| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves

Correspondence with Mr. Douglas Elliott (Gay Zombie lawsuit)

Mr. Douglas Elliott
Mr. Douglas Elliott
[Source]

Table of contents

1) S. Jetchick (2016-August-13)
2) D. Elliott (2016-August-14-1)
3) D. Elliott (2016-August-14-2)
4) S. Jetchick (2016-August-14)
5) D. Elliott (2016-August-15)
6) S. Jetchick (2016-August-16; "Defence E-mail")
7) D. Elliott (2016-August-16)
8) S. Jetchick (2016-August-17)
9) S. Jetchick (2016-September-11; Statement of Defence)
10) S. Jetchick (2016-September-19)
11) D. Elliott (2016-September-20)
12) S. Jetchick (2016-September-20)
13) S. Jetchick (2016-September-30)
14) J. Findlay (2016-November-02)
15) Belinda Wu (2016-November-04)
16) Nanda Singh (2016-November-07)
17) S. Jetchick (2016-November-08)
18) S. Jetchick (2016-November-16)
19) C. Elphinstone (2016-November-18)
20) D. Elliott (2017-January-19)
21) S. Jetchick (2017-Jan-23)

1) S. Jetchick (2016-August-13)

From the website of Cambridge LLP:

Cambridge LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of class representatives Christopher Hudspeth and George Smitherman. The lawsuit is against William Whatcott and others who dishonestly portrayed themselves as the «Gay Zombies» in order to distribute offensive literature at the Toronto Pride Parade on July 3, 2016.

For more information about this class action, email us at whatcottlawsuit@cambridgellp.com or call 416-477-7077 and ask for a member of our Whatcott class action team.

You can also read the Statement of Claim, or view their press conference on YouTube (sorry, I don't have a better link yet).

This is the e-mail I sent them:

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Whatcott Class Action (Stefan Jetchick was one of the "zombies"!)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:02:14 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: whatcottlawsuit@cambridgellp.com

Good evening Sirs,

I just found out a few minutes ago (through an e-mail
from Bill Whatcott) that you are trying to file a
Class action lawsuit:

	www.cambridgellp.com/whatcott-class-action

I am deeply offended that my name is not mentioned
on your website, as if all the credit for this
courageous action belonged to Mr. Whatcott. (Well, OK,
I admit he did most of the hard work, but still, I
was there, and I handed out some of my flyers.)

You can see small YouTube videos of me (and Bill's
other courageous activists), as well as read my
flyer, by visiting this web page:

	The Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumers Association


Please stop insulting me by mentioning only Bill
on your website. And please stop insinuating that
Bill's friends are afraid of you. I'm not hiding.
I'm not ashamed of what I did.

Apart from that, have a really swell day, and God
bless you!

Stefan Jetchick
[Usual full contact information]

P.S. The e-mail bounced right back! "Unknown address"! So I went to the "Contact" form of their website and copied it there and sent it again. I hope they will get it!

2) D. Elliott (2016-August-14-1)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Whatcott Class Action (Stefan Jetchick was one of the "zombies"!)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 11:54:51 +0000
From: Doug Elliott delliott (at sign) cambridgellp.com
To: Stefan Jetchick
CC: [Office Assistant to Mr. Elliott]

Dear Mr. Jetchick:

I would have been happy to mention you in our Statement of Claim
and on our website had your name been disclosed to Pride Toronto.
If you did disclose your name to Pride Toronto, please provide me
any documentation that substantiated that.

We used pseudonyms in our Statement of Claim and described Mr.
Whatcott's companions based on how they were dressed in photos on
Mr. Whatcott's website. Would please be kind enough to identify
which of the marchers was you:

- A member of the 'Gay Zombies who marched at the Toronto Pride
Parade 2016 wearing a green body suit with a rainbow coloured
'tutu,' rainbow coloured flag around his neck and grey and black
running shoes.

- A member of the Gay Zombies who marched at the Toronto Pride
Parade 2016 wearing a green body suit, a rainbow coloured mask,
bow tie and briefs and white running shoes.

- A member of the Gay Zombies who marched at the Toronto Pride
Parade 2016 wearing a green body suit and a rainbow coloured hat,
bow tie and boxers, with black sunglasses.

- A member of the Gay Zombies who marched at the Toronto Pride
Parade 2016 wearing a green bodysuit; a rainbow coloured 'tutu',
black goggles and Black running shoes.

- A member of the Gay Zombies who marched at the Toronto Pride
Parade 2016 wearing a rainbow coloured hat, glasses, a green tee-
shirt, blue jeans, and black shoes.

Please identify which of the foregoing persons is you. Any
assistance you can provide with identifying your fellow
"courageous" marchers would be appreciated.

We will amend our pleading as soon as you provide this
information and update our website accordingly.

Yours truly,

Douglas Elliott

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA92B3.C7B48BE0]
  toronto + burlington + ottawa

R. Douglas Elliott LSM | Direct: 647-430-5378
Partner
Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation
delliott@cambridgellp.com |
www.cambridgellp.com

TORONTO OFFICE: 333 Adelaide Street West| Fourth Floor| Toronto,
Ontario, CANADA  M5V 1R5 Phone: 416-477-7007 ext. 311 | Toll Free
Phone: 1-877-684-1434 | Fax: 289-293-0318

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message and any attachments are
intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain privileged or
confidential information.  Any unauthorized use or disclosure is
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error,
please notify us immediately and we will correct our records.
Please then permanently delete the original message and any
attachments and destroy all copies.  Thank you.
[cid:image002.jpg@01CA92B3.C7B48BE0] Before printing, please
think about the Environment!

[My whole original message was copied here.
From here on I just omit such repetitions, and don't mention it.]

3) D. Elliott (2016-August-14-2)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Hudspeth v Whatcott
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:21:35 +0000
From: Doug Elliott
To: Stefan Jetchick
CC: [Office Assistant to Mr. Elliott]

Dear Mr. Jetchik:

Further to my earlier message, I have now had a chance to review the
link you sent to your own website.

I see now that you were the "zombie" wearing the black goggles. We
will amend our claim according.

We look forward to your cooperation in identifying your companions.

Douglas Elliott

[Boilerplate as per his first reply
From here on I just omit such repetitions, and don't mention it.]

