Homophobic Mississippi blogger Douglas Handshoe shows "a plain misunderstanding of copyright law"; federal court dismisses more of his allegations involving "gay robots"

Douglas Handshoe CPA

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has just dismissed the remnants of homophobic Mississippi blogger Douglas Handshoe's lawsuit against a Louisiana process server and a civil rights attorney. Since 2013, "forensic accountant" Handshoe has taken to filing lawsuits replete with conspiracy theory in addition to targetting opponents on his blog, "Slabbed" with adjudicated false criminal allegations. Handshoe has sued at least 16 persons and companies, some of them twice since May, 2013. He has also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for his purported company "Slabbed New Media." Thus far, Mississippi courts have been deferential to Handshoe's questionable legal maneuvers, in the eyes of legal commentators, much too much so. That epoch has now ended.

One of the people Handshoe sued in Mississippi is Chris Yount, a Louisiana private investigator and process server who served Handshoe with civil process, but had no connection to the unrelated lawsuits he was serving on Handshoe. In apparent retaliation for Yount simply doing his job, in early 2014 accountant Handshoe delved into the court files of Yount's divorce case in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has summarized the relevant facts in two recent decisions:

On February 13, 2014, Mr. Handshoe published on www.slabbed.org a pornographic drawing authored by Mr. Yount's 13-year-old son that had previously been filed with the court as part of Mr. Yount's divorce proceedings in the 24th Judicial District Court. Captions and comments authored by Mr. Handshoe and Mr. Truitt underneath the drawing described its graphic nature and clearly identified the author as a minor child and the divorce proceedings in which he was involved.

Subsequent to this initial publication, the trial judge overseeing the divorce proceedings sealed parts of the record, including the pornographic drawing, and ordered the drawing removed from the internet. Notice of copyright infringement pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was sent to the webhost of www.slabbed.org, who also provided Mr. Handshoe with a copy of the trial court's order. On February 18, 2014, the blog post containing the drawing as well as the www.slabbedorg website was taken down by the webhost in response to the copyright infringement notice and violations of the webhost's terms of service. Mr. Handshoe subsequently found a new webhost, brought the website back online, and republished the posts containing the pornographic drawing. On at least two separate occasions in Februaryand March of 2014 after the evidence had been placed under seal by the court, Mr. Handshoe authored additional posts where he published the drawing together with comments that clearly identified the minor child author and his father.

Handshoe has said in court filings that the drawing in question showed a "line of gay robots" engaged in questionable conduct, although no one else has opined as to the sexual orienation of the alleged robots. Daniel Abel has alleged in court documents that Handshoe is obsessed with the sexuality of other men; such allegations have not yet been proved in a court of law.

Consequently, Yount, with Abel acting as his attorney, sued Handshoe in Louisiana for defamation and invasion of privacy, among other things. In that case, both Handshoe and his co-defendant Bobby Truitt have had their anti-SLAPP special motions to strike denied by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. (SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation").

In reaction to being sued by Yount, Handshoe filed suit against Abel and Yount in Mississippi federal court, ironically alleging they had abused court process and made knowing misrepresentations under the Copyright Act for sending the above-mentioned notice of copyright infringement.

Ultimately, for unknown reasons, Abel never responded to Handshoe's amended complaint that was allegedly mailed to him, and a few days ago Handshoe had him noted in default by the clerk of court. Handshoe then filed a motion for default. That spurred the federal court judge into action.

Within two days, on December 16, 2015, Judge Keith Starrett took steps not only on the default motion, but sua sponte on issues of jurisdiction and the failure of Handshoe to state adequate claims in his legal pleading: "the Court does not find that Plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief can be granted for his misrepresentation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 512(f)"; "Plaintiff’s claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process for filing the appellant brief in the Louisiana action will be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment will be denied as to these claims"; "because the Court has neither diversity nor supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining abuse of process claim, the claim will be dismissed without prejudice and default judgment will be denied as to this claim". As to the Copyright Act intentional misrepresentation claim, Judge Starret wrote:

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff admits that the drawing at issue was drawn and published by the minor child on whose behalf Abel and Yount are claiming a copyright. (Amended Complaint [27] at ¶¶ 14, 17.) Plaintiff alleges that there is no copyright. Section 512(f) makes liable “[a]ny person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section . . . that material or activity is infringing.” Under Plaintiff’s theory, Abel is liable under this section because the minor child held no copyright in the drawing. This, however, is a plain misunderstanding of copyright law. Plaintiff admits that the minor child was the author of the drawing. (Amended Complaint [27] at ¶ 14.) By that fact alone, the minor child possesses a copyright in the drawing under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5). Plaintiff does not allege in his complaint that his use of the drawing was authorized by either the copyright owner or law, and asserts only that a copyright does not exist. As the Court must find that a copyright does exist, Plaintiff has failed to plead a misrepresentation under § 512(f). Additionally, Plaintiff does not adequately allege the amount of damages he has suffered as a direct result of his web host relying on any misrepresentation by Abel and Yount. As such, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

The federal judge also issued an Order to Show Cause to Handshoe. He now has 21 days by which he has to remedy what look like radical defects in what is left of his wrecked lawsuit. The countdown begins, tick tock.

Order to Show Cause directed at Douglas Handshoe

Handshoe has admitted that the sexually-explicit drawing in question was authored by Chris Yount's son, and the court has found "the minor child possesses a copyright in the drawing under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5)." Attorney Abel was ordered by the Louisiana family court to do whatever was necessary to have the drawing removed from publication on Slabbed. Submitting a copyright infringement notificiation certainly seems like a reasonable way to achieve what the Louisiana court ordered, and where was the "misrepresentation" Handshoe claims?

In addition, legal observers say there simply exists no "abuse of process" tort in presenting the Louisiana court order to Handshoe's web host because this constituted an extra-judicial act not involving the court system or process. Simply showing a court order to a third party is not an "abuse of process."

One has to wonder when further legal action against Handshoe for abuse of process and malicious prosecution will begin? Perhaps the citizens of Mississippi should be upset with Handshoe for wasting taxpayer dollars and clogging the local judicial systems with lawsuits that keep being dismissed?

Homophobic blogger Douglas Handshoe loses attempt to get a court to censor free speech about him

Homophobic Mississippi blogger Douglas Handshoe's campaign of endless litigation aimed at chilling free speech about him has hit another brick wall as U.S. district court judge Keith Starrett has dismissed Handshoe's lawsuit against the Toronto Star and one of its investigative reporters.  In addition the court has recently dismissed lawsuit allegations Handshoe made against Loyola University, civil rights attorney Daniel Abel, and process server Chris Yount in a seperate legal action (update coming up).

Handshoe sued the Star and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspapers in March, 2015, for referring to him as homophobic, claiming the statements were defamatory despite the fact that his homophobia was enshrined in published court decisions about him.

"Nova Scotia couple wins copyright lawsuit against homophobic U.S. blogger" was the title of the article in question, written by Peter Edwards.

Now, it seems, the article will remain in publication, as it has since February, 2014, when it was first published. Handshoe's lawsuit against Nova Scotia's largest daily, the Chronicle-Herald, was also dismissed, with no retraction from that newspaper.

There was no doubt that in February, 2014, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found Handshoe, an accountant, to have published homophobic material about the Canadian gay couple. Justice Kevin Coady reiterated the findings of a previous court decision about Handshoe: "The statements also contained anti-gay rhetoric and homophobic comments." As the Justice found:

The following is but a taste of the defamation plead: Mr. Handshoe has continued to repeatedly publish words referring to the personal plaintiffs as "girls", "bitches", "bottom boys", "wives", "perverted" and "queer fag scum."

Judge Starrett in Mississippi federal court found that Handshoe's lawsuit against Canada's largest-circulation newspaper did not accord with the U.S. Constitution:

Though Mississippi is mentioned in the article, it is mentioned only in-so-much as it identifies where Plaintiff resides and conducts his blogging, which is the conduct on which the Canadian lawsuit is based. Instead of focusing on Plaintiff’s Mississippi activities, the article focuses predominantly on the lawsuit those activities inspired in Canada and the decision of the Canadian court.

