Fantino v. Baptista (text version of Statement of Claim - less attachments) (fwd)

Mon Sep 11 14:48:29 EDT 1995

Oh Boy:

How everybody.  Bryan, I must put you on notice that you may be called 
as a witness to the inquisition of Julian Fantino to be held in London at 
the Ontario Court (General Division).

I've included the statement of claim for your review.  The chief has 
insulted me, he says I discriminate.  You will be my proof that I have a 
flexible disposition about my taste for humanity ;-)

Hope you all get a kick out of this .. if you missed it in the newsgroups.

Regards
Joe Baptista

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Fantino v. Baptista (text version of Statement of Claim - less attachments)

ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
BETWEEN

JULIAN FANTINO

                         Plaintiff
   - and -

JOSE LOUIS (JOE) BAPTISTA

                        Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANT
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the
Plaintiff.  The claim made against you is set out in the
following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario
lawyer acting for you must prepare a Statement of Defence
in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure,
serve it on the Plaintiff's lawyer or, where the  Plaintiff
does not have a lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiff, and file
it, with proof of service, in the Court Office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are
served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada 
or in the United States of America, the period of serving and
filing your Statement of Defence is forty days.  If you are
served outside Canada and the United States of America, the
period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a Statement of Defence, you
may serve and file a Notice of Intent to Defend in Form 18B
prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.  This will entitle
you to ten more days within which to serve and file you
Statement of Defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY
BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN  YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER
NOTICE TO YOU.

If you wish to defend this proceeding but are unable to pay
legal fees, legal aid may be available to you by contacting a
local Legal Aid office.

Date:     JULY 26, 1995                

Issued by: 
Local Registrar

Address of Court Office: 80 Dundas Street
                                   London, Ontario
                                   N6A IE7

TO:   JOSE LOUIS (JOE) BAPTISTA
      404 - 1691 Gerrard Street East
      Toronto, Ontario, M4L 2B1

CLAIM

1.     The Plaintiff claims:

       (a)     damages for libel in the amount of $500,000.00;

       (b)     damages for malicious falsehood in the amount of
               $500,000.00;

       (c)     punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of
               $500,000.00;

       (d)     an interim, interlocutory and final injunction
               restraining the Defendant from communicating with
               any person, group of persons, associations or
               corporations by facsimile transmission, computer
               facilities, including electronic mail and the
               "Internet" or in any manner whatsoever except
               direct individual communication, wherein such
               communication, either directly or indirectly,
               refers to or concerns the Plaintiff;

      (e)     costs on a solicitor and client basis;

      (f)     such further and other relief as this Honourable
              Court deems just.

2.    The Plaintiff is and at all material times was the Chief
      of Police of the City of London Police.

3.    The Defendant resides in the City of Toronto and is a 
      self-described: harasser of the police; critic of
      government; bulk user of government services; and,
      administrative burden to the police.

4.    On or about the 5th day of February, 1995, the Defendant
      falsely and maliciously wrote and published of and
      concerning the Plaintiff and of him in the way of his
      office as Chief of Police to Robert Riley and the public
      at large by electronic mail over the Internet, the message
      set out in Schedule "A" attached hereto.

5.    On or about June 27th, 1995, the Defendant falsely and
      maliciously wrote of and concerning the Plaintiff and of
      him in the way of his office as Chief of Police by
      letter addressed to the attention of "all concerned citizens"
      as set out in Schedule "B" hereto.