4) S. Jetchick (2016-August-14)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Hudspeth v Whatcott
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:44:57 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Doug Elliott

Good day Mr. Doug Elliott,

 >> I have now had a chance to review the link
 >> you sent to your own website.

Great! I love it when people take the time to read
before they ask silly questions!

;-)


 >> I see now that you were the "zombie" wearing
 >> the black goggles.

It's not an important detail, but the goggles were
actually totally clear! I had **removed** the lenses
because it was such a hot day, but somehow the shadow
made them look black. I purchased them here:

	www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=70788

They are now, sadly, in some garbage bin in a washroom
in Union Station in Toronto, along with my nice tutu...
I should have kept them for a souvenir!


 >> We look forward to your cooperation in
 >> identifying your companions.

Actually, apart from Bill, it was the first time in my
life that I saw all the other ones. One of them was
called Doug, or Dave, well, something starting with "D".
But they were a hoot to work with!

By the way, your e-mail server rejects my e-mails
when I send them with my usual e-mail address
(sjj@). It will make cooperation very difficult for me.

Cheers,

SJJ

5) D. Elliott (2016-August-15)

Several e-mails were sent to-and-fro on Monday August 15, to solve problem of me being unable to reply with my usual e-mail address. It turns out Mr. Elliott was not blocking me, but the e-mail software on their server was. Late on Monday Mr. Elliott told me tech support "has added your domain to our permitted list".

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: FW: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:33:11 +0000
From: Doug Elliott
To: william.whatcott, Stefan Jetchick
CC: [Office Assistant to Mr. Elliott]

Dear Mr. Whatcott and Mr. Jetchick:

Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
has been assigned to be the case management judge for this
matter.

We have requested a case management meeting for this Thursday
at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting would be to discuss
scheduling for this matter. In particular, we wish to set a
date when the injunction requested in our Statement of Claim
will be heard.

Since you are both out of province, it is possible to arrange
for you to participate by conference telephone call if you
wish. You are entitled to attend in person if you wish.

You have both indicated to us that in principle you plan to
attend Court. Can you please confirm that you are available
to attend on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. either in person
or by conference call ?

Mr. Whatcott, would you please confirm that we should use
this email address for you in connection with this matter.

Douglas Elliott


From: Elphinstone, Cindy (JUD)
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 12:39 PM
To: Doug Elliott
Cc: Joan Kasozi; Nanda Singh
Subject: RE: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP

Mr. Elliott,

Please see the assignment letter in the above noted matter attached.


Cindy Elphinstone
Judicial Secretary
Ministry of the Attorney General
Superior Court of Justice
361 University Avenue
Toronto, ON  M5G 1T3
Email: Cindy.Elphinstone@
Tel.: (416) 327-5124
Fax: (416) 327-5417

From: Nanda Singh
Sent: August-15-16 11:39 AM
To: Elphinstone, Cindy (JUD)
Cc: Doug Elliott; Joan Kasozi
Subject: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP

Cindy Elphinstone
Assistant to the Honourable Justice Paul M. Perell
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Dear Ms. Elphinstone:

Please bring the attached letter and Statement of Claim to the
attention of Justice Perell.

Thank you.

Yours very truly

Nanda Singh

Nanda Singh | Phone: 416-477-7007 ext. 203
Law Clerk, Cross-Border Litigation & Business Litigation Group
nsingh@

6) S. Jetchick (2016-August-16; "Defence E-mail")

[Consecutive numbering of paragraphs added 2016-Sept-11]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:23:35 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: delliott@ Cindy.Elphinstone@, Whatcott, Bill

Good day Ms. Elphinstone and Mr. Elliott,
(and hello also to Bill)

29.	I've never been sued in my life, so I'm like Bambi on
a frozen pond here! Moreover, I'm currently unemployed
so unable to afford legal counsel. I do have some
questions, but I'm unsure who I should direct them to.

30.	Not knowing any better, I figured I'd send them to
all of you. Maybe somebody can help me on Thursday
during the conference call at 9h30:

	A) Why no Viagra for Pride's saggy security?

	B) Why victimize Ontario Taxpayers yet again?

	C) What is a law-abiding citizen to do?

	D) Why sue a penniless Catholic for millions, and
	studiously avoid suing the rich Catholic Church?



A) Why no Viagra for Pride's saggy security?
--------------------------------------------

31.	Why aren't the organizers of this year's Pride parade
in Toronto also named in this lawsuit?

32.	Every year for over a decade, I organize a small
demonstration here in Quebec City, so I have a bit
of experience with security during public gatherings.
(See www.proviequebec.ca/en/chaine_vie.htm)

33.	Never would I have tolerated the massive security
breaches that we observed in Toronto. I doubt any
organizer with a modicum of due diligence would have
tolerated them either:

	34.	Full face coverings. I did not scrutinize all
	participants, but as far as I saw, the "Gay Zombies" were
	the only ones with full face coverings. (In the Province
	of Quebec, I think it's even **illegal** to participate
	in a public gathering with your face covered.) Several
	staff from the Parade came to see us before we started
	marching, but nobody ever asked to see our faces.

	35.	No screening of persons. We just basically walked
	into the parade. Out of courtesy, Bill did go see the
	organizers to present them some crumpled sheet of paper
	showing he had paid to be in the parade. There was no
	security cordon, no attempt to actually approve who was
	joining the parade, nothing.

	36.	No screening of handouts. Bill and the others were
	very obviously lugging around **very** large bags filled
	with stuff to hand out (since I had no idea there would
	be no security, I had hidden a small quantity of my
	own flyers in my small knapsack). Here again, several
	staff from the Parade came to see us before we started
	marching, but nobody ever asked any questions about the
	contents of those large bags.

	37.	No Code of Conduct. In the demonstration I organize,
	our Code of Conduct is everywhere: on our website, on
	paper copies handed out to participants, and printed
	behind **every** sign that participants hold, and the
	highlights of that Code are verbally repeated to the group
	in our little prayer meeting before the demonstration begins.
	(See above link for the Life Chain, Section 4)

	38.	Toronto Pride (at least this year, since I've never been
	there before) had nothing, **absolutely nothing** of the kind.
	How can participants be accused of not respecting an
	inexistant or unknown code of conduct?