Because the subject of the article is the Canadian lawsuit, the targeted audience was Canadian readers, and no Mississippi sources other than Plaintiff himself were used, the Court finds that the focal point of the article was Canada, not Mississippi. As such, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In another lawsuit before the same federal judge, Handshoe also recently had his conspiratorial allegations against Loyola University of New Orleans and its legal clinic dismissed as well. The blogger's campaign of pointless litigation in Mississippi aims to stop free speech about him and his actions on his blog "Slabbed," precisely the kind of civil rights that he endlessly proclaims for himself in justifying his online commentary on others. What's good for the gander is not good for the goose in Handshoe's case. The hypocrisy in his recent lawsuits in his home state is readily apparent.

Homophobic Mississippi blogger settles "homophobic" libel lawsuit with no retraction of his homophobia; after Supreme Court decision, continues homophobic publishing

A Mississippi accountant various Canadian and United States courts have identified as the publisher of a blatantly homophobic blog, "Slabbed," has apparently had to settle his libel lawsuit against the Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspaper with nothing to show for it. Bay St. Louis resident Douglas

Homophobic blogger Douglas Handshoe

Handshoe's federal lawsuit alleged the paper had defamed him by identifying him as a homophobe. Chief Judge Louis Guirola issued an Order finding "all claims of the pro se Plaintiff which were brought in this civil action or which might have been are now dismissed finally and with prejudice."

The litigious Handshoe filed the lawsuit despite the fact that a U.S. district court judge labelled Handshoe as homophobic in 2012, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal termed his blog publications "grotesque" in 2013, and two justices of the Nova Scotia Supeme Court found him unmistakably homophobic in 2012 and 2014. All these courts were commenting on Handshoe's fervent online attacks on Charles Leary and Vaughan Perret, a gay couple who run an acclaimed accommodation business in Nova Scotia. 

The court decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court that the Chronicle-Herald rightly reported on found the following about Handshoe:

The evidence presented establishes that Mr. Handshoe’s defamatory actions have continued unabated since Justice Hood’s order.  This is supported by the statement of claim which I must accept as proven.  The following is but a taste of the defamation plead:

•         Mr. Handshoe has continued to repeatedly publish words   referring to the personal plaintiffs as “girls”, “bitches”, “bottom boys”, “wives”, “perverted” and “queer fag scum.”

•         Mr. Handshoe has continued to publish that the applicants were long term recipients of criminal proceeds from the Broussard criminal scheme.

•        Trout Poitn Lodge was described by Mr. Handshoe as a shell company used for the purposes of a criminal conspiracy including money laundering.

•         The applicants were part of an international criminal conspiracy designed to silence the investigation of their own criminal wrongdoing.  Also that their Nova Scotia legal proceedings were criminally motivated and fraudulent.

•         The plaintiffs and Mr. Boussard illegally influenced the presiding Justice of the Supreme Court in Yarmouth to deprive Mr. Handshoe of his civil rights and due process.

•         Mr. Handshoe published that the applicants intentionally misled Justice Hood and therefore committed perjury.

•         The applicants were members of a Louisiana company involved in criminal activities alleged by American prosecutors.

•         Mr. Handshoe republished the following: “I'll add here, in case it is not self‑evident, that I built complete dossiers on all the players in this social group and I intend through time to roll out each and every one in excruciating detail as long as the lawsuit in Canada is an outstanding issue for Slabbed.  The reason for this is that this band of gay men act as a unit that will also scatter like cockroaches when the heat is applied.”

•         Mr. Handshoe created a video that was published on YouTube.  The content created the implication that the applicants were part of the Aaron Boussard criminal scandal, were involved in criminal activities with Broussard such as those alleged to have been conducted using Nova Scotia Enterprises, LLC, and that Trout Point Lodge was recipient of criminal monies and a place of criminal activity.  Handshoe referred to and pictured Broussard as the “Goatherder in Chief” and the Plaintiff’s as “the goatherders.”

Justice Kevin Coady determined Handshoe's words "have no relationship to fact or truth."

Notably, the settlement with the Canadian daily newspaper has resulted in no public retraction whatsoever of the article identifying Handshoe as homophobic that was central to Handshoe's purported legal case. The settlement came on the cusp of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage. In remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama welcomed the decision, said the decision on gay marriage “affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts.” “Today,” the President said, “we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.” Handshoe and Slabbed appear to be like the Confederate flag, a remant of intolerance from a bygone era.

Handshoe's defamation lawsuit against the Toronto Star newspaper for its coverage of the same Nova Scotia court proceeding is still ongoing. An avid conspiracy theorist, Handshoe has also sued Loyola University Law School and a process server for an alleged conspiracy involving "a line of gay robots."

