The second article, in particular, covers nothing but the indisputable facts surrounding Atas’s arrest. That refers to the Times articles, which are factual and offer factual basis for allegations made in them. What’s alleged here is nowhere near actionable under US law.Įven if Plaintiff is able to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction to consider this action, however, her factual allegations do not suggest that she would have viable claims against any defendant named in the amended complaint. That being said, the court says there’s no case to be considered. Most importantly, there are no US plaintiffs, which makes it all but impossible for the court to consider the case. The 73 defendants hail from the US, UK, and Canada. The court says that, first of all, it does not have jurisdiction. She seeks to hold 73 named defendants and several Jane and John Does liable for the alleged defamation, including (1) the Times and entities and individuals associated with the Times − such as The Daily and its host the Times’s executive and business editors and Hill and her husband (2) the alleged victims mentioned in the two articles (3) individuals, entities, lawyers, and law firms who were involved in the defamation cases and other litigation in the Canadian courts to which Plaintiff was a party (4) the relatives, colleagues, employers, and other entities associated with those whom Plaintiff perceives as enemies. The order also directs Plaintiff to provide a copy of the order to any court, regulatory body, or tribunal where she seeks to commence any type of action or proceeding.ĭefinitely not helpful, especially when suing over the contents of a well-researched investigation and factual reporting about your arrest. The order declares that Plaintiff is a “vexatious litigant,” who has “persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner in the Courts of Ontario,” and prohibits Plaintiff from instituting or continuing any action or proceeding in Ontario without first obtaining leave. Corbett of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice. Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a January 3, 2018, order issued by Justice David L. A footnote appended to the third page of the opinion shows how Atas’ Canadian litigation history works against her pretty much anywhere else she files a lawsuit.
And, as the opinion shows, Atas did very little to help her case survive both its jurisdictional challenges (her being Canadian and the entities she sued being from all over the world) and her own litigation history. Unsurprisingly, the shotgun litigation (there are 72 other defendants beyond the New York Times) has been found meritless. That lawsuit has been dismissed, as the Volokh Conspiracy reports. Most of the charges were ultimately dropped but Atas was ordered to cease her online harassment of her many victims.Ītas responded as only someone who has decided the internet is an instrument for (extremely misguided) retribution can: she sued the New York Times over both articles, focusing on the one that reported her arrest.
The New York Times investigation culminated in Atas’s arrest on charges of harassment, defamatory libel, and spreading false information with the intent to alarm. This included a reported assault as well as reports of extremely erratic behavior. For whatever reason, Atas also targeted a Nova Scotia historian, branding him as a pedophile and “pervert freak,” making it difficult for him to obtain a research position.Ītas also allegedly harassed Toronto residents who had the misfortune of sharing a building with her. This was followed by a wave of online defamation and harassment that targeted multiple members of Babcock’s immediate and extended family, accusing them of pedophilia, child molestation, fraud, and theft.Ītas had also waged on online smear campaign against a Canadian lawyer who worked for a bank that had foreclosed on two properties owned by Atas. The inflection point appeared to be the firing of Atas from a realty agency owned by UK resident Guy Babcock’s family. The perpetrator was Toronto resident Nadire Atas, who engaged in a one-woman war against everyone she felt had ever slighted her. Last January, Kashmir Hill published an investigation that uncovered the source of serial, widespread online defamation.
It’s not pretty but at least the denouement is wholly justified. This kind of hubris can only be explained by massive self-delusion.
0 kommentar(er)