6.    The said letter was published by the Defendant by facsimile
      transmission to:

      (a)   the police departments of the following municipalities in 
            the Province of Ontario:
                (i)       LaSalle
                (ii)      Durham Region;
                (iii)     Kingston;
                (iv)      Lakefield;
                (v)       Brockville;
                (vi)      Desoronto;
                (vii)     York Region;
                (viii)    Anderdon Township;
                (ix)      Chatham;
                (x)       Niagara Region;
                (xi)      Amherstburg;
                (xii)     Essex;
                (xiii)    Kemptville;
                (xiv)     Sudbury Region;
                (xv)      Lindsay;
                (xvi)     Windsor;
                (xvii)    Gananoque;
                (xviii)   Collingwood;

and others not presently known to the Plaintiff; and

      (b)   the following media outlets in the City of London:

                (i)    6X Radio, Fanshawe College;
                (ii)   CJBK Radio 1290;
                (iii)  CKSL Radio 1410;
                (iv)   CFPL Radio 98;
                (v)    CFPL Television;
                (vi)   The London free Press;

and other outlets not presently known to the Plaintiff.

7.  At or about the same time, the aforesaid or similar letter
    was  further published electronically by the Defendant to the
    public at large over the medium of the Internet,
    a global computer network.

8.  On or about the 6th  day of July, 1995, the Defendant
    falsely and maliciously wrote of and concerning the
    Plaintiff and of him in the way of his office as
    Chief of Police, as  set  out  in  Schedule "C" attached
    hereto, submissions to the Information and Privacy
    Commissioner of Ontario, purportedly pursuant to an Inquiry
    being conducted under the Municipal Freedom of Information and
    Protection  of  Privacy Act.

9.  On or about July 10th, 1995, the Defendant published the document
    attached as Schedule "C" to all of those parties referred to
    in paragraph 5 above and others, by facsimile transmission and
    other means of communication.

10. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "A",
    the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
    within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
    with the complained of words contained in Schedules "B" and " c ".

11. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "B",
    the Plaintiff pleads that the defamatory sting is contained
    within the said communication as a whole and in conjunction
    with the complained of words  contained  in  Schedules  "A"  and
    "C" but particularly in the following words:
                   (a)     "Dr.  ";

                   (b)     "Attention:  all concerned citizens";

                   (c)     "an upcoming inquisition";

                   (d)     "an investigation into the background and
                           activities of Julian Fantino";

                   (e)     "family and employment history";

                   (f)     "known, suspected or rumoured criminal
                           activities";

                   (g)     "known, suspected or  rumoured  homophobic,
                           sexist, or racist activities
                           (including actions and statements)";

                   (h)      "any other information of a nature that
                            might  bring  Mr.  Fantino  into
                            disrepute, and/or before justice".

12. With respect to the complained of words contained in Schedule "C",
    the Plaintiff pleads that the following words, on their own and in
    conjunction with the complained of words contained in Schedules
    "A"  and  "B", are maliciously false and defamatory of him:

        (a)     "the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been
                victim to a criminal conspiracy from within the ranks
                of the London Police Services Board";

        (b)     "This process is nothing more than the police version
                of the silent scream.  A futile and miscalculated
                adventure by them to avoid or minimalize prosecution
                under the Criminal Code of Canada.";

        (c)     "Although the old Chief is a principal in this crime  -
                he has not been a driving force in its application.
                That honour goes to another who will be
                later named." (referring to the Plaintiff);

        (d)     "the actions by the various police agencies to the
                court application only merit consideration as they
                relate to criminal behaviour";

        (e)     "this action has only been taken by the police with the
                intent of avoiding and deflecting criminal
                responsibility";

        (f)     "I only present these facts in support of any claims
                of wrongdoing I herein level against the various
                irresponsible police authorities as they respect the
                Commissions inquiry.";

        (g)     "I accuse former chief McCormick and chief Julian
                Fantino of an offence against authority and public
                order.  Both have conspired to maintain confidences
                with respect to my criminal activities and as a
                result have assisted me in achieving my goals   ...
                the police have at all times known and been aware
                of my criminal activity   ... the police abstained
                from the proper criminal procedures and that said
                actions were with intent.";

        (h)     "Apart from having his private telephone ... disclosed
                to me and details of a dysfunctional family life, I was
                also able to confirmed(sic) Fantino is not altogether a
                law abiding citizen.";

        (i)     "they (referring to the police and the Plaintiff) have
                in turn become criminal".

