard's rental business since he became a property owner here and are greatly disturbed at the allegations, of which we have no specific knowledge…", this likely never would have mushroomed so on them and the process simply would have played out.

Ever hear the old saying its not the crime but the coverup that causes the problem. It applies here in spades.

Trouble is, Mr. Handshoe knows that Leary & Perret never "inserted themselves" into news about Broussard. They have made clear that no one in the media contacted them before making publication identifying Trout Point Lodge as belonging to Broussard and being the subject of a Metropolitan Crime Commission complaint to the Ethics Board. The Times-Picayune and WVUE Fox 8 simply published without checking their facts or contacting the Lodge. Truth is, as far as anyone can determine, Leary & Perret have never commented publicly about Broussard, the scandal, or his guilt or innocence.

As importantly, early on, they also said to the Times-Picayune's Managing Editor precisely what Handshoe advises. They told the newspaper in January, 2010, that the Lodge handled the rental management of Broussard's properties, and that they had no knowledge of any alleged wrongdoing. The newspaper never published this information. Why would they? They retracted and apologized. That's what responsible journalistic organization do when they're wrong, Mr. Handshoe. So, the Slabbed assertions about Leary and Perret being involved in a coverup is simply nonsense.

Does Mr. Handshoe provide any evidence that Broussard owned or had management control over Trout Point?

Let's see. Broussard--who everyone knew owned vacation property in Nova Scotia--belonged to the "Billy's Hill Trail Society" with Leary and Perret. Now that's damning evidence of criminal wrongdoing, no? As the Toronto Star put it:

He refused to believe the correction and insisted for more than two years that Perret and Leary were part of the conspiracy, leaning heavily on the fact the two once managed Broussard’s cottages and that Broussard and the two men were members of the Billy’s Hill Trail Society.

“So I started investigating and the more I dug the more I found,” Handshoe said.

 Where Handshoe got that Leary, Perret, and Broussard were together on a Board of Directors for the society is unknown, the web page Handshoe refers to just talks about its members. The Society was never registered with the Nova Scotia government, which is allowed for informal societies, so Handshoe found no such evidence with the Registry.

Moving on, Handshoe continues to posit his proof of a massive, international criminal conspiracy:

Handshoe refers to the "retraction" published by the Times-Picayune, a major investigative newspaper. He fails to mention that the Pulitzer Prize-winning daily (as it was then) retracted not once, but 3 separate times, including twice before it was sued by Leary, Perret, and the Lodge for defamation. You can see 2 of those retractions, the first in January, 2010, here and here. Handshoe then relies on the fact that WVUE Fox 8 News had not retracted its reporting, suggesting that the TV station had actually said Trout Point Lodge was involved in crimes with Broussard.

But that's not true. Actually, WVUE always insisted that it never meant to refer to Trout Point Lodge in in its reporting, and all of its broadcasts only concerned Broussard alone (despite the fact they broadcast images of the Lodge and its web site while reporting on the Crime Commission allegations). That same month, Fox 8 would actually retract and apologize to Trout Point, just like the Times-Picayune. So there goes that theory, Mr. Handshoe.

By the way, it's untrue that Broussard resigned the day after the initial WVUE broadcast, though he did resign shortly thereafter. And he never said anything in his interview with reporter Val Bracy about owning or running Trout Point.

Handshoe's next bit of evidence of crimes? He refers to the Nova Scotia rumor-mongering tabloid Frank magazine. Actually, Frank was very careful in its portrayal, writing of the "perceived" association with Broussard. Gee, Mr. Handshoe, there's no evidence of wrongdoing involving Aaron Broussard here. Handshoe even joins Frank in finding it "understandable" that Trout Point wouldn't want to be drawn into a scandal. Is that so hard to fathom?

Handshoe then accuses Leary of lying, and getting a legal settlement based on a lie; that is: fraud. That's a serious allegation. Where's the evidence? Unknown. There is none pointed to by Mr. Handshoe.

As seemingly one-time Slabbed commenter "ds" recently put it:

Let's move on.

Handshoe then returns to one of his favorite topics to misrepresent and twist: a 2001 lawsuit by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) against Leary and Perret. Handshoe has mistakenly also said more than once that ACOA sued Trout Point Lodge, but there's no evidence of that at all.

