Who says Anti Semite?

OF THE TWO PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED ME,

ONE OF THEM WAS HARPER HIMSELF

twitter-people-who-follow-rjjago

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see what happened

Its too bad Canada has no REAL JOURNALISTS !!!

7 thoughts on “Who says Anti Semite?

  1. I did a trace in the days that followed and found the above

    Robert Jago the blogger was merely a pawn and just doing an Oda for harpercrite

    The greens had cleared me 18 months before for the same quote and even 24 HOUR NEWS Shaun Holman confirmed it in a published story

    But that day with its first MP coming down …yes wilson the disgraced liberal….elley may would have thrown her own daughter under a train if it was to spoil her first MP day !!!

    I proved in BC Supreme Court that she LIBELED ME TWICE since

    And I will run AGAINST HER IN SGI BC

  2. Ps

    This is what happened the day after I said I would run against Elizabeth May in the Election

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43rCNlBNnGA

    She went to police and filed a FALSE POLICE REPORT ..one saying I THREATENED HER LIFE

    HAD IT BEEN ME POLICE SAID I WOULD BE IN JAIL

    I have all the police investigations also ON TAPE by the way as I complained all the way to Ottawa and as expected harpers camp would not let anyone do a thing about it

    After all cannabis users like me are his plan for profitability in our new bloated jails @$109,000 a year providing scummy conservatives well paying jobs

  3. (sent to media nov 9 2011)

    SHAVLUK ….LIBELED AND ABUSED
    THE LIAR………
    ELIZABETH MAY…….. MP/LAWYER….GETS AWAY WITH THAT AND MORE

    From the BC Supreme Court case of January 2010

    (link)
    http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc804/2010bcsc804.html

    Summary

    In the result,
    I have concluded that statements in both the press release and the September 16, 2008 conference call interview
    defamed Mr. Shavluk,
    were not justified on the evidence before me,
    and were not fair comment.
    However, I have concluded that the occasion of their publication was one of qualified privilege and that there was no evidence of malice. Further, I have held that the defendants have established the necessary elements of the defence of responsible communication.
    Neither branch of the tort of conspiracy has been made out.
    Accordingly, the action is dismissed with costs to the defendants.

    Now go see the Green Party official web Page with a press release

    http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2010-06-09/green-party-canada-has-succeeded-its-case-reject

    9 June 2010 – 2:58pm

    OTTAWA — The Green Party of Canada today received complete vindication in a case alleging defamation brought against the party, the Green Party of Canada Fund and leader Elizabeth May personally by a one-time candidate. The potential candidate was removed by leader Elizabeth May due to comments the former candidate had made on a blog site years before involvement with the Green Party. The comments referred to the 9-11 attacks in New York City as involving “shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters.” In removing him as a candidate, the party explained that the comments were anti-Semitic and unacceptable to the party.The Honourable Madam Justice Ross issued her decision today finding for the Green Party and Elizabeth May.

    The court ruled that, while there was defamation in the use of the term anti-Semitic, it was justified under the circumstances in our favour on qualified privilege and responsible communication.

    The judge ruled that there was no malice and agreed that the GPC had an obligation to tell the public that it did not condone anti-Semitism.

    “It was worth this long and expensive court proceeding to be able to contribute to the on-going struggle against anti-Semitism in Canada,” said Elizabeth May. “You need to stand up for what you believe in and I am proud that the Green Party held firm.”
    The case, brought by a former Green Party candidate John Shavluk, was heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia between January 4-12, 2010.

    Then as she (May) testified to at trial that no press release ever goes out without Elizabeth May’s own personal approval we go to her page.

    http://www.elizabethmay.ca/press-release/green-party-of-canada-has-succeeded-in-its-case-to-reject-anti-semitic-comments/

    PRESS RELEASE
    For Immediate Release
    June 9, 2010

    OTTAWA — The Green Party of Canada today received complete vindication in a case alleging defamation brought against the party, the Green Party of Canada Fund and leader Elizabeth May personally by a one-time candidate. The potential candidate was removed by leader Elizabeth May due to comments the former candidate had made on a blog site years before involvement with the Green Party. The comments referred to the 9-11 attacks in New York City as involving “shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters.” In removing him as a candidate, the party explained that the comments were anti-Semitic and unacceptable to the party.

    The Honourable Madam Justice Ross issued her decision today finding for the Green Party and Elizabeth May.

    The court ruled that, while there was defamation in the use of the term anti-Semitic, it was justified under the circumstances and fell in the category of fair comment.

    The judge ruled that there was no malice and agreed that the Green Party of Canada had an obligation to tell the public that it did not condone anti-Semitism.

    “It was worth this long and expensive court proceeding to be able to contribute to the on-going struggle against anti-Semitism in Canada,” said Elizabeth May. “You need to stand up for what you believe in and I am proud that the Green Party held firm.”
    The case, brought by a former Green Party candidate John Shavluk, was heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia between January 4-12, 2010.

    The two Paragraphs are quite different

    AND IT IS ON PURPOSE AND MALICIOUS

    # 1 The court ruled that, while there was defamation in the use of the term anti-Semitic, it was justified under the circumstances in our favour on qualified privilege and responsible communication.

    # 2 The court ruled that, while there was defamation in the use of the term anti-Semitic, it was justified under the circumstances and fell in the category of fair comment.

    THE ABOVE IS A BOLD FACED LIE !!!

    She is a Canadian MP and a lawyer…she certainly knows what “”Fair Comment” means !!

    Not one reporter has so far exposed her for what she is yet my You tube video was send to many

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLAiidO-cc

    I am disgusted and will never stop trying to re-clear my previously very good name

    I am asking for help here please??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=869rTEswFEI

    LAST VIDEO WITH EVEN NATIONAL REPORTERS …KEVIN LIBIN AND ROB MICKLEBURGH
    (national post and globe and mail)

    PLEASE JUST LOOK FOR YOUR SELF IF NEED BE ….PLEASE ?

    john shavluk
    9350 A Alaska Way
    Delta, BC
    V4C4R8

    604- 930- 5059

Leave a Reply