[continued from previous message]

supporting an inference that the defamatory statements were published. The evidence of publication includes emails that Mr. MacAskill sent to Mr. van der Walle
and multiple third parties containing links to the blog posts themselves. There is also
an assertion in an email, which I find was clearly authored by Mr. MacAskill himself,
that the Gangsterism Out blog serves “6,000 eyeballs per day”. There is evidence
that one of Mr. MacAskill’s posts on some kind of internet message board had 216
views. There is a wealth of other evidence supporting an inference of publication, but
I do not need to outline all of it here. There is an overwhelming body of evidence
from which I readily infer that the posts authored by Mr. MacAskill were published on
the internet and read by many people.
(b) Possible Defences
[46] Depending on the context and the nature of the impugned statements, the potential defences to a claim of libel or defamation are: (i) justification, (ii) privilege or
qualified privilege, (iii) fair comment, and (iv) public interest qualified communication.
As noted, Mr. MacAskill’s response to civil claim does not clearly articulate a
particular defence to the defamation claim. That, together with the fact that Mr. MacAskill did not appear at the hearing of this summary trial application, makes
it difficult to ascertain which if any of the four defences described above have been
or could be invoked in this case. Certainly, the defendant has not presented any
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 16
evidence in support of any defence whatsoever. However, in theory, a defendant might be able to point to evidence within the plaintiff’s case to support a defence,
provided that evidence establishes the facts relied upon on a balance of probabilities. For the sake of completeness, I will briefly address each of the four
defences listed above and explain why they are not made out on the evidence before me.
[47] To succeed in a plea of justification, the defendant must establish on a balance of probabilities that the impugned statements are true or substantially true:
Grant at para. 33. The defendant is not required to prove the literal truth of every
word in the impugned statements, so long as the “gist of the sting or charge” is
proven to be true: Hudson at para. 141. The defence will not succeed if the overall
impression of a statement is false, even if some of the words contained in it are
literally true: Hudson at para. 141.
[48] The defendant’s initial blog posts allege that the personal plaintiff Mr. van der
Walle, among other things, has a history of involvement in “dodgy real estate projects”, “scam real estate projects”, and “securities scams”, and that he is currently
engaged in a “Ponzi scheme”, or “classic Ponzi securities fraud”. In subsequent blog
posts, Mr. MacAskill alleges that Canada Easy Invest’s real estate investment fund
is effectively insolvent, and that the current real estate development financed by the
fund is a sham, is about to have its development permit cancelled, and has no general contractor. I could go on but I will not. The defendant has not offered a shred
of evidence to prove any of these serious allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Nor is
there anything in the record before me that would establish the truth of
Mr. MacAskill’s allegations. Indeed, while not legally obligated to disprove the
allegations, the plaintiffs have presented evidence to show that the defendant’s
allegations are groundless and could not be true. On this record, there is simply no
basis for a defence of justification.
[49] The defence of privilege or qualified privilege applies where the impugned statements are shown to have been made on an occasion of privilege recognized in
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 17
law. In such cases, the privilege attaches to the occasion on which the statements
were made, and not to the statements themselves: Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 at para. 143, 1995 CanLII 59 [Hill]. In such circumstances, the
bona fides of the defendant are presumed, and the defendant is free to make statements that would otherwise qualify as defamatory. Even where it applies, the
privilege is not absolute, and it can be defeated where the dominant motive for publishing the statement is actual or express malice: Hill at para. 144. In this context,
malice has been interpreted broadly to include instances where the defendant speaks dishonestly or with reckless disregard for the truth: Hill at para. 145. Finally,
the privilege only applies to the communication of information that is reasonably
appropriate to the context in which the privilege arises: Hill at para. 147. [50] The defendant has not expressly pleaded privilege and has not identified any
particular occasion or context in which the impugned public statements could be protected by privilege. The one exception that could arise is the possibility of
privilege attaching to a complaint made to a regulatory body like the British Columbia
Securities Commission or the British Columbia Financial Services Authority. There
are several emails from Mr. MacAskill to these bodies. But even assuming those particular emails were protected by privilege, the privilege would not extend to the
blog posts themselves, which were posted on the internet and available to the world
at large. No privilege could ever be found to attach to the posts. Moreover, I find that
any claim of privilege that could possibly arise on the facts of this case is defeated
by proof of malice on the part of the defendant. The basis for my finding of malice is
