You remember that lawsuit the GamerGate-loving, feminist-hating “Honey Badger Brigade” was apparently going to file against the Calgary Expo (for tossing them out) and The Mary Sue (for saying mean things about them, or something)? You know, the suit that they raised more than $30,000 to finance from their angry and apparently quite gullible fans?
Well, apparently they’ve filed the suit?
I ended with a question mark because they’ve been a teensy bit vague about what exactly they’ve done.
Rather than go with the traditional press release, you see, the Honey Damsels Badgers have decided to let the world (and their donors) know about this new development by obliquely referencing it on Twitter, nearly a week after the fact, and then pretty much refusing to answer any questions about it.
Like, for example, what exactly they filed, and where, and how exactly they think they can sue a website headquartered in the United States for allegedly getting them kicked out of an expo in Canada. Especially if they don’t actually file a separate lawsuit in the US.
Here’s how things went down on Twitter.
We're waiting on @Calgaryexpo and @TheMarySue to respond. They now have 18 and 40 days respectively. https://t.co/CaSgh0qC0h
— Honey Badger Radio (@HoneyBadgerBite) September 6, 2015
Breech of contract, injurious falsehood; filed last monday @scbritton @Brackstone
— Honey Badger Radio (@HoneyBadgerBite) September 7, 2015
I asked a few followup questions, trying to nail down some details about the filing — if the disbarred lawyer they got to help them with “research” was involved in the filing, and whether they had filed a separate claim against The Mary Sue in the US because, you know, the Mary Sue is based in the US.
@HoneyBadgerBite @Calgaryexpo @TheMarySue What did you file and with whom? A Statement of Claim? Was Kopyto involved in writing/filing?
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) September 7, 2015
@HoneyBadgerBite I'm just asking what you filed. So I won't have t report, 'the HBBs said they filed something but won't say what."
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) September 7, 2015
@HoneyBadgerBite Also, the Mary Sue is American. Did you file in NY state?
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) September 7, 2015
Well, so much for that, I guess.
I also sent a note to The Mary Sue to see if they had any statement or if they had even been notified that the HBB had filed anything. I haven’t heard back from them yet.
Given this dearth of information and the HBB’s apparent unwillingness to answer questions, my best guess is that they filed a Statement of Claim in Alberta based at least loosely on the “Legal Draft” posted on the HBB website back in July, prepared by the aforementioned disbarred lawyer, Harry Kopyto.
In that draft, the HBB’s declared that they were seeking
damages in the amount of $50,000 jointly and severally against the Defendants Alberta Comics and Entertainment Expo Inc. and The Mary Sue for injurious falsehood and also against the Defendant Alberta Comics and Entertainment Expo Inc. for breach of contract and against The Mary Sue for inducing breach of contract.
The Legal Draft describes The Mary Sue as “a daily internet newsletter which promotes itself as the premier destination for entertainment geeks.”
How do you do, fellow entertainment geeks. Could you kindly direct me to the nearest daily internet newsletter?
And it goes on to declare that
the false and disparaging comments published by The Mary Sue also dissuaded persons from engaging in and refusing to have any contact or purchasing merchandise from the Plaintiff.
Can I get in on that? No one bought anything from me that day either, and I’m pretty sure The Mary Sue was to blame. I’ll settle for $60,000 or maybe just a fruit smoothie.
If the HBB’s actual filing looks even vaguely similar to this draft, it will be interesting to see how one goes about suing an American entity in a Canadian court for allegedly saying things that allegedly stopped alleged persons from buying Honey Badger merchandise at a convention in Calgary.
I’m no disbarred lawyer, but somehow I just don’t see this working out for them.
Oh, and how do you “dissuade persons from engaging in?”
Engaging in what?
There might be a snag per this:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2015/2015hrto1243/2015hrto1243.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGa29weXRvAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1
[quote] On April 28, 2015, Mr. Kopyto advised the Tribunal that he fit within the unpaid friend exemption because: he is entitled to represent persons as a friend on three occasions each year; he is no longer carrying on the profession of a paralegal, and he is not receiving remuneration. Mr. Kopyto advised the Tribunal that he has fulfilled these conditions and that they apply to his representation of the applicant in this case. [/quote]
“he is no longer carrying on the profession of a paralegal, and he is not receiving remuneration.”
Which seems to indicate Kopyto should not be getting monies for his paralegal work, even. INAL though, but this seems very odd.
I also wound up in Raven claw with a 65%. My percent for Slytherin, though, was weird — 2%.