But our readers may remember that the question of ownership of the Lodge and the failed cheesemaking venture La Ferme D’Acadie was the subject of litigation with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.  We found that case on April 26, 2011, less than 2 weeks before Leary served me with a notice of intended claim while telling Judge Muise in the Fox 8 case in mid May 2010 that I was an anonymous blogger and he needed a court order to find out who certain Slabbed commenters and I were.

Handshoe elaborated in a comment to the same post:

Regarding the ACOA loan, it is important because of the names that were named as owners of the Lodge itself. Leary, Perret and Abel, from a legal standpoint own Trout Point Lodge 100%. Their investors down here were sold shares in La Ferme D'Acadie, which as a legal entity existed for all of about 2 months in Canada.

In fact, the ACOA lawsuit and loan had nothing to do with Trout Point Lodge. Handshoe has no way to know anything about the percentage ownerships of Trout Point Lodge, and Nova Scotia government records show that the corporation La Ferme d'Acadie, Ltee existed for years, not months. Web archives confirm this.

Mr. Handshoe again fails to mention other relevant facts, like that the lawsuit was settled out of court a year before he "found it," or that Leary had serious counterclaims against ACOA. Handshoe has no idea what the settlement with ACOA was. But the significant fact is, there was at that time no lawsuit at all. The fact it was settled was public record while Handshoe was publishing far and wide that the lawsuit was ongoing and that Leary & Perret had defrauded the Canadian government.

Here's how a Nova Scotia news site that focuses on court cases characterized Leary's win in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals, something Handshoe also never mentions:

Not surprisingly, the out-of-court settlement occurred shortly thereafter. Maybe investigative blogger Handshoe should decry destruction of evidence by a government corporation involved in litigation. Does he do this? No.

And what about Doug Handshoe not being an anonymous blogger in 2011? He did not start putting his actual name to his Slabbed publications until 2012. Can Leary & Perret reasonably be blamed for not suing someone until they were absolutely sure who it was? Can they be blamed for giving Handshoe advance notice that if he was Slabbed's publisher and the anonymous poster "Sop81_1," that he should stop defaming them with criminal accusations or he would be sued? A reasonable person might stop making such publications upon receipt of such a notice, or at least carefully check his facts; Handshoe simply continued. In August, 2011, he told Frank magazine that he was "screwing with" Leary & Perret, "the girls."

Handshoe's February, 2012, post then launches into a grand concatenation of unfounded assertions. He accuses Leary or perjuring himself in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, supposedly lying about ACOA documents that had been lost in Hurricane Katrina. His proof? "I called them out for lying about Abel as he had no law office in New Orleans in 2005 instead practicing law with Aaron Broussard out of the Super 8 Motel on Clearview Parkway in Metairie before moving to the offices of Dr Manuel Mariano De La Rua on Williams Blvd in Kenner . . . " 

In fact, Daniel Abel lived and worked out of a home office in Slidell, Louisiana, (a place familiar to Mr. Handshoe) when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. He lost everything, including the records relevant to negotiations with ACOA, which started when Perret & Leary lived in Louisiana. Sound reasonable? Abel's place was, in fact, "slabbed." It's simply a lie that Abel worked out of the Super 8 Motel in 2005, or that he practiced law with Aaron Broussard at that time. In fact, as recently attested to in an affidavit filed in federal court, Abel was never law partners with Broussard. He has had no law partners since the 1990s. Handshoe has repeatedly published otherwise, explicitly stating the Abel was in business with Broussard. 
 

Handshoe then states: "Abel and his girls are known down here as professional plaintiffs dating to their days working for Wendell Gauthier." In fact, Leary and Perret were never represented by Wendell Gauthier in any litigation. Professional plaintiffs? A search shows Leary & Perret as parties in a single lawsuit involving condo association fees in the 1990s, nothing else. Is that a professional plaintiff?

Handshoe then offers more "evidence" of wrongdoing:

Beyond that though the girls claimed and filed affidavits with the courts in court swearing they were the only owners of La Ferme D’Acadie yet David Loeb identified himself as an owner of that venture in an affidavit sworn before the Nova Scotia courts in the Fox 8 case and claims to own La Ferme D’Acadie on his professional website.   The investors down here were not sold Trout Point Lodge LP. Instead they were sold minority interests in La Ferme D’Acadie, the original business entity set up to hold the cheese farm and Trout Point Lodge.

