The Battles

PASSWORD ON AND OFF,  etc.  TIMELINE 

2013

November 29     Facebook message from Tonia Zimmerman drawing to attention inappropriate use of Green Party social media by Ashu Solo

December 4      Gormley tells Ashu that he will take Ashu’s record to the airwaves if he doesn’t stop what he is doing to the young women.    (I did not learn of John Gormley’s involvement on behalf of Tonia Zimmerman and two other young women until after the December 28 Airport incident.)

Decemer 8     I submitted the Zimmerman complaint to the Green Parties of Canada (GPC) and Saskatchewan (GPS).  (Ethics Committee in Ottawa for arms’ length resolution.)

December 10    Ashu commenced assault on me:  I should believe him and take his word, not believe her.  He doesn’t stop.    I was busy (recent move, etc.) and increasingly worried I would need a reliable record re Ashu in future.  The record would be lost in large volume of emails.

PASSWORD ON, FROM THE BEGINNING:

December 18   I arrived in Saskatoon for Christmas holidays, met with a Green person to review prospects for stopping the bombardment of myself and others.  Prudence dictated I use the holidays to start finding, organizing and posting Ashu’s communications (under password protection on my blog, buried with meaningless titles under category X1A).

December 28   Returning to BC.   The Ashu Airport incident.   Rattled.   At home, immediately resumed posting of his accumulated emails.  Big job.

December 29   Receive helpful bombshell:  copy of John Gormley’s email thread with Ashu from Dec 4th.

2014

January  9:    Documented and submitted the Airport incident (complaint) to the GPC and GPS for potential use if Ashu should try to take out a membership.  (He wanted to run as a GPC or GPS candidate.  He needed membership in order to do so.)

February:  I stopped posting Ashu’s  current productions which were worsening from my perspective but also repetitive.    I determined to post material that had been collected in summer 2013 as part of the vetting of a person who wants to be a candidate for the GPC (Ashu).  Every time he made another attack  I posted more material from what had been collected, summer 2013.

May – June:   Ashu submitted 10 complaints against me with the GPC, with a call to revoke my membership.

PASSWORD REMOVED JUNE 20, 2014:

June 20    I removed the password so that the members of the Ethics Committee and Ashu could see the information I would use to defend myself against Ashu’s complaints.

   See   could I not have just given out the password, instead of taking the password off?

July 28    I finally filed complaint with the RCMP (Parksville).   (Complaints have to be laid through your local policing body.)  Ashu was harassing not only me, but GPC officials and people from both Ottawa and Saskatoon with his streams of accusatory and bullying emails.   The complaint was forwarded to Saskatoon Police.   Parksville RCMP file #2014-6259,  Constable Gueulette.

See Dec 7, 2016:  I re-contacted Parksville RCMP after Saskatoon Police could not find any record of my complaint.   Initially, neither could the Parksville RCMP.  Fortunately, the woman noticed:  I was in the system twice under different dates-of-birth and middle name.  She found the complaint and was going to arrange for correction of records.

The Parksville file (July 2014)  says, “Saskatoon Police already investigating, (Saskatoon) file # 2014-64476”.

July 29     GPC Ombudsperson reply  (my membership in the GPC was not revoked, as Ashu claims.  He also claims that the GPS cancelled my membership;  in fact, because I live in BC I am not eligible for membership in the GPS and my membership was never cancelled.).

From: Ombuds Chair [mailto:ombuds.chair@greenparty.ca] Sent: July 29, 2014 3:17 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject:  Re: Ashu SOlo, Ombuds Report

Thank you, Sandra, for helping to clarify the chain of events.  With only an enormous series of different but often repetitive emails, it was not always easy to pin-point time frames.   . . .

See  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=17268 which contains my “clarification of the chain of events”  and includes illustration of how Ashu makes cause-and-effect argument by twisting dates around.

Ashu went after my blog hosting service and domain name registrar in efforts to take down my blog.  He used his usual tactics against them.

2015

January 16, 2015   Daniel Reid, Harper-Grey, Vancouver. (BC-based Domain Name Registrar required relief from Ashu’s attacks on them. I employed a BC-based lawyer.)

In January  Ashu’s lawyer, Tyler Dahl in Saskatoon, sent allegations of defamation.

My lawyer, Daniel Reid in Vancouver, spoke with Tyler  explaining the deficiencies;  legal requirement for specific examples of defamation, etc.

See:   Repeated Requests:  please specify what is defamatory.    

It took until September 08 to obtain the specifics from the Plaintiff.  Without it a Statement of Defence could not be filed.

See:  above URL for details along the time-line for this period.

PASSWORDS RE-INSTATED,  MAY 7 – 8

I re-instated password protection on the X1 and X1A postings as an act of good faith working within the Justice system,  in spite of the actions of the Plaintiff.

May 7    My lawyer to Tyler:   Excerpt

Given that this matter is presently before the Courts, . . . Ms. Finley has instructed me to advise you she is prepared to make her blog “password protected” so that the alleged lead defamatory statements your client takes issue with are not public.

She has instructed me to advise she will place password protection on the material on her blog until June 15, 2015, in anticipation of receiving an amended statement of claim that properly sets out the statements that are allegedly defamatory or comprise a violation of your client’s privacy.  . . .  

(Ashu can’t use the threat of legal action to coerce me into taking down blogged information in which there is no defamation and no privacy issue.   We have a Charter Right to Freedom of Speech,  journalists in particular.)

June 18   My lawyer to Plaintiff’s lawyer:   Excerpt

I write further to my letter of May 7, 2015, in which I set out my position that the notice of civil claim provided to my office failed to particularize the statements your client alleges are defamatory or are in breach of his privacy, and was therefore deficient.

 . . .   As you may be aware, following my letter, the entire blog was made password protected and no longer generally available. 

. . .  Despite the additional time, the deadline of June 15, 2015 has passed.  I remain at a loss as to what specific passages of the blog Mr. Solo alleges are defamatory or in breach of his privacy.  . . . 

June 24     Tyler submitted an amended Statement of Claim.

The password protection has remained in place since May 7 or 8.

Followed by costly time-wasters.

CHANGE LEGAL COUNSEL:  Continuing with Daniel would have required him to take out Sask license, and I would have potential travel costs to add to legal bills.   SO ….

July 22, 2015   Grant Scharfstein, Saskatoon, junior lawyer Samuel Edmondson  take over representation of me.

2016

October 24    Self-Representation.   I had advised Counsel I would self-represent beginning with Mediation. Legal bills now totalled about $25,000 and we had not even started Mediation.   (It is customary in blog service that clients cover legal costs that might occur in relation to blog.)

November 22   Finally, the Mandatory Mediation is conducted.  Information about what happened is confidential under the law.   But there are provisions for dealing with parties who act in abusive or oppressive ways.

November 28      I proposed Expedited process to Plaintiff’s Counsel, to get the matter to Court and resolved.

From: Sandra Finley  Sent: November 28, 2016 2:08 PM To: tdahl@cuelenaere.com Subject: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Hello Tyler,

The Dispute Resolution Office has submitted its certificate to the Court; the way is clear to move forward to the next step

I propose that the Expedited procedures for claims under $100,000.00 set out in the “New Rules”, July 2013, would be appropriate.

The pre-trial Questioning (formerly Examination for Discovery) and Pre-trial