B) Why victimize Ontario Taxpayers yet again?
---------------------------------------------

39.	From what little I understand, Mr. Elliott is trying to use
the Ontario Judicial System (painfully supported by
financially struggling Ontario Taxpayers) in order to
compensate for the complete dereliction of duty of the Toronto
Pride organizers.

40.	But that cannot even theoretically work. The Ontario Judicial
System could spend every last taxpayer's dollar playing
whack-a-mole with Christian activists, without ever winning,
if the organizers of Toronto Pride are not held accountable
for their gross negligence.

41.	(By the way, if even a rinky-dink demonstration organized by
one Catholic guy can easily avoid all the supposedly horrible
problems that the "Gay Zombies" created that day in Toronto,
why am I not being hired to organize next year's Pride?
Sorry, I'm unemployed, so I had to try! :-)



C) What is a law-abiding citizen to do?
---------------------------------------

42.	Speaking of Pride, I take pride in being a law-abiding
citizen. I'm 53 years old, and I've never been in trouble with the
law. So when I wrote up my flyer on homosexuality many
years ago, I was very careful to stick to provable medical
facts, and to avoid needless provocation (while also avoiding
the other extreme, which could be called "Pope Francis
obfuscation").

43.	I didn't hand out any of Mr. Whatcott's flyers (we can never
agree on that topic, as his trip to Quebec City shows, many
years ago. See www.inquisition.ca/corr/whatcott_bill_en.htm#s19)

44.	I had my flyer checked by a lawyer, and integrated his suggestions.
Also, at that time (2010) the Quebec Department of Justice had just
enacted laws against "homophobia". So I sent them a copy of my
flyer using registered mail, politely resquesting that they
tell me if there was anything objectionable in my flyer.
(See www.inquisition.ca/corr/weil_kathleen_en.htm)

45.	I did get confirmation that they received my letter, but
nothing else. That flyer has remained essentially unchanged
since then, and has always remained very publicly on the
Internet. I'm appending a copy of its contents here at the
bottom of this e-mail, but you can also see the electronic
version here:
www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/aimons_sodomites.htm

46.	I admit I never thought of sending my flyer to the Ontario
Minister of Justice, but I was supposed to be only a
cameraman for Bill's event. A few weeks before D-Day, things
started to look like I was going to myself participate, so
I packed my zombie glasses and my small stock of flyers,
and assumed if my flyer was good enough for the Quebec Justice
Department, it would also be OK for Ontario's!

47.	So yes, I admit I didn't **also** send it to the Ontario
Justice Department. Is that really a million-dollar mistake?
Is freedom of speech in Canada really like a field of
anti-personnel mines, accessible only to the rich and famous,
or to those who say only what the Ruling Classes approve?



D) Why sue a penniless Catholic for millions, and
studiously avoid suing the rich Catholic Church?
-------------------------------------------------

48.	Common sense tells us you can't get a gallon of milk
out of an Ant, and you can't get millions of dollars
out of one pennyless Catholic.

49.	Why go after **one** symptom, and carefully avoid the
Cause? Is it because lawyers like Mr. Elliott have a
vested interest in keeping a flow of profitable lawsuits,
a bit like Big Pharma, which is often accused of not
curing people so they can continue to sell expensive
medications?

50.	The Catholic Church clearly teaches hatred. Officially.
Catholics MUST hate in order to go to Heaven. And I'm
willing to go all the way up to the Supreme Court of
Canada to prove it.

52.	A few quotes with the word "hate" and its synonyms
like the verbs "to detest", "abhor", "to be odious",
in the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

	"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil"
	Pr 8:13

	"I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to
	sit with the wicked."
	Ps 26:05

	"[Don't] commit this horrible deed which I hate!"
	Jr 44:4

	"When you begin to abhor what you have made, it is then
	that your good works are beginning, since you are
	accusing yourself of your evil works"
	Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1458

	"Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible
	with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with hatred
	of the evil that he does as an enemy.
	Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1933

52.	(See www.inquisition.ca/corr/lemieux_lefevbre_jasmin_en.htm#s1p1)

53.	I was always told that good Catholics must "Love the sinner
and hate the sin", hence the title of my flyer: "Love Sodomites,
Hate Sodomy!" Actually, if I look at the whole Ontario Judicial
System, it seems like it's trying to "Love the criminal, but
hate the crime", which is just plain common sense.

54.	Is common sense now illegal in Ontario?


55.	Yours truly,

	Stefan Jetchick
	[Usual full contact information]

56.	Here are the contents of the only flyers I handed out
at this year's Toronto Pride:


==========================================================
57.	Love Sodomites! Hate Sodomy!
==========================================================

58.	Lie #1: "The Church is against love between men"

59.	Really? The same Church that teaches: "Love one another"
[John 13:34], and "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"
[Luke 6:27-28], etc.?

60.	The Church is against sodomy, not against love.

33.	Lie #2: "Sodomy is perfectly natural"

61.	"Anal sex is unhealthy. Aside from sexually transmitted
diseases, these acts lead to many other medical conditions
including the Gay Bowel Syndrome, hepatitis A, unusual infections
of the epididymis, and other disorders of the anus and
surrounding muscles such as fissures. Homosexuals who practice
anal intercourse are as much as eighty-four times more likely to
develop anal cancer than the general population.

62.	Anal sex is unnatural. It obviously is traumatic to the anus,
which simply is not made to accomodate the male organ. Not only
does the anus have no natural lubrication, but it is clearly the
wrong size for genital contact. As evidence of this, consider the
difference in size of the speculum and the anoscope. The
speculum, which the physician places inside the woman during a
gynecologic exam, is roughly the size and shape of the erect male
organ. The anoscope, used to examine the anus, is half the
diameter of the speculum - more similar in size to an adult
forefinger. [...]"

63.	[WETZEL, Richard, MD. Sexual Wisdom, Ann Arbour, MI, Proctor
Publications, 2000. chap. 10, p. 145-147]

64.	Lie #3: "Homophobia is the only cause of the physical and
mental health problems of sodomites"

65.	First, if you define "homophobia" as being the hatred of
persons with same-sex attractions, then of course "homophobia" is
very evil. (See the teachings of the Church here above.) Also, if
you are a person who feels hated and is contemplating suicide,
please don't! God loves you! And please give us a call if we can
do anything to help you.

66.	But unfortunately these days, the meaning of the word
"homophobia" is changing. More and more, it's just an insult
thrown at people to take away their critical thinking and their
freedom of speech.