Slabbed declares bankruptcy! "Media" company run by homophobic CPA has no books or records

Slabbed New Media, the supposed sole-proprietor shell company of Douglas Handshoe, CPA, declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy on June 16, 2015, the same day the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal denied Handshoe's motion for a reconsideration of its historic judgment reversing Handshoe's anti-SLAPP victory in the court of Judge Scott Schlegel.

Court documents show the company, which Handshoe claims operated the for-profit Slabbed blog, earned a paltry income in 2013. Despite Handshoe's self-reputed business acumen and financial experience, the company earned a profit of less than $900.00. Handshoe reported the LLCs revenue and expenses as part of his personal tax return that year. An accountant, Handshoe told the bankruptcy court today that Slabbed New Media has no books or financial records.

The bankruptcy filing raises numerous questions about Handshoe, and the bankruptcy's role in the various litigations in which the homophobic Handshoe remains enveloped.

For example, Handshoe now owes process server Chris Yount attorney's fees and costs for his failed attempt to have Yount's defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit against him dismissed in Louisiana state court. Legal observers say that, given the appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the amount Handshoe owes to Yount could equal tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, Handshoe owes the same kind of fees and costs to civil rights attorney Daniel Abel, who also sued Handshoe for defamation. Handshoe lost anti-SLAPP dismissal motions against Abel as well. The ultimate value of a judgment against Handshoe in the Yount case could well be in the six figures, legal commentators say, given the nature of the alleged defamation, which involves allegedly flase allegation of child molestation and publication of a drawing the court of appeal labelled pornographic. Fact finding by the Fifth Circuit was not favorable for Handshoe or his attorney Jack "Bobby" Truitt.

The lack of financial records raises numerous questions about how exactly Handshoe used Slabbed New Media as part of his tax and litigation strategies.

More to come . . . 

Major defeat for homophobic Mississippi & Louisiana bloggers in ill-conceived anti-SLAPP motions: Louisiana 5th Circuit Court of Appeal says no to Doug Handshoe & lawyer Bobby Truitt, purveyors of "clickbait"

In a fourteen-page opinion rendered May 28, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has handed a major defeat to homophobic bogger Douglas Handshoe of Mississippi and his inveterate attorney and frequent blog commenter Jack E. "Bobby" Truitt, a lawyer who practices from Covington, Louisiana. The appellate decision constitutes a major victory for victims of Internet harassment and online libel. The lawsuit also named Slabbed New Media, LLC, of which Handshoe's wife Jennifer Handshoe is reportedly an officer.

Last year, Handshoe had won a legal motion, having the libel case against him dismissed using a special motion to strike under Louisiana's Article 971, which protects commentary on public issues. The Plaintiffs, Chris Yount and his minor son appealed.

The appeal court unanimously reversed and remanded the decision of Judge Scott Schlegel in a case where civil process server Yount has sued Handshoe and Truitt for publishing defamatory comments on the blog Slabbed about Mr. Yount and his son. According to the allegations in the lawsuit, the comments were per se defamatory because they accused Yount of "innapropriate and and illegal sexual relations with the minor child," according to the decision. Handshoe had published that the drawing depicted a boy being sodomized by a "line of gay robots," and according to Yount's complaint, Truitt and Handshoe acted in concert to identify the child and to create defamatory innuendo on Slabbed. The Court repeatedly refers to the drawing as "pornographic." Handshoe has been identified as homophobic by courts in both the U.S. and Canada.

Yount's lawsuit will now go forward, and legal observers state that it could result in substantial damages being assessed against Handshoe and Truitt. The Court also ordered Judge Schlegel to award mandatory attorney's fees to Yount. Handshoe and Truitt also currently owe Daniel Abel attorney's fees as a result of their prior losses on anti-SLAPP special motions to strike in Abel's libel suit against them in New Orleans.

Yount is involved in a divorce case in Louisiana, and his only connection with Handshoe or Truitt had been to serve Handshoe with notice of civil lawsuits on several occasions, including from Trout Point Lodge in Nova Scotia, Canada, and Daniel Abel in Louisiana. Handshoe dug into the court file to find dirt on Yount, apparently in retaliation for being served.