addressed below and I adopt it here.
[51] To make out a defence of fair comment, the defendant must show that the comment in question: (a) was made on a matter of public interest, (b) was based on
fact, (c) is recognizable as comment as opposed to fact, and (d) meets the objective
test that a reasonable person might honestly express such a comment or opinion based on the proven facts. Even where this objective test is met, the defence will fail
where the plaintiff shows that the comment in question was actuated by express malice: WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 at para. 1; Hudson at para. 147. Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 18
[52] In the case before me, the bulk of the impugned assertions in the defendant’s
blog posts are expressed as facts, not comment. Moreover, none of the impugned assertions are things a reasonable person might express as a fair comment on the
proven facts. The vast majority of Mr. MacAskill’s statements are bald allegations of
impropriety unsupported by any facts whatsoever. To the extent that some of
Mr. MacAskill’s remarks are based on underlying facts, the stated facts do not
provide an objective basis for inferring fraud or dishonesty on the part of the plaintiffs
or their agents. For example, the fact that the original general contractor listed in a
development permit does not end up being the contractor who actually carries out
the construction is not proof that there is no contractor or that the construction
project is a sham or is about to collapse. It is certainly well within the range of
possibility that a general contractor who works with the developer at the permit stage
does not win the bid to do the contracting work. That does not mean there is no general contractor; it just means that a different contractor was selected to do the
work. I could give other examples of facts that Mr. MacAskill has misunderstood or
misinterpreted as proof of fraud. The point is, Mr. MacAskill, having initially cast
Mr. van der Walle and his company as fraudsters, subsequently seized upon any particular fact or event that he did not understand, and, without any effort to ascertain the truth, twisted that fact into a basis for advancing further allegations of
impropriety. Finally, once again I hold that any possible fair comment defence that
might have been raised by Mr. MacAskill could not be sustained in light of my finding
of malice, as explained below.
[53] To make out the defence of public interest qualified communication, the publication must relate to a matter of public interest, and the defendant must prove
that the publication was responsible in that the defendant was diligent in trying to
verify the allegations, having regard to all the relevant circumstances: Grant at
paras. 101, 105–106. In this case, assuming without deciding that Mr. MacAskill’s
blog posts qualify as relating to matters of public interest, the defence must fail due
to lack of proof of diligence. As I have noted above, many of the most serious allegations are simply baseless and the defendant has not offered any evidence or
proof of underlying facts to support them. And even with respect to the allegations
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 19
that appear to start with a kernel of information that might be true, as explained
above the defendant has twisted that kernel of information into an allegation of
impropriety without any effort to investigate or understand it. None of the relevant
factors listed in Grant at paras. 110 to 126 weigh in the defendant’s favour. [54] I conclude with a discussion of malice. Proof of malice will defeat any plea of
qualified privilege or fair comment. Malice has been defined to encompass not only
actual malicious intent or mala fides, but also instances where the defendant speaks
dishonestly or with reckless disregard for the truth: Hill at para. 145. In the case at
bar, I find that there is overwhelming evidence of actual malice, as well as dishonesty and reckless disregard for the truth.
[55] The proof of actual mala fides comes from Mr. MacAskill’s emails to Mr. van
der Walle and his counsel demanding money to “settle” the case. These emails were
not genuine offers to settle litigation, but rather explicit threats to run up legal costs
unless the plaintiffs paid Mr. MacAskill to take down the offensive posts. Basically,
Mr. MacAskill made baseless allegations of fraud and dishonesty and then demanded money to withdraw them and end the court case. Mr. MacAskill’s emails
to Mr. van der Walle are riddled with offensive language and personal insults. All of
that is the very essence of malicious intent. Many of Mr. MacAskill’s demands for
payment were made over the same time frame that he was continuing to update his blogs with further defamatory posts, thus colouring his entire course of conduct as
one driven by mala fides.
[56] The proof of dishonesty and reckless disregard for the truth comes from the
nature of the allegations, the absence of any factual basis to support them, and the
absence of any genuine much less objectively reasonable effort to vet or investigate
the allegations before making them public.
(c) Conclusion on Liability
[57] To sum all this up, I find that the plaintiffs have proven that the defendant
committed the tort of defamation by publishing blog posts and also by sending emails to third parties attaching links to the blog posts. In particular, I find that the
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 20
defendant defamed the plaintiffs in: (i) the original post on the Dr. Stoxxman blog, (ii)