67.	Would sodomy have positive medical consequences if, by magic,
everybody started to approve it? (See Section #2 here above.)
Would babies be made differently if, by magic, everybody started
to consider sodomy just as normal as what husband and wife do
after marriage? Does a boy who decides to put on a dress change
his chromosomes from XY into XX to become, by magic, a girl? Do
our sexual attractions constitute our "identity", rather than the
fact we are persons, i.e. beings endowed with intelligence and
free-will? Is Quebec becoming "Science-o-phobic"?

68.	Let's have the courage to seek together the truth about these
questions!

69.	www.jesus-eucharistie.org      www.inquisition.ca

7) D. Elliott (2016-August-16)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:21:09 +0000
From: Doug Elliott
To: Stefan Jetchick, Cindy.Elphinstone@, Whatcott, Bill

Dear Mr. Jetchick:

I am not going to respond to the substantive issues that you
raise in this email. I only wish to comment on two procedural
points.

First, Thursday's conference call is ONLY about scheduling.
It is not a trial. It is not the time to discuss the merits
of your case or the deficiencies of our case.  If you are
truly concerned about conserving costly court resources,
please keep your remarks on Thursday limited to the topic at
hand, namely the schedule for the case ( not the substance of
the case).

Second, I strongly suggest that you retain legal counsel. If
you are unable to afford counsel, you may qualify for Legal
Aid or for the assistance of a legal clinic. You may also
find that a lawyer who is sympathetic to the importance of
articulating the issues you raise will represent you on a pro
bono basis.

Douglas Elliott

8) S. Jetchick (2016-August-17)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:52:47 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Doug Elliott, Cindy.Elphinstone@, Whatcott, Bill,
charles lugosi,

Good day Mr. Douglas Elliott, Ms. Elphinstone, Dr. Lugosi
and of course Bill,

I wanted here to answer Mr. Elliott's e-mail of yesterday,
but while I have everybody's attention, I also wanted to
add a few housekeeping notes.

First, after consulting with friends and sleeping on it,
I will represent myself. Mr. Whatcott kindly offered the
services of his lawyer, the famous and talented Dr. Lugosi,
but even though "my client is a fool" as the saying goes,
my client is also dirt poor! So I will not use the services
of Dr. Lugosi.

Second, I'm archiving correspondance about this case
on my web site. If somebody needs my official statements
about anything (not just this case), I hereby declare
my web site (www.inquisition.ca) to be the reliable and
authoritative source of my positions. (This hopefully will
reduce paperwork and useless tree slaughtering.)

Third, I will try to phone in tomorrow for the Conference
Call at 9:30 AM:

	>> I confirm a teleconference on Thursday, August
	>> 18th @ 9:30 a.m.
	>> The call-in particulars are as follows:
	>> Local dial in number: 416-212-8012 Toll free dial
	>> in number (Canada and U.S.): 866-633-0848
	>> Conference ID/Participant Access Code: [censored]#

Fourth, and finally, I now respond to Mr. Elliott:


>> I am not going to respond to the substantive
>> issues that you raise in this email.

OK, but please note that e-mail contains all the arguments
I can come up with for my defense. I will simply repeat
(maybe expand a bit) on those points. So you can use it
to figure out your rebuttals, etc.


>> Thursday's conference call is ONLY about scheduling
>> [...] please keep your remarks on Thursday limited to
>> [...] the schedule for the case

I hereby officially declare that my position on the
scheduling of this case is whatever is agreeable to
Mr. Elliott. I'm unemployed, so whatever is good for
him is fine by me.

That way, if all goes well tomorrow, I won't even have
to say anything!

:-)


>> I strongly suggest that you retain legal counsel.

I took your wise advice very seriously, as I said
above. I really do decide to represent myself.
This way this lawsuit can last for decades and it
won't cost me a penny. And if I lose, I have nothing
to lose! (Well, you could take my 1999 Toyota Camry,
which doubles in value when I fill up the gas tank!)

:-)

Cheers!

SJJ

9) S. Jetchick (2016-September-11; Statement of Defence)

Form 18A, Courts of Justice Act

				STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
				====================

Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al
----------------------------------

SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP

[Full names and coordinates of Defendant, Court and Plaintiff]

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
--------------------

1.	The defendant admits the allegations contained in the following
paragraphs of the statement of claim:

	4,
	6,
	9,
	46,
	47,
	50,
	51,
	53,
	54,
	57,
	58,
	69,
	99.

2.	The defendant denies the allegations contained in the following
paragraphs of the statement of claim:

	1 (e) to 1 (h),
	1 (k) to 1 (l),
	5,
	20,
	63,
	66,
	70 to 72,
	76 to 87,
	89 to 96.

	The defendant also denies the allegations contained in the following
paragraphs of the statement of claim, but would admit them if the
wording was changed as indicated for each paragraph:

	52, if the expression "mainstream Christianity" were
	placed in quotes (i.e. the Bible and the Catholic Church
	clearly condemn sodomy, so a "Christian" who supports
	sodomy must first be intellectually inconsistent),
	55, if the word "offensive" was replaced by "deemed offensive
	by some",
	56, if the words "offensively anti-gay" were replaced with "deemed
	offensively anti-gay by some",
	59, if the words "deceitfully", and "dishonest and unlawful"
	were struck out, and "hate speech pamphets" were replaced by
	"pamphlets deemed by some to be hate speech",
	62, if the words "attack", "defame" and "despise" were replaced with
	"inform", "denounce" and "deeply disagrees with",
	67, if the words "deceitfully and in bad faith" were struck out,
	75, if the words "hateful, derogatory and deceitful", and the
	word "fundamentalist" were struck out.
	88, if the word "offensive" was struck out.


3.	The defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations
contained in the following paragraphs of the statement of claim:

	1 (a) to 1 (d),
	1 (i) to 3,
	7 to 8,
	10 to 19,
	21 to 45,
	48 to 49,
	60 to 61,
	64 to 65,
	68,
	74,
	97 to 98.


