Hannah Wallen from The Honey Badger Brigade, a men’s rights activist group, announced that the Honey Badgers did not come out on top in the suit against the Mary Sue and Calgary Expo in the way that they expected. The judge decided to side in favor of Mary Sue and Calgary Expo.
Over on the Honey Badger Brigade website, Wallen explained that on August 1st, 2018, the Provencial Civil Court of Alberta, Canada, ruled against the Honey Badger Brigade.
The case was based around the fact that the Calgary Expo wrongfully ejected them from the convention, and that the Mary Sue defamed them, and that Calgary Expo promoted the defamation. The legal ball got rolling way back in 2016, and after a lot of procrastination, they finally made it to the courts in late 2017. At the start of 2018, there was another update from Honey Badger’s Alison Tieman who noted that the Mary Sue was threatening a counter-suit, but things took a drastic turn when the judge made a decision in favor of Mary Sue and Calgary Expo.
In the latest update posted on August 2nd, 2018, Hannah Wallen wrote…
“Our opponents did not submit any evidence. They did not call any witnesses other than Shayne Henkelman, testifying on behalf of Calgary Expo. Their entire case was based on the testimony of one Calgary Expo employee who by that time was the only representative on the side of both defendants, who had both fired their lawyer.
“The Mary Sue didn’t even show up for court.
“Due to these facts, it came as even more of a surprise when the judge ruled against us on all four causes of action. This was further compounded when, in the course of stating his reasons for his ruling, the judge demonstrated that his decision was partly based on treating physical evidence which had been entered into the record, upon which he had ruled, as if it did not exist.”
The whole event was also covered as a breaking story by Mundane Matt over on YouTube, giving a rundown of the details of the case and how the judge opted not to view all of the physical evidence before coming to the verdict.
Apparently not only did the judge refuse to look at the evidence or take into consideration the full recording that the Honey Badgers attempted to submit, but the judge also decided to misinterpret actual facts, such as citing the FBI report on #GamerGate and claiming that it was a harassment campaign. Wallen wrote…
“His acceptance of our opponents’ arguments regarding Alison’s actions relies in part on considering the exhibitor agreement’s anti-harassment policy contractual. However, the policies the Expo ignored regarding its conflict-management procedures are also part of the exhibitor agreement. Therefore the judge’s reasoning indicated that upon signing that contract, Alison became fully obligated under it, including an obligation to follow all of the policies referenced in it, but not entitled to expect the company she’d agreed to do business with to be equally obligated to do the same.
“Additionally, his stated reasoning for why the Expo was not equally obligated included claims from the defendant’s arguments which were directly discredited by physical evidence, including the claim that the FBI had deemed gamergate a group that disseminates hate messages. Again, no physical evidence supporting that claim was submitted, while Alison had submitted physical evidence disproving it.”
For reference, the FBI report did not state that #GamerGate was a hate campaign as indicated by the judge. The opposite conclusion was made when the FBI couldn’t find actionable evidence that #GamerGate was a harassment campaign.
The post ends by stating that they aren’t sure if they want to post the transcript online, or attempt to appeal via the appellate court.
According to a post on Kotaku in Action from Honey Badger Radio’s Alison Tieman, the appeal process is still up in the air due to the fact that it’s been a financial and physical toll on the Honey Badgers, with Tieman mentioning that her husband has been dealing with heart disease from the stress.
Tieman notes that it could cost another $25,000 for council fees, legal work and the transcripts, and that the costs could go up with an appeal, writing…
“[…] the potential costs we’re facing if the judge awards costs only go up with an appeal.
“So I’d be putting my livelihood on the line and we could end up losing HBR entirely. That’s something we need time to think about.
“I said before that the decision was a toss up, now I’m pretty sure even an appeal-ate court wouldn’t find in our favour because we’re dealing with corruption. So I’d have to face an appeal knowing that at the end of the day we’re probably going to have to foot the defence’s bill as well.
“We’d only be doing it to reveal just how corrupt the Canadian courts have become. Apparently you only have rights if you stay on the media’s good side.”
They will likely take some time to survey the outcome and decide whether the costs are worth fighting against what looks like corruption in the Canadian court system.
(Thanks for the news tip GamesGoodMeGood)