WebProNews

Mr. Crookes (if you are reading this)

By going after people like Jon Newton, you are going after the wrong people.

All Jon has done is link to the information that you are suing Google and Wikipedia.

Posting links to this story, written by others, isn't libel, Mr. Crookes.

Did you ask Jon to remove the allegedly libelous content? It appears not.

Did you ask Jon to cease and desist to mention you? No, you did not.

Are you a public figure, Mr. Crookes? It would appear so.

Jon has exercised what is called the "neutral reporting privilege" to report on the fact that you are suing Google and Wikipedia, on a matter of public interest, pertaining to a public person.

By using the neutral reporting privilege to state that legal action is being taken about those allegedly defamatory statements isn't libel.

I think you are misusing and abusing the libel laws, Mr. Crookes. Jon didn't make the allegedly defamatory statements; at absolute worst, he has only reported the fact that they were made.

I am involved in an internet libel case myself in Canada, and I am being represented by Canada's best attorney in it. My claims are legitimate, as my case involves malicious false statments of fact willfully made with reckless disregard for the truth. I am aware that the neutral reporting privilege will no doubt be used to report the defamatory statements which the libeler originally published.

But I am not going to be so foolish as to sue the news media for reporting the facts of the case.

The libel laws exist to protect both public and private persons from being victims of defamatory and false statements of fact.

I have an interest in what happens here, as I fear your abuse of the Canadian defamation laws will erode the legitimate right of claim by victims of libel against those who intentionally act with recklessness and malice to destroy peoples' reputations.

Your actions threaten to invoke the creation of similar laws in Canada to that dirty and corrupt piece of legislation in the United States, the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230) which totally holds ISPs and web hosts completely immune for any wrongdoing.

If similar laws are enacted in Canada, it would mean negligent and reckless internet providers like Google would be held totally immune from the tortuous actions of abusive users - even when the provider is fully aware that the statements are defamatory; even when the provider is willfully negligent in taking action to prevent further distribution of the libel.

Unlike the filthy Google organization, Jon is not reckless in the way he runs his site, and he is responsive to complaints. Why didn't you ask Jon to remove the comments if you found them to be libelous before you served him? Wikipedia will also act to remove libel if you ask them; they do have a Biography of Living Persons team to examine such allegations.

Since the corrupt Google organization does neither, and it operates recklessly and negligently with complete disregard for not only the public, but its own policies, I'll make a deal with you, Mr. Crookes:

Drop the suit against Jon (who has no money), Michael Pilling, Wikipedia, and the other bloggers... and I will join in your suit against Google, where I have enough evidence of their recklessness and negligence to make the case financially rewarding to both of us.

What do you say?

Please reply initially on this board, and then I will telephone your office. But please don't take too long - my attorneys are preparing my own case against Google, and I am prepared to go it alone if necessary.

This isn't a troll; I am dead serious.