In fact, there's nothing to show that investors were sold shares in La Ferme d'Acadie; it was simply the early name of a yet undeveloped project. The Nova Scotia Registry of Joint Stocks shows that Leary and Perret were the sole partners in the partnership La Ferme d'Acadie, just as they stated in their affidavits. That partnership was then dissolved with the Registry, and a corporation with the same name was formed when they started to make cheese, an activity best pursued by a corporation. Anything sinister there, Mr. Handshoe?

Has the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia--which you might think would be interested and knowledgeable about perjury in its own chambers-- or anyone else (except Mr. Handshoe) ever accused Leary of perjury? No. 

What's more, the affidavit of David Loeb linked to by Handshoe says nothing about La Ferme d'Acadie at all. The fact that Trout Point Lodge has minority investors with accommodation privileges has never been a secret. La Ferme d'Acadie, though, has not existed since the early 2000s. Is that a crime?

Handshoe then again accuses Leary of perjury, stating that the theft of a safe reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is somehow contradicted by the fact that the Lodge doesn't give out room keys to guests. With respect, Mr. Handshoe, it's hard to follow that reasoning. What do room keys have to do with whether a safe was stolen or not?

What's the next piece of evidence of nefarious wrongdoing, perjury, and coverup provided by Handshoe. The fact that Trout Point Lodge changed its web site. "One of our readers noticed Leary broke a link and took down a page at the Trout Point Lodge website regarding them."

So the question remains, why the big coverup?

Coverup? Really? In fact, an examination of web archives show that at some point Trout Point stopped representing River Bend Lodge, and that new units were added. So who knows what happened, but it's certainly not criminal. No coverup here, Mr. Handshoe.

What does Mr. Handshoe offer up next? He uses a letter that Trout Point provided as evidence precisely of its arms-length business relationship with Broussard in the Fox 8/WVUE lawsuit to say the opposite, that Broussard controlled the Lodge. 

According to Richard Brennan at the Toronto Star, Leary indicated to him the Lodge never did consolidate insurances with Broussard but that is also besides the point as he clearly mislead the local media as to the true nature of his business relationship with him.  here we are back in 2008 and Broussard and Leary are talking about coordinating insurances.

In fact, as stated by the Toronto Star reporter, the Lodge declined to follow Broussard's urging about insuring a building that he co-owned. So, not doing what Broussard says is proof of Broussard's control of Trout Point? Sorry, Mr. Handshoe, again your logic simply doesn't follow.

Handshoe concluded with a Factual Basis filed in the guilty plea of Broussard's ex-wife Karen Parker, which alluded vaguely to a holding company having investment property somewhere in Canada. The innuendo was later cleared up when the U.S. Attorney's Office made plain that it believed Broussard has used a Louisiana company named "Nova Scotia Enterprises" to enrich himself with monies from government contractors and vendors. That enriching activity, which took place through the sale of LLC memberships and Broussard's subsequent sale of his share, took place in Louisiana, not Nova Scotia. Were Trout Point Lodge, Leary, and/or Perret mentioned anywhere at all? No. Sorry again, Mr. Handshoe, no smoking gun. Was Broussard indicted on any charges related to Trout Point Lodge or Nova Scotia? No. Did he admit to any wrongdoing at Trout Point or involving Nova Scotia? No.

Honestly, has Doug Handshoe ever thought that he might be wrong about Leary & Perret, having accused them over and over again of a litany of crimes based on what appears to be no evidence--a concatenation of false facts and unfounded conclusions? Well, in fact, yes. According to court filings, Handshoe said that Leary, Perret, and the Lodge may have had no role to play in Broussard's admitted or actual wrongdoing, but that he really doesn't know, so maybe they're guilty and maybe they're not. 

So, what's motivating Mr. Handshoe? Why would he continue, especially when he was privately given notice in April, 2011, that he was wrong in defaming  Leary, Perret, and Trout Point? Wouldn't it have been better for all involved if he had simply heeded that notification? 

One can only speculate as to Handshoe's motivations. Ego. Hubris. Vendetta. And, oh yes, Real Malice.

From the perspective of responsible journalism or even "investigative blogging," shame on you Mr. Handshoe. Shame on you.