the reproduction of that post on the Gangsterism Out blog, (iii) at least nine subsequent posts or updates on the Gangsterism Out blog, and (iv) a number of emails to third parties enclosing links to the Gangsterism Out blog. The posts were
published on the internet and I infer on all the admissible evidence that they were
read by many people, although I am unable to further quantify the extent of publication. None of the defences to a claim of defamation apply.
(d) Remedies
[58] With regard to the claim for general damages, I am mindful of the relevant factors discussed in Hudson at paras. 155–156. I agree with counsel for the plaintiffs
that Mr. MacAskill’s defamatory statements involved a direct attack on the honesty,
integrity, and core competencies of both Mr. van der Walle and Canada Easy Invest,
going to the core of their business, their stewardship of investor monies, and the
viability of both their real estate investment fund and their ongoing real estate
development project. I infer that there has been damage to the goodwill of both plaintiffs. The resulting harms, both financial and non-financial, are difficult to
quantify. Given the number of blog posts and the scope of Mr. MacAskill’s readership, based on his own statements, and the sensitivity of the market, I infer
that the damage has been significant. With regard to the range of damages, I refer to
Hudson at para. 186. In this particular case, I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to a
total of $150,000 in general damages. Of that, $75,000 will be payable to Mr. van
der Walle and $75,000 will be payable to Canada Easy Invest.
[59] I also find that aggravated damages are justified based on the finding that
Mr. MacAskill’s conduct was motivated by actual mala fides, and also a reckless
disregard for the truth. I would award $10,000, which once again I would allocate
equally between the two plaintiffs, meaning that $5,000 will be payable to Mr. van
der Walle and $5,000 will be payable to Canada Easy Invest.
[60] The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages. Punitive damages are available in
exceptional cases to punish the defendant. The court must consider whether Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 21
punitive damages are necessary after taking into account the potential punitive effects of the general damages and aggravated damages awards. Having awarded a total of $160,000 in general and aggravated damages, the question to be asked is
whether anything more is required. I certainly recognize that these are substantial
sums of money. However, there are two particular aspects of this case that require
me to give serious consideration to an award of punitive damages.
[61] The first is the fact that after the interim injunction was granted, Mr. MacAskill
did not cease his campaign against the plaintiffs. Indeed, he cited the injunction itself
in a blog post where he again accused Mr. van der Walle of running a Ponzi scheme
targeting seniors. He repeatedly violated the injunction by posting blog updates
making allegations against the plaintiff’s business interests, including its real estate
investment fund and the real estate development financed through that fund. I acknowledge that I am also dealing with a parallel contempt of court application.
Clearly I would be obliged to take into account any punitive damages award in deciding upon an appropriate disposition the contempt application, to avoid any concern about double punishment for the same conduct. Of course, the damage award can be based in facts proven on a balance of probabilities, whereas a higher
burden of proof will be applied in the contempt proceeding.
[62] The second important aspect of the case insofar as punitive damages are concerned is Mr. MacAskill’s obvious and transparent attempt to use the litigation
process as a means of pressuring or extorting the plaintiffs to pay him off to go
away. He asserted that he was impecunious and judgment proof, and that if the plaintiffs did not pay him off he would drive up the legal costs. I consider this to be
evidence of an abuse of process that warrants rebuke by the court.
[63] Even after taking into account the general and aggravated damages awards, I
find it necessary to award a further $30,000 in punitive damages to punish
Mr. MacAskill’s conduct and, one would hope, deter him from engaging in this kind
of manipulative, harmful, and socially destructive behaviour in the future. Again, I
would divide this amount equally between the two plaintiffs, meaning that $15,000
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 22
will be payable to Mr. van der Walle and $15,000 will be payable to Canada Easy Invest.
[64] To sum up, the defendant Mr. MacAskill is required to pay a total of $190,000
in damages as follows: (a) general damages of $75,000 to Mr. van der Walle and a
further $75,000 to Canada Easy Invest; (b) aggravated damages of $5,000 to
Mr. van der Walle and a further $5,000 to Canada Easy Invest; and (c) punitive damages of $15,000 to Mr. van der Walle and a further $15,000 to Canada Easy Invest.
[65] The plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction restraining Mr. MacAskill from
making further allegations against them, their counsel, or their agents in the future,
and compelling Mr. MacAskill to remove all of the defamatory blog posts which are
the subject of their current claim.
[66] Permanent injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that will only be made
in the clearest of cases, where the court is satisfied that the defendant is likely to
make further defamatory statements and there is a real possibility that the plaintiffs
would not be able to obtain compensation by way of damages for any such future statements: Hudson at para. 211, citing Newman v. Halstead, 2006 BCSC 65 at para. 298.
