Do you remember that alleged case the Honey Badger Brigade was allegedly planning to bring against the Calgary Expo?
In case your memory needs refreshing: the Honey Badgers — a mostly female antifeminist “brigade” closely associated with A Voice for Men — were tossed out of the Expo earlier this year after they showed up flying the banner of GamerGate. The Badgers threatened to sue, and somehow managed to raise a little over $30,000 to pay for their possible legal expenses.
Then they went silent on the whole suit thing for a looong time.
Today they announced (archived here) that they’d hired a fellow named Harry Kopyto as their “legal council” [sic], paying him a retainer of $3500. As one of the Badgers — apparently head Badger Alison Tieman — explained on their web page:
Wait. He’s a what kind of lawyer, exactly?
Ohhh. A disbarred lawyer. A lawyer who is specifically prohibited from practicing law.
Huh. How exactly did Mr. Kopyto get disbarred? According to Wikipedia:
In 1989, Kopyto was charged with professional misconduct by the Law Society of Upper Canada for allegedly overbilling the province’s legal aid plan by $150,000 over a three-year period. …
Among the findings of the tribunal hearing the case were that it was physically impossible for Mr. Kopyto to have billed the sums he did as the times billed exceeded the hours in the day.
Kopyto’s defense? He hadn’t meant to overbill. It’s just that, you know, he didn’t really keep proper records, so when it came time for him to “guess” the amount of time he had worked for some of his accounts, he had just guessed wrong. Oops! Hey, in some cases he (probably) underbilled!
No, really. That was his argument.
Kopyto is also prohibited from working as a paralegal in Ontario. As Wikipedia explains:
In February 2015, the law society’s tribunal issued its decision denying Koptyo’s application for a paralegal license due to concerns that Kopyto is “ungovernable”[27] though conceding his generosity and devotion to his clients. Tribunal chair Margot Blight wrote in her decision that “Mr. Kopyto continues to be an enigma” in that “He insists that he supports the rule of law, while asserting that he, and his clients, are entitled to disregard legal rules willy nilly (sic) when conscience so dictates.”[28]
Though unlicensed, Kopyto continues to advise clients and seeks standing to represent them at tribunals and hearings
I can’t help but be reminded of the dynamic meth-making duo in Breaking Bad, who decided to hire a lawyer who was a criminal as their criminal lawyer.
Tieman has been kept busy trying to explain just why they hired a disbarred lawyer as their “legal council” [sic]. Her main argument? The case will take place in Alberta, where paralegal work is unregulated, so technically he can still research stuff for them, or something, even though he remains in Toronto. where he’s not legally allowed to do paralegal work. [UPDATE: Turns out her legal argument may not hold water; see end of this post for more.]
Tieman insists there really will be a case, honest!
It’s all so very ethical.
And pretty fucking hilarious. Though probably a bit less so to those who actually donated money to the Badgers.
Since we’re talking about the Badgers, I feel I should remind you all of The We Hunted the Mammoth “Legal” Fund to Spite the Honey Badger Brigade, which is still taking donations.
I pledge not to hire any disbarred lawyers. Instead, I will use the money for snacks and other important “legal” things, by which I mean things that as far as I know are legal for me to do (like buying snacks). I will also use some of the money to feed my “legal council,” one Sweetie P. Jonus, Esq.
If you donate, please specify that your donation is intended “to spite the Honey Badgers.”
The last I checked, I was only $39,529 short of my arbitrary $40,000 goal. THANKS TO ALL WHO DONATED. And to those who donated to charity instead of to me.
UPDATE: It looks like paralegaling in Alberta isn’t quite as unregulated as Tieman thinks it is. In the comments here, someone called J.C. has pointed me to a web page explaining How to Become a Paralegal in Alberta. Turns out that paralegals working in Alberta need to do so under the supervision of a lawyer. Here’s what the page says; I’ve bolded the especially relevant bits:
At this time, paralegals in Alberta are not regulated, meaning that they do not need to pass an examination or meet minimum training/educational standards to be able to work lawfully as paralegals. Thus aspiring paralegals may begin their careers through on-the-job training or by seeking post-secondary education.
However, paralegals are required to work under the supervision of a lawyer and avoid activities that might be regarded as unauthorized practice of law. For example, paralegals are not permitted to represent people in court. Paralegals may conduct legal research, submit registration documents to the appropriate agencies, and assist with certain types of legal matters, including trial cases, under the supervision of a lawyer.
Huh. Does Kopyto have a lawyer supervising his work for the Honey Badgers?
H/T — Sarah Nyberg (@srhbutts), whom you really should be following on Twitter
@Johanna Roberts – Here’s a placeholder until you can get to photobucket:
http://i1353.photobucket.com/albums/q665/B_Paulsen/Animals/Animated%20Animals/DeerEatingPopcorn_zpsfd6e6b38.gif
Also, I hope that your husband and little one are both doing better.
@ guest
O/T
Did you get my email?
@ guest
O/T
Did you get my email?