13.  The Plaintiff pleads that the words set out in Schedule "A" 
     are defamatory of him and, in their natural and ordinary meaning,
     meant and were understood to mean and were maliciously written 
     and published by the Defendant to be understood to mean,
     in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set out 
     in Schedules "B" and illicit that the Plaintiff is:

                    (a)     porcine;
                    (b)     greedy;
                    (c)     dirty;
                    (d)     an annoying person;
                    (e)     an unpleasant person;
                    (f)     a slovenly person;
                    (g)     a slob;
                    (h)     a despicable person;
                    (i)     a Neanderthal;
                    (j)     primitive;
                    (k)     unintelligent;
                    (l)     aesthetically challenged;
                    (m)     intellectually challenged; and
                    (n)     prehistoric.

14.  The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words as contained
     in Schedule "B" and particularized in paragraph 11 above, in
     their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood
     to mean and were maliciously written and published by the
     Defendant to be understood to mean, in and of themselves and in
     conjunction with the words set out in Schedules "A" and "C"
     that the Plaintiff:

          (a)    was guilty of wrongdoing and is the subject of an
                 officially  sanctioned investigation being conducted
                 by the Defendant;

          (b)    was and is engaged in criminal activity;

          (c)    is homophobic and was and is engaged in homophobic
                 activities;

          (d)     is sexist and was and is engaged in sexist activities;

          (e)     is racist and was and is engaged in racist activities;

          (f)     does engage in and has engaged in disreputable
                  and  discreditable activities;

          (g)     has engaged in unlawful activities that should be
                  subject to judicial sanction;

          (h)     has breached his oath and duty as a police officer
                  and Chief of Police; and

          (i)     has not conducted himself as a police officer and Chief
                  of Police in accordance with law, honesty and integrity.

15.  The Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words in Schedule  "C"
     hereto, as particularized in paragraph 12 above, in their natural
     and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean and were
     maliciously written and published by the Defendant to be understood
     to mean, in and of themselves and in conjunction with the words set
     out in Schedules "A" and "B", that the Plaintiff:

          (a)     has contravened the criminal law;

          (b)     is a criminal;

          (c)     has engaged in a criminal conspiracy;

          (d)     has, by a criminal action, victimized the Information
                  and Privacy Commissioner;

          (e)     has breached his public duty as a police officer and
                  Chief of Police;

          (f)     has engaged in civil proceedings involving the
                  Information and Privacy Commissioner in order to
                  subvert the criminal law and/or to prevent
                  exposure and prosecution for his own criminal acts;

          (g)     is a criminal ringleader;

          (h)    is participating in wrongdoing and unlawful activities;

          (i)    has covered up criminal wrongdoing; and
                 is an unfit husband and father.

17.  The  Plaintiff pleads that the complained of words published by the
     Defendant were calculated to and did disparage the Plaintiff in his
     calling as a police officer and Chief of Police.

18.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant published the
     complained of words out of malevolence or spite towards the
     Plaintiff,

19.  By reason of the publication of the complained of words by the
     Defendant, the Plaintiff has been much injured in his credit and
     reputation and has been brought into scandal, odium and contempt
     and has thereby suffered damage.

20.  The Defendant intends to continue the publication of the same or
     similar defamatory charges against the Plaintiff;

21.  Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiff pleads that the
     complained of words set out in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" and as
     particularized in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are untrue, were
     published with express malice and constitute malicious falsehoods.

22.  The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon Section 19 of the Libel &
     Slander Act, R. S. 0. 1990, Chapter L12 as amended.

23.  The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at the City of
     London, in the County of Middlesex.

SISKIND, CROMARTY, IVEY & DOWLER
Barristers and Solicitors
680 Waterloo Street
London, Ontario
N6A 3V8

Renato M. Gasparotto
(519) 672-2121

Solicitors for the Plaintiff