[67] I find that those criteria are made out in this case. Even after the interim
injunction was issued, Mr. MacAskill continued to post defamatory statements about
the plaintiffs and their activities. I consider it likely that he will continue to do so
unless a further order is made allowing for the possibility of other remedies, including
further contempt of court proceedings. Moreover, Mr. MacAskill has himself claimed
to be indigent and judgment proof such that the plaintiffs will never get “one red cent”
from him. Thus, while the damages award of $190,000 is warranted and important as a means of compensating the plaintiffs and deterring and punishing
Mr. MacAskill, it may well be a hollow victory for the plaintiffs. I therefore find this to
be an appropriate case for a permanent injunction, and I would grant such an order,
on the following terms:
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 23
(1) Mr. MacAskill is permanently restrained from publishing any accusatory
or disparaging allegations regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, reputation, or alleged improper behaviour of the plaintiffs, their counsel, and their agents
(“the Protected Parties”), in any forum whatsoever.
(2) Upon being presented with a copy of this Order, Mr. MacAskill is
required to forthwith remove all current or existing posts about the Protected Parties from the Gangsterism Out and the Dr. Stoxxman blogs.
(3) Mr. MacAskill is permanently restrained from contacting, directly or indirectly: (a) any known or purported business partners, investors, or clients of Canada Easy Invest or the Western Canada Monthly Income Fund, and (b)
any of the individuals listed in term 3(b) of Blok J.’s order dated 14 October
2021.
(4) Mr. MacAskill is only permitted to communicate with the plaintiffs in this action, Canada Easy Invest and Mr. van der Walle, via email through their counsel Mr. Patro, and any such communications will be limited to no more
than two emails per day, and must be devoid of any racist, sexist, or disparaging remarks, and must pertain only to the litigation in the current action or any related proceedings.
(5) An entered copy of this Order must be served on the defendant,
Mr. MacAskill, via email at [content redacted] within seven days of the Order being signed and entered with the court.
(2) The Contempt Application
[68] Contempt of court proceedings in civil cases are governed by Rule 22-8. This
Rule must be interpreted and applied in view of the common law discussing the court’s jurisdiction to punish for contempt. To quote the words of Mr. Justice
Chiasson in Larkin v. Glase, 2009 BCCA 321 at paras. 8–9 [Larkin]:
[8] Contempt of court is an issue between a party and the court. It is not concerned with the merits of the dispute between parties to litigation (Frith v.
Frith, 2008 BCCA 2 at para. 36, 47 R.F.L. (6th) 286). Although the issue is Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 24
pursued by the respondent, the court’s determination that Mr. Glase is in contempt only indirectly affects her interests. As was stated in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Paul Magder Furs Ltd. (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 46 at 53, 94 D.L.R. (4th) 748 (C.A.), a finding of contempt of court “transcends the dispute
between the parties; it is one that strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice ...”.
[9] A court’s ability to punish for contempt is at the core of its jurisdiction
(MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725, 130 D.L.R. (4th)
385). It is a jurisdiction that must be exercised strictissimi juris, that is, the
court must ensure no one is found to have transgressed without a full consideration of all the relevant information, including any explanations for the conduct of persons accused of violating court orders (Frith; Claggett v. Claggett (1945), 61 B.C.R. 238 (C.A.)).
[69] The case law also instructs that the power to punish for contempt is a “blunt
tool”, not to be invoked routinely: Hokhold v. Gerbrandt, 2016 BCCA 6 at para. 31.
The doctrine of strictissmi juris requires precision in pleadings, procedure, and
evidence: Bassett v. Magee, 2015 BCCA 422 [Bassett] at para. 35. The alleged contempt must be clearly identified and then proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence that meets trial standards of admissibility: Bassett at paras. 33–
34, applying Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands Partnership, 2003
BCCA 551 (Chambers) and Jackson v. Honey, 2009 BCCA 112 at para. 12.
[70] Mr. MacAskill did not attend court for the hearing of the contempt application.
The notice was properly served on him, he was aware of the hearing, and he chose
not to attend. As I explained above, Mr. MacAskill is not entitled to hold the plaintiffs
– or the Court – hostage by his refusal to participate. Still, applying the principle of
strictissimi juris discussed at para. 9 of Larkin, the court cannot make a definitive
finding of contempt before considering all of the information, including any possible
explanation that may be offered by the alleged contemnor. Rules 22-8(5) and (6) recognize this by setting up a two-step procedure to be followed in cases where the
alleged contemnor does not appear in response to a duly served contempt application. At the first stage, if the presiding judge is of the opinion that the person
may be in contempt, the judge may issue a warrant to have the person apprehended
and brought before the court. Once the person is apprehended and brought before the court, the court can deal with the application in a summary manner, or Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 25