4.	Table of contents:

	A) Housekeeping notes
	B) FIRST DEFENCE: The Defendant never handed out
	Mr. Whatcott's flyers
	C) SECOND DEFENCE: The only link between Mr. Whatcott's
	flyer and the Defendant is "Guilt by color palette"
	D) THIRD DEFENCE: The actions of the Plaintiff's lawyer
	constitute an implicit admission that the Defendant's
	flyer is Charter-protected free speech
	E) Conclusion


A) Housekeeping notes
---------------------

5.	Evidence. "Google is my Exhibit A", and
everything discussed here can be easily found with an
Internet search engine (as of this writing). Direct
hyperlinks are also supplied, e.g. this Statement of
Defence is at the following URL:

	www.inquisition.ca/corr/elliott_douglas.htm#s9

6.	Timeliness. The timestamp on
the Statement of Claim is 19/8/16 at 09h40, served by Mr. Denis
Vanasse, Huissier de Justice. This having occured in a province
other than Ontario, the Statement of Defence had to be served
and filed before Sept. 28, 2016 (fourty days).

7.	The "Defence E-mail". Before the hardcopy of the
Statement of Claim was legally served, the Defendant had
already sent an e-mail on 2016-August-16, to both the Court
(via Ms. Elphinstone) and the Plaintiff's lawyer Mr.
Elliott, giving, in layman's terms, most of the material
facts relied on by way of defence. This will
henceforth be referred to as the "Defence E-mail". The only
changes made to it were to consecutively number its
paragraphs, starting with the last number of this Statement
of Defense. It is available electronically here:

	www.inquisition.ca/corr/elliott_douglas.htm#s6


8.	The only other major "external" document this Statement of
Defence will refer to, is the letter sent to the Canadian
Minister of Families, Children and Social Development,
the Honorable Jean-Yves Duclos (Liberal Party of Canada),
on September 3, 2016. It is accessible electronically at
this URL:

	www.inquisition.ca/corr/duclos_jean_yves.htm


B) FIRST DEFENCE: The Defendant never handed out Mr. Whatcott's flyers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

9.	As mentioned in the "Defence E-mail", paragraphs 43 to 47,
the Defendant handed out his own flyer, and not Mr. Whatcott's.
The Defendant has no idea how to prove the non-existence of
an act (i.e. handing out flyers he never handed out). Isn't
this the burden of the Plaintiffs?

10.	Even though the Defendant has no idea how to prove the
non-existence of an act, nevertheless many facts point in
that direction:

	11.	Several videos were made of flyers being handed out,
	showing all Gay Zombies handing out Mr. Whatcott's flyers,
	except the one holding the camera (and the other end of
	the Gay Zombie banner), i.e. the Defendant. See this URL
	for the links to YouTube:

		www.inquisition.ca/en/polit/artic/zombie_gai.htm

	12. The Defendant has a longstanding and publicly
	documented history of refusing to hand out Mr.
	Whatcott's flyers, and preferring his own instead. See
	"Defence E-mail", paragraph 43.

	13.	The Defendant took pains to send his own flyer to
	the Quebec Minister of Justice in April 2010, to have
	it vetted after the "Homophobia Act" was passed.
	See "Defence E-mail", paragraph 44. This also points to
	an attachment between the Defendant and his own flyer.

	14.	The Defendant continues to provably disseminate his
	own flyer, both over the Internet and in other Pride
	Parades, while simultaneously telling everybody he can
	about his actions, ahead of time (like the Plaintiffs'
	lawyer, or the organizers of the Quebec City 2016 Pride
	parade, or the Quebec City Police Department, etc.).

	15.	Evidence supporting the previous paragraph is located
	here:

		www.inquisition.ca/corr/duclos_jean_yves.htm


C) SECOND DEFENCE: The only link between Mr. Whatcott's flyer
and the Defendant is "Guilt by color palette"
-------------------------------------------------------------

16. At issue is the link connecting the Defendant with Mr.
Whatcott's flyer. Let's start with the example of a lawn
maintenance company accused of spraying lawns with a chemical
harmful to children. All employees of that company have signed a
contract and agreed to provide the service offered by that
company, i.e. spray that particular chemical and no other. But
in the case of the "Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumer's
Association", there is no legal entity. (Zombies don't exist, so
the Toronto Pride organizers knowlingly allowed a fiction to
participate in the parade.) The Defendant could not have been
legally held to distribute Mr. Whatcott's flyer by something
akin to a contract.

17. The Plaintiffs could argue that, despite the legal non-
existence of the "Gay Zombies", nevertheless there was some
form of "pact" or "informal contract" between all "Gay
Zombies". Except this unwritten agreement was to get into
the 2016 Toronto Pride parade, in order to hand out flyers
containing facts about the medical consequences of anal
coitus (technically known as "sodomy"), as well as an
expression of God's love for all sinners, regardless of
their sexual orientation. It did not specify which Christian
flyer. This rough unwritten contract is what bound the
Defendant with the other Gay Zombies. The de facto leader of
the band, Mr. Bill Whatcott, celebrates diversity and is
very tolerant, so the Defendant knew that the "Gay Zombies"
were a very safe space to hand out his own flyers. Actually,
if real members of the "LGBTQ2SI Community" with pro-sodomy
flyers had showed up dressed in green, Mr. Whatcott would
likely have inducted them into the "Gay Zombies" on the
spot, and encouraged them to hand their flyers. (Mr.
Whatcott is an ardent supporter of freedom of speech.)

18.	The Plaintiffs could argue that, despite the legal
non-existence of the "Gay Zombies", and despite the
informal agreement between them allowing freedom of
choice in the flyers handed out, nevertheless the "Gay
Zombies" were still united by their common action. For
example, in superbly-crafted bank robbery, each
accomplice has a very definite task. They are so united
by their common action, that if one single accomplice
fails (for example, the driver of the getaway car stalls
the engine, or the safe-cracker fails to open the safe,
or the guy in charge of knocking out the security guard
inside the bank forgets to check the batteries of his
taser, etc.), the whole bank robbery fails. But in this
case, there was no clockwork precision: a bunch of
Christians just walked onto the staging area of the
parade. They were seven, they could have been three or
twenty-nine. The appropriate metaphor is not of a bank
robbery, but of a "Pick-Your-Own" field of blueberries.
A bunch of people arrive in a van and each go pick their
blueberries. The work of any blueberry picker is not
influenced by what another one is doing.

19. Not much remains as a link uniting the Defendant
with Mr. Whatcott's flyer. Both the Defendant and
Mr. Whatcott were wearing green that day. Is there
really such a thing as "Guilt by color palette"?