"Captions and comments authored by Mr. Handshoe and Mr. Truitt underneath the drawing clearly identified the author as a minor child and the divorce proceedings in which he was involved," says the decision.  The Court continued

Mr. Handshoe argues that his publication of a pornographic drawing and evidence under seal from a private divorce proceedings was in connection with a public issue because: 1) his web site www.slabbed.org regularly breaks news and comments on "public issues" and 2) the blog posts dealt with publicly available information from court filings.

Handshoe was attempting to use Louisiana's anti-SLAPP legislation as a shield against being sued for targetting Yount with allegedly defamatory attacks. This mirrors his previous attempts--some succesful and some not--to block Nova Scotia Supreme Court decisions against him using the U.S. SPEECH Act. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation." Handshoe has repeatedly referred to his numerous legal foes as "SLAPP happy nut jobs." Now, it appears the tables have turned.

The Fifth Circuit clearly and properly found there are limits on "free speech," even on the Internet, and that those injured online can seek redress through the courts. Louisiana's anti-SLAPP law will not be used to shield defendants like Doug Handshoe and Bobby Truitt from justice.

Judge Robert A. Chaisson clearly rejected as "absurd" the contention that one could seek the protection of the anti-SLAPP provisions simply because one is commenting on a judicial proceeding. In this regard, the Court cut no slack to Judge Schelgel or Handshoe & Truitt:

Under this reasoning, (which is the same interpretation used by the trial court), any cause of action arising from any written or oral statement made in connection with any kind of government activity or proceeding would be subject to special motions to strike regardless of whether or not the statements were made in connection with a public issue. Consequently, any party could defame or invade the privacy of a person involved in a divorce proceeding, traffic violation, child custody dispute, marriage, mortgage registration, passport application, or driver's license renewal  and be immunized from legal repercussions of damage to others through the use of an extraordinary procedural remedy.

 Flatly rejecting this reasoning and its application to the facts of the Yount case, Judge Chaisson drew a clear distinction between legimitate commentary on matter of true public interest, which is what anti-SLAPP laws should protect, and the kind of "private domestic matter" such as Yount's divorce.

Mr. Handshoe confuses the public right of access to judicial proceedings with the right to  free speech and petition. All of these rights are protected under the Constitutions of the United States  and Louisiana, by the express language of the statute,  but only actions arising under the latter rights  are protected by an Article 971 motion.   While information may be made available to the public for purposes of ensuring fairness in our judicial proceedings, there may be legal consequences should that same information be published and distributed as clickbait to millions of people on the internet in a manner that defames or invades the privacy of another. "The right to inspect judicial records should not trump the individual's privacy rights, especially where the purpose is to gratify spite, promote public scandal, or to publicize the embarrassing details of a divorce case." Copeland v. Copeland, 07-0177 (La. 10/16/07), 966 So.2d 1040,  1052.

Handshoe has sued Daniel Abel for "misrepresentation" under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act for serving a takedown notice on Handshoe's web host related to the pornographic drawing pursuant to a court order. Judge Chaisson's decisions seems to make clear that Abel was acting properly in serving the notice, and there was no misrepresentation. This could be a major blow to Handshoe's lawsuit in Mississippi federal court. In the same case, Handshoe also sued Loyola University Law School, which represented Yount's minor child in the appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Handshoe alleges Yount, Abel, and the Law School  engaged in "malicious prosecution" and "abuse of process" by suing him. One could conclude the true abuse of process and malicious prosecution may be being perpetrated by Handshoe and Slabbed New Media.

Handshoe's legal arguments in that federal court case now appear totally specious and unsubstaniated given the appeal court decision. Doubtless, the defendant will bring the Fifth Circuit decision to the attention of federal judge Starrett.

Handshoe also sued the Toronto Star and Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspapers for publicly identifying him as homophobic (despite the fact that the U.S. District Court in Gulport called him that in a decision). Hearings in all those cases are coming soon. Mr. Abel is slowly moving forward with his defamation action against Handshoe, Truitt, and Anne-Marie Vandenweghe. Trout Point Lodge and its owners are actively seeking enrollment of a copyright infringement judgment against Handshoe in Mississippi state court. They also have a substantial defamation judgment from Nova Scotia Supreme Court that could be enrolled in Mississippi at any time.