alternatively can give further directions for the determination of the person’s guilt or
innocence.
[71] Applying those principles in the case at bar, the question at this stage of the
proceedings is whether I am satisfied that Mr. MacAskill “may be guilty of contempt”
as discussed in Rule 22-8(5). If the court is so satisfied, a warrant can be issued
compelling Mr. MacAskill to come before the court to answer to the allegation. [72] Based on the facts outlined above, and taking into account the strict rules of
admissibility and the heightened burden of proof governing contempt applications, I
am satisfied that Mr. MacAskill may be guilty of contempt by violating the terms of
the 26 March 2021 order prohibiting him from publishing any accusatory or disparaging allegations regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, reputation, or alleged
improper behaviour of the plaintiffs, their counsel, and their agents, in any forum
whatsoever.
[73] To be precise, the notice of application filed by the plaintiffs alleges 27
separate beaches of the 26 March 2021 order. I do not agree that all of these breaches have been proven. Keeping in mind the strict rules of admissibility of evidence, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I am satisfied
that there is a prima facie case for finding that Mr. MacAskill intentionally violated the
26 March 2021 order on six separate occasions, specifically, in posts on the Gangsterism Out blog dated (i) 20 May 2021, (ii)17 August 2021, (iii) 27 August 2021, (iv) 4 September 2021, (iv) 9 September 2021, and (vi) 22 September 2021. There are other aspects of Mr. MacAskill’s conduct that I found to constitute publication of defamatory statements for the purposes of civil liability in the summary
trial application. However, I am not prepared to make a finding that these additional
statements, consisting of additional blog posts and emails, are so demonstrably contrary to the 26 March 2021 order so as to constitute prima facie intentional violations of the order.
[74] On the basis of these findings, I would grant an order declaring that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case that Mr. MacAskill deliberately violated
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 26
the 26 March 2021 order on the six separate occasions mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.
[75] Counsel for the plaintiffs has explained that if the summary trial orders (which
include a permanent injunction), together with the preliminary finding of contempt are
enough to deter the defendant from any future defamatory or harassing conduct, then it would not be necessary to proceed with the second stage of the contempt process. Although I recognize that contempt is just as much a matter of concern for
the court as it is for the plaintiffs as private litigants, I accept that in the
circumstances of this case it may not be necessary to take the contempt of court
process any further, if the orders granted in this judgment are enough to bring Mr. MacAskill into compliance with the law.
[76] Accordingly, the order should include terms expressly stating that any application for a warrant under Rule 22-8(5) is adjourned generally, with the plaintiffs
having the right to bring the matter back before me on any date in the next 18 months, without notice to the defendant, for issuance of a warrant. (I reserve the
right, should the plaintiffs bring the matter back before me, to require that Mr.
MacAskill be given notice and an opportunity to appear before the court voluntarily,
before any warrant is ultimately issued). Finally, there should be a term in the order
providing that it is to be served on Mr. MacAskill via his email address, within seven
days of the order being signed and entered with the court.
(3) Costs
[77] The plaintiffs are entitled to costs for the entire action. They seek special
costs. The court is required to exercise restraint in awarding special costs. The
burden is on the party seeking special costs to identify exceptional circumstances
that would justify such an award: Westsea Construction Ltd. v. 0759553 B.C. Ltd.,
2013 BCSC 1352 [Westsea Construction] at para. 73(a)-(b).
[78] The plaintiffs cite two particularly significant features of the defendant’s
conduct in the course of the litigation itself. First, there is the complete lack of merit
in the defendant’s position, which included serious allegations of impropriety against
Canada Easy Investment Store Corporation v. MacAskill Page 27
the plaintiffs. Mr. MacAskill’s response to civil claim made unfounded allegations of
fraud and dishonesty against the plaintiffs. Mr. MacAskill did not make any effort to
prove the truth of these allegations in the course of the litigation. Advancing baseless allegations can constitute a form of reprehensible conduct justifying an
award of special costs as discussed in Galloway v. Barski, 2017 BCSC 719 at para. 42. Second, the defendant made express threats against the plaintiffs, promising to run up their legal fees if he did not get a “pay off”. This is an example of
a litigant trying to weaponize the court process and use it against the opposing party.
This constitutes reprehensible conduct as discussed in Westsea Construction at para. 73(d).
[79] On these facts, I agree with counsel for the plaintiffs that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an award of special costs, up to and including
the date of this judgment. The plaintiffs should be entitled to recover as much of their
legal costs as they can from the defendant, given his conduct in the course of the
litigation.
“Riley J.”

=============================================================
Never heard of the plaintiffs before but Stoxxman aka Ace Ventura aka Daryl MacAskill is a total moron and a chronic liar hope he ends up in jail for contempt of court. His only online friend is a old, feeble, chronically lying racist and nazi who
defends pedophiles and rapists. The successful plaintiffs should contact the domain servers who host his rubbish websites to get his content removed and if they don't then sue them.

in·di·gent
/ˈindəjənt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
poor; needy.
"a charity for the relief of indigent artists"
Similar:
poor
impecunious
destitute
penniless
impoverished
poverty-stricken
down and out
pauperized
without a penny to one's name
insolvent
ruined
needy
in need
in want
hard up
on the breadline
hard-pressed
deprived
disadvantaged
distressed
badly off
beggarly
beggared
on one's uppers
up against it
broke
flat broke
strapped (for cash)
without a brass farthing
without a bean
without a sou
as poor as a church mouse
on one's beam-ends
stony broke
skint
boracic (lint)
stone broke
without a red cent
on skid row
penurious
Opposite:
rich
noun
a needy person.

Ace Ventura aka Stoxxman aka Daryl Macaskill admitted he is this. To lazy to work he is.

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators/exempt-dealer-wins-defamation-suit-over-scurrilous-scam-claims/

https://twitter.com/darylmacaskil?lang=en He looks ugly, stupid and poor easily beaten into the emergency room.

User Actions
September 16, 2019 - 12:42 PM
499 Reads
Post# 30131708
RE:RE:Daryl Pants Pisser
GreatInfo wrote:
DarylPantsPee wrote:
The criminal spammer that lscfa is referring to below is named Daryl Grant Macaskill. What he does is blackmail companies into paying him so that he does "IR" services like spamming Stockhouse with his Penny Stocks Journal blog. When moral companies like
PKK tell him to take a hike, he spams and bashes them until they give in and pay up. He is a career criminal going back to 1995 for GST fraud:

https://gangstersout.com/daryl_macaskill.htm

But the funniest story about him comes at the hands of Stockhouse, who sued him for making hundreds of fake profiles a day. That includes a story where he pissed himself after he banged his head against the wall while being detained in mall jail for
shoplifting haha.

https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C:IVF-1936809&symbol=IVF&news_region=C

https://agoracom.com/ir/CopperFoxMetals/forums/discussion/topics/574017-new-post-on-cuu-vette350/messages/1802122
Stockhouse Publishing Ltd. has filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking an injunction against a user who has been creating an excessive number of new accounts, sometimes at the rate of 184 per day. The suit complains that the user,
identified as Vancouver resident Daryl MacAskill, has become a substantial drain on time and resources. Stockhouse is asking for a court order that would bar him from creating or using accounts on its website.


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)