Nothing screams ‘legitimate grievance’ like hiring a disgraced lawyer.
I’m totally in favour of hearing both sides of any argument.. But haven’t we already? I mean if you read David’s post he allows the full (hee-larious) explanation of Tieman for why she’d hire a disbarred lawyer and even gives her credit for the honesty.
What I’m not in favour of is giving both sides equal credit in every argument or having to continue to listen to the same BS over and over and over. Sometimes one side is just plain more wrong than the other.
@Flying Mouse – thanks for the thoughts. <3 My son is safe from his grandparents, even if that means he's in a hospital they can't hurt him there. My hubby's getting ready for his out patient therapy and yeah. Hopefully things will stay somewhat sane.
30k is certainly plenty of money to get a lawyer; idk why Tieman says it’s next to nothing.
Oh man, if this goes to court, I will definitely be taking time to go downtown. Do they allow popcorn in court rooms??
“30k is certainly plenty of money to get a lawyer; idk why Tieman says it’s next to nothing.”
Because she’s a con artist like the rest of them. 30k would not be enough if it went to Provincial or Federal Supreme Court but if this ever goes to trial it’s going to cost them a couple grand at most, the judge will either toss it out or rule that this is a waste of time, frivolous, etc and they’ll be stuck with a day’s worth of court time if that. Research doesn’t cost much either.
3500$ was my bill a few years ago, which included research time (bill goes down if you help) and three court appearances.
Personally I hope that the judge (if it doesn’t get dismissed immediately) forces them to pay the Expos legal costs. But our system doesn’t have as much wiggle room for frivolous lawsuits and settlements are capped as well.
Don’t forget that the group of scammers also work for another group of scammers.
It’s scammers all the way down.
I’m guessing the honey badgers couldn’t find a lawyer in Alberta who was willing to take their case. I sort of doubt they’d get much money out of Calgary Expo even in the unlikely event that they win the lawsuit.
Post-caffeine, that should say “Works” rather than “Work.” Grammar.
Okay, everyone else has dealt with the whole ‘reading comprehension’ issues of your post, so I’m going to talk about the last line, in which you claim to be ‘in b4’ you are banned for making the post that this sentence is part of.
Idiomatically speaking, ‘in b4’ is used to slip a comment into a conversation which you have not yet been a part of, to offer prescient predictions about future posters. Ie, you are claiming to step ‘in’ to the conversation ‘before’ a particular comment is made by the opposition.
In this case, you were already in the conversation; what you really should have done is simply say, “I expect I’ll be banned for this post.” That said, I don’t think you should be banned for doing the Both Sides Bullshit Dance; rather, I think that claiming your post is going to get you banned should be a ban-worthy offense in its own right, as it guarantees that everyone who tries to pull that sort of passive-aggressive bullshit will get banned, and not for the reason they claim they will be, thereby making them wrong AND gone, which would be a win-win.
@Johanna – I had missed that your child and husband were in the hospital. I wish them a speedy recovery. Sending Internet hugs and kitten cuddles your way.
Even if it were true, “he’s not legally forbidden to practice his profession in this place” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. It’s like crossing the border because your surgeon isn’t forbidden to practice medicine in Tijuana.
Jesus, you’re not even using inb4 right.
How can you be this incompetent yet still be able to log onto the Internet?
I think it might be occasionally: “Let’s hear both sides before we jump on this person” = “we shuld present both sides in a flattering light”
@Luz
Minor correction: “We should present [right-wingers/MRAs/#GGers/racist cops/murderers/rapists] in a flattering light and [centrists and left-wingers/feminists/anti-#GGers/protestors/murder victims/rape victims] in a Satanically evil light.”
Wait…maybe they’re trying to make this a way, way big case? Like, when people sue companies and it gets to be on national news big? THOSE types of trials certainly cost a lot of money?
@SFHC
True. I think they are deliberately ambiguous so they can shift their pretend-argument depending on their needs.
This is what always gets me about the MRM: They accuse us of not calling out our allies for shitty behavior, then when we do call out someone who is percieved to be on the left like we are, it’s suddenly “Well, they did so much good for your side! Why are you so mean to them?!”
It’s like they can’t decide what the fuck it is they want to argue about.
Especially when it’s coming from someone who couldn’t be bothered to read the whole article from the people they’re telling off for “not looking at both sides”.
And as for Yukito thinking that their “truthbomb” is going to get them banned:
http://media.giphy.com/media/xqQdmzjpuI51e/giphy.gif
… SCAMCEPTION!
http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/leonardo-dicaprio-inception-squint-7110.png
I guess Lionel Hutz was out of their price range.
This is something that people have noticed a lot in recent decades, especially after the Enron scandal. It turns out that often the easiest prey for scammers is other scammers.
Whether that’s due to extreme overconfidence, a notable exception to the aphorism “it takes one to know one”, or most scammers being highly gullible people who have “learned” that screwing over others is a normal state of affairs and decided they’d rather be predators than prey, is an open question.