It looks like the proverbial walls are closing in on blogger Handshoe and his "promotion of public scandal."

Second law journal article finds fault in SPEECH Act: Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe

An article in the Journal of International & Comparative Law of the Chicago-Kent College of Law has supported the conclusons of another recent law journal article to find that the SPEECH Act, as aaplied by both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit in Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe, is overly broad and in sorry need of reform:

the instant case . . . . exposes a potential over inclusivity of the SPEECH Act because of its universal applicability in defamation cases and lack of distinction between illegitimate and legitimate fora. Without the proper ability to distingush between the two types of fora, the SPEECH Act penalizes those plaintiffs filing claims in good faith in appropriate fora.

 The article goes on to speak of a "fundamental failing" of the SPEECH Act, and to state that the Act "should be amended."

Trout Point Lodge was an appelate case of first impression for the 2010 SPEECH Act, which resulted in two American citizens resident in Canada being denied their right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. An inveterage homophobic blogger, Douglas Handshoe, had targetted Charles Leary and Vaughan Perret for online harassment after his then-web host dropped Handshoe's account for republsihing without permission a copyrighted article that erroneously mentioned Leary & Perret's Nova Scotia business as being involved in a Louisiana corruption scandal.

Toronto Star, journalist defend homophobe Douglas Handshoe's libel lawsuit; hire top legal talent

Shortly after having homophobic blogger Douglas Handshoe's libel suit removed to federal district court, the Toronto Star and its investigative journalist Peter Edwards have hired a highly experienced lawyer who clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court and has won important victories in Mississippi libel cases. Luther Munford of Butler Snow is the third attorney working the case. Today, the defendants filed their defense, which includes challenging the personal jurisidction of Mississippi courts over the Canadians, and also claims as "substantially true" the report of Handshoe's homophobia.

In the article at issue in the lawsuit, The Star was reporting on a  legal victory by a gay couple in Nova Scotia over Handshoe in that province's Supreme Court. Tellingly, the legal award to Charles Leary and Vaughn Perret included damages for defamation, including a context of blatantly homophobic rhetoric published by Handshoe on his blog "Slabbed."

Handshoe filed his latest lawsuit in county circuit court this past February alleging that an article that referred to him as homophobic was defamatory. At about the same time, he also sued the Halifax Chronicle-Herald newspaper with similar allegations. Both newspapers have said Handshoe did not serve them properly, and both filed a variety of other defenses. The Star's defense is succinct compared with that of the Chronicle-Herald, but the legal talent hired by both newspapers indicates they take this legal challenge from Handshoe very seriously. Handshoe is self-represented.

Both newspapers claim Handshoe is a "vortex public figure," which means he interjected himself into public controversies. In U.S. defamation law, this places a much higher burden of proof upon libel plaintiff Handshoe.

The Chronicle-Herald hired the law firm Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, and filed a detailed defense that directly contests head-on Handshoe's allegtions, intentions, and motivations. Lead attorney Jackson Ables, III, has litigated "print media and motion picture defamations," according to the firm's web site. "His defense of a libel action over Orion’s 'Mississippi Burning' led to the reopening of the investigation of the 1963 murder of Medgar Evers and to the conviction of Evers' murderer in 1994," states the Ables online biography. Legal observers have said that Ables is particularly well suited to fight this legal conflict, where Handshoe's homophobia is pitted against Canadain values of civil rights, freedom of expression, and equality.

The Toronto Star's libel specialist Luther Munford attended University of Virginia law school, as well as Oxford and Princeton Univerisites. He has helped his clients prevail against libel claims on summary judgment motions in at least two two major Mississippi case: McDonald v. Raycom TV Broadcasting, Inc. and Blake v. Gannett.

Ironically for "investigative blogger" and Catholic school St. Stanislaus alumnus Douglas Handshoe, both newspapers cite freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Handshoe, who as a defendant in defamation lawsuits filed by Leary & Perret, used the strictures of Mississippi libel law to his advantage, will now have the burden placed on him of proving that he is not homophobic. Proving the falsity of an alleged defamatory statement is a burden placed on the plaintiff under Mississippi law.

Given that three justices of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, three circuit judges of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, and the Chief Judge of a U.S. district court have found Handshoe's publications to be homophobic, this looks like more than an uphill battle.

Both newspapers, however, appear prepared for war.