20. The Defendant could argue in defence of Mr. Whatcott's
flyer, but seeing the credentials and track records of Mr.
Whatcott's lawyers, the Defendant will concentrate his
meager legal abilities on defending his own flyer. If the
Defendant were still asked his opinion on this matter, the
Defendant would just point out that both Mr. Whatcott's and
his own flyer convey essentially the same message, but that
Mr. Whatcott's flyer has obviously had an unhappy childhood.
(See Mr. Whatcott's autobiography available on Amazon,
called "Born in a Graveyard").


D) THIRD DEFENCE: The actions of the Plaintiff's lawyer
constitute an implicit admission that the Defendant's
flyer is Charter-protected free speech
-------------------------------------------------------

21. The Defendant has done absolutely everything in his
power, to bring the flyer he disseminated at the 2016
Toronto Pride parade, to the attention of the
Plaintiff's lawyer, Mr. Elliott. The Defendant himself
contacted Mr. Elliott to tell him he was one of the "Gay
Zombies" (otherwise the Defendant's real name would
still be unknown to the Court). The Defendant himself
supplied his flyer to Mr. Elliott, as well as showing
where it was publicly available on the Internet. The
Defendant himself told Mr. Elliott he would continue to
disseminate his flyer at other pride parades (like the
one in Quebec City).

22.	Despite this, the Statement of Claim never mentions the
Defendant's flyer. Neither does the Statement of Claim quote
passages from the the Defendant's flyer. Mr. Elliott never
mentions any request to have the Defendant's flyer removed
from the Internet, even though he requested that Mr.
Whatcott's flyer be taken down, and even though the
Defendant's flyer is very easy to find on the Internet (just
type two words in Google: love sodomites). In a recent
letter from Mr. Elliott (2016-Sept-09, sent to Dr. Charles
Lugosi, CC to the Defendant), he again never mentions or
quotes the Defendant's flyer (despite abundantly quoting
from Mr. Whatcott's flyer). Mr. Elliott even matter-of-
factly discusses the recent dissemination of the Defendant's
flyer at the Quebec City pride parade as: "I understand that
the local police addressed the issues that arose at Quebec
Pride to the satisfaction of the organizers." The local
police allowed the Defendant to hand out all the flyers he
wanted, as long as he was on a public sidewalk and not on
private property, so that seems satisfactory to Mr. Elliott.

23.	These are not the actions of a lawyer who
considers the Defendant's flyer as overstepping the
legally justified limit on free speech identified by
the Supreme Court of Canada. On the contrary, they
are indicative of Plaintiffs who have no legally-
defensible complaints about the Defendant's flyer.

24.	Even if the Court were to overlook the
Plaintiff's silence concerning the Defendant's
flyer, all the Court would find is a flyer patterned
after "Love the sinner, hate the sin". For example,
fifty years or so ago, when the propaganda of
tabacco companies was pervasive, and knowledge of
the medical consequences of smoking cigarettes was
rare, and assuming there had been such a thing as a
"Cigarette Smoker's Pride Parade", the Gay Zombies
might have handed out a flyer called "Love Smokers,
Hate Smoking". Some Gay Zombies might even have
included color photographs of lung cancer and other
horrible diseases caused by smoking (as we can see
on cigarette packs here in the Province of Quebec).

25.	A cursory examination of the flyer handed out by the
Defendant ("Defence E-mail", paragraphs 57 to 69) will
show no graphics, and no names of Liberals or other
persons, but rather a call to love members of the
"LGBTQ2SI Community" (something explicitely ordered by
God Himself, as the Bible quotes in that flyer show).

26. The flyer handed out by the Defendant also contains
medical facts which can be ascertained by any medical
doctor, or even a High School student who has taken a
biology class, and who knows how to search governmental
web sites, like the "Center for Disease Control" in the
USA (for statistical prevalence of diseases in various
populations).


E) Conclusion
-------------

27.	In closing, I wish to draw the Court's attention to
paragraph 2 of this Statement of Defence, where the
Defendant agrees (if the words "deceitfully and in bad
faith" are struck out) with paragraph 67 of the Statement of
Claim. This is important. Whether dressed up as a zombie
with a rainbow tutu, or with a formal suit and tie, whether
he is surrounded by members of the "LGBTQ2SI Community" in
downtown Toronto, or surrounded by hard-core Catholics at
the Latin Mass in Quebec City, whether the Defendant has
entered into a contract with some organization or not, the
Defendant is a Canadian, and by that very fact has already
signed THE CONTRACT binding all Canadians (and all men,
actually), a contract which orders us to love our neighbors,
to respect all just laws, to avoid doing harm (e.g. "refrain
from presenting any image or messages that would promote
hatred, degradation or negative stereotyping of any persons
or groups"). As opposed to many people who will read this
Statement of Defence, I formally became a Canadian when I
was about 16 years old. I still remember the oath I swore
(in French). And if I have to die in Flanders Fields to keep
that oath, then so help me God.

28.	Respectfully Submitted,

Stefan Jetchick

[The official documents served to the Court and to the
Plaintiff's lawyer have here physically included the
"Defence E-mail"]

RCP-E 18A (November 1, 2005)

10) S. Jetchick (2016-September-19)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:04:22 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick sjj@
To: Elliott, Douglas (Cambridge LLP) delliott@
CC: Kasozi, Joan jkasozi@, Cindy.Elphinstone@

Good day Mr. Elliott,

From my limited understanding of Rules of civil procedure,
16.05 (1) (f), I can ask you if you consent to being
served my Statement of Defence by e-mail.

If you do not consent, obviously I would appreciate if
you told me how you want it served!

:-)

Also, if you had any indication as to how I'm supposed
to serve it to the Court, I would also appreciate.

My Statement of Defence is attached to this e-mail
in PDF form, with numbered
pages and full addresses of recipients and sender, etc.
But seeing 16.01.1 (1), here is the header of that document
copied here again:

Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al
----------------------------------
SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP

From:

	Stefan Jetchick, defendant (self-represented)
	1450, avenue des Grands-Pins
	Quebec City, QC
	G1S 4J6
	Canada
	1-418-922-7015
	sjj@

To:

	Ms. Cindy Elphinstone
	Assistant to the Honourable Justice Paul M. Perell
	Ontario Superior Court of Justice
	Ministry of the Attorney General
	Superior Court of Justice
	361 University Avenue
	Toronto, ON M5G 1T3
	Email: Cindy.Elphinstone@
	Tel.: (416) 327-5124
	Fax: (416) 327-5417

and

	Mr. R. Douglas Elliott
	Lawyer for the Plaintiffs Christopher Hudspeth
	and George Smitherman
	Cambridge LLP
	333 Adelaide St. West
	Suite 400
	Toronto, ON
	M5V 1R5
	Direct: 647-430-5378
	delliott@


Thank you, and have a nice day,

Stefan Jetchick

11) D. Elliott (2016-September-20)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:15:38 +0000
From: Doug Elliott
To: Stefan Jetchick
CC: Joan Kasozi, Cindy.Elphinstone@

Dear Mr. Jetchick:

You can serve your Statement of Defence by email. We will
consider it served today.

It is not in quite the right form so I am not sure if the
Court will allow you to file it.

You have to file it with the Registrar of the Superior Court
in Toronto with proof that you served it on us and Mr.
Whatcott.

Douglas Elliott

12) S. Jetchick (2016-September-20)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al; SCJ File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:55:08 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Doug Elliott

Good day Mr. Elliott,

 >> You can serve your Statement of Defence by email.
 >> We will consider it served today.

Great! Thanks to you, I finally managed to do **one**
thing on my confounded TODO list!


 >> It is not in quite the right form so I am not sure
 >> if the Court will allow you to file it.

Well, I guess my battle will now be with the public service
bureaucrats...

;-)

But seriously, do you mean this?

www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/practice/practice-directions/edelivery-scj/


 >> You have to file it with the Registrar of the Superior
 >> Court in Toronto with proof that you served it
 >> on us and Mr. Whatcott.

I will try to figure that out. I can't find an e-mail
address for them using Google.

Thanks,

SJJ

13) S. Jetchick (2016-September-30)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al.; Court File No. CV-16-558424-00CP
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:29:18 -0400
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Elliott, Douglas (Cambridge LLP),
Lugosi, Charles

Good evening Mr. Elliott and Dr. Lugosi,

Just for your information I'm re-sending you a
slightly-corrected PDF of my Statement of Defence.
Nothing of substance was changed. (I had made a mistake
in the Court File Number, and also I tried to make
the format more conformant.)

The attached PDF is the version that I just printed
out and sent by snail-mail to the Registrar of
the Toronto court. But the old version is just as good.

Cheers,

Stefan

14) J. Findlay (2016-November-02)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Hudpeth et al. v. Whatcott et al.
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:55:55 +0000
From: @findlaymccarthy.com
To: Stefan Jetchick

Stefan:

We have finalized the Motion Record and Factum.

The Factum is attached.

Following is the Dropbox link to the Motion Record (as it is too big.).

www.dropbox.com

[SJJ: I removed "../fig/corr/elliott_douglas/factum.pdf"
and "../fig/corr/elliott_douglas/motion_record.pdf" from the
web site 2017-March-15, because they bload the zipped
file containing the whole web site. Just drop me an e-mail
and I'll send them to you if you want them.]


Would you please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thanks,
John Findlay


Findlay McCarthy PC
605 James Street North, Suite 303
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 1K1
Tel: (905) 526-8943  Fax: (905) 526-8696

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain confidential information. If you are not the
addressee, you are hereby notified that copying, use or
dissemination of the information contained in this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in
error, please notify the sender immediately and then permanently
delete the message. PLEASE NOTE: On occasion our spam scanners
may delete legitimate e-mails if there are attachments in the e-
mail. If you do not receive an appropriate response please
create a new e-mail message without an attachment or call the
office to confirm receipt of your e-mail. Thank you.

I acknowledged receipt to Mr. Findlay, of course.

15) Belinda Wu (2016-November-04)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Christopher Hudspeth et al. v. William Whatcott et al.
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:44:47 +0000
From: Belinda Wu
To: charles@, findlay@, sjj@
CC: Joan Kasozi

Dear Counsel:

Attached please find the following documents, which are hereby served
upon you pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure:


1.       Motion Record of the Plaintiffs dated November 4, 2016;

2.       Factum of the Plaintiffs dated November 4, 2016;

3.       Book of Authorities of the Plaintiffs dated November 4, 2016.

[SJJ: I removed
"../fig/corr/elliott_douglas/2016-Nov-04/record.pdf"
and "../fig/corr/elliott_douglas/2016-Nov-04/factum.pdf"
and "../fig/corr/elliott_douglas/2016-Nov-04/authorities.pdf"
from the web site 2017-March-15, because they bload the zipped
file containing the whole web site. Just drop me an e-mail
and I'll send them to you if you want them.]



Hardcopies of the above-mentioned document will be couriered to you
shortly.  Kindly confirm service with email is acceptable.  Thank
you!

Regards,

Belinda Wu | Phone: 416-477-7007 ext. 323
Legal Assistant, Cross-Border Litigation & Business Litigation Group

I acknowledged receipt to Ms. Wu, and said I was fine with being served only electronically (I'm a tree-hugger!).

16) Nanda Singh (2016-November-07)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Christopher Hudspeth et al. v. William Whatcott et al.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:04:51 +0000
From: Nanda Singh
To: SJJ@
CC: Joan Kasozi, Doug Elliott, Chris Macleod

Stefan Jetchick

1450 avenue des Grands-Pins

Quebec City, Québec

G1S 4J6

Dear Mr. Jetchick:

I enclose Ms. Kasozi's letter of today's date.

Yours very truly

Nanda Singh

17) S. Jetchick (2016-November-08)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Christopher Hudspeth et al. v. William Whatcott et al.
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:04:09 -0500
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Nanda Singh
CC: Joan Kasozi , Doug Elliott, Chris Macleod

Good day Ms. Joan Kasozi, Mr. Doug Elliott, Mr. Chris Macleod,

Sorry for the delay in answering, at first I had no
idea what your letter was about! I had to read up on Google
about "Examination".

If that web page is any good, it says "Consider whether to
conduct the discovery by way of oral examination (R. 34) or
written questions (R. 35)."

Of course, if you send me written questions, that is the
best solution for me. I'll be glad to answer all your
written questions, probably within 48 hours. As I write
this e-mail, I'm at work (we take turns in the interpretation
booth, so in between turns I can answer my e-mails).

Things get a bit hairy if you insist on an oral examination.
Since I'm a freelance interpreter, I get translation
"gigs" sporadically, and if I back out of a contract I
accepted many months ago, I basically will never be called
again for work. So going for one quickie oral examination
would probably kill what little source of income I had
remaining. And my sixty or so days of work per year are
concentrated in two "bumps", two "high-seasons", and
we are still riding the first of those bumps...

Starting Nov. 19th (this year), I basically twiddle my thumbs
and starve for several months until the next "bump" begins
(usually mid-April-ish).

But of course, if you "Book an appointment [...] at the
law office of one of the parties", meaning my "law
office" (my appartment in Quebec City), then I'm
normally available any time after work (very few conferences
are scheduled at night).

Hope this helps,

SJJ

18) S. Jetchick (2016-November-16)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Attendance of Stefan Jetchick to proceedings of Hudspeth,
et al v. Whatcott, et al (CV-16-558424-00CP)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:39:47 -0500
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Cindy.Elphinstone@
CC: cmacleod@, Kasozi, Joan, Lugosi, Charles, Findlay, John

Quebec City, November 16, 2016.

Justice Paul M. Perell
Superior Court of Justice
361 University Avenue
Toronto, ON
M5G 1T3

	Re:	Attendance of Stefan Jetchick to proceedings of
		Hudspeth, et al v. Whatcott, et al (CV-16-558424-00CP)

Your Honor,

I am a self-represented litigant in the aforementioned case.

I was sitting directly in front of you yesterday (but
thankfully Mr. Chris Macleod spoke for me when something
related to me came up, since I probably would not have
been able to utter a sound; this was my first court appearance
so I was rather terrified).

[SJJ: just for my information, later on that day, I was
examined by Mr. Ruzbeh Hosseini and Ms. Joan Kasozi]

I just wanted to say that, living in Quebec City, it would
be punishingly expensive for me to come to every installment
of what seems to be a long process. I guess it would be a
stupendously interesting accelerated course in high-level
juridical wizardry, if I were a law student.

Except I'm not. I'm just a layman, waiting for "my day in
court", in layman's terms.

May I only attend when it's "my day in court"? (i.e.
the actual part where I present my defense and confront
my accusers?)

Since Mr. Chris Macleod seems to magically say the things
I would have said anyway, and since Dr. Charles Lugosi is
a friend of my friend Bill Whatcott (the main Defendant),
can I just rely on those present at all these proceedings
to give me a "head's up" when I should come?

Of course, I will also come any time I'm ordered to do so
by the Court.

Thank you very much,

Stefan Jetchick
[Usual full contact information]

19) C. Elphinstone (2016-November-18)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Attendance of Stefan Jetchick to proceedings of Hudspeth,
et al v. Whatcott, et al (CV-16-558424-00CP)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:43:30 +0000
From: Elphinstone, Cindy (JUD)
To: Stefan Jetchick
CC: cmacleod@, Kasozi, Joan, Lugosi, Charles, Findlay, John

Mr. Jetchick,

Please see letter of today's date from Justice Perell attached.

Cindy Elphinstone
Judicial Secretary
[etc.]

20) D. Elliott (2017-January-19)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Letter from Doug Elliott
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:03:07 -0500
From: Joan Kasozi
To: sjj@

Dear Mr. Jetchick:

Please see attached letter from Mr. Elliott

Best,

Joan Kasozi

[MS-Word document original here, copy-pasted below]

January 16, 2017


WITHOUT PREJUDICE

R. Douglas Elliott, 647.430.5378 (Direct Line)
delliott (at sign) cambridgellp.com

Stefan Jetchick
1450, avenue des Grands-Pins
Québec, QC
G1S 4J6
Canada


Dear Mr. Jetchick

Re:	Christopher Hudspeth et al. v. William Whatcott et al.
Court File No.: CV-16-558424-00-CP
Our File No.: 1602326

Upon review of your Statement of Defence and the transcript
of your cross-examination, we have concluded that we will no
longer continue with you as a defendant in this action.

The main reason for our decision to exclude you from this
action is that you did not distribute the impugned literature
that is at the centre of this dispute.

We have reviewed the literature that you distributed and we
agree that the overall content and tone of the pamphlet does
not contain the same hateful message as the literature that
Mr. Whatcott and the other Gay Zombies distributed. Moreover,
there is no defamation contained in your material.

We take note of the fact that although you agree with Mr.
Whatcott’s general message, you do not agree with the manner
in which he conveys his message and some of the general
beliefs he promulgated in his literature. Further, we do
appreciate the fact that you did not fill out the initial
deceptive application to participate in the Pride Parade.

We understand that we do have a claim against you for (1)
concealing your identity in order to obtain admission to
march in the Pride Parade (2) breaching the Pride Parade
Rules by failing to forward your pamphlets to Pride Toronto
for pre-approval and for (3) distributing a pamphlet that was
not in line with the Pride Toronto theme.

However, since our claims of defamation and intentional
infliction of mental distress do not apply to the literature
you distributed, we have decided that it is no longer
necessary or appropriate to pursue this action against you.

We will be so advising Justice Perell.
Yours very truly,

CAMBRIDGE LLP
Per:

R. DOUGLAS ELLIOTT
RDE/bw

Copy:	Charles Lugosi [www.lugosi-law.com]

John Findlay [www.findlaymccarthy.com]

21) S. Jetchick (2017-Jan-23)

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Voluntary dismissal of action?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:59:35 -0500
From: Stefan Jetchick
To: Elliott, Douglas
CC: Lugosi, Charles, Findlay, John, Kasozi, Joan

Quebec City, January 21, 2017.



Mr. R. Douglas Elliott
Cambridge LLP
333 Adelaide St. West
Suite 400
Toronto, ON
M5V 1R5
Direct: 647-430-5378
delliott (at sign) cambridgellp.com


	Re: Christopher Hudspeth et al. v. William Whatcott et al.
	Court File No.: CV-16-558424-00-CP
	Your File No.: 1602326

Good day Mr. R. Douglas Elliott,

I received your letter dated January 16, 2017.

I wanted to thank you kindly for your professionalism and courtesy,
and also wanted to ask you how exactly you propose to dispose of
the pending claims.



Yours very truly,

Stefan Jetchick
[Usual full contact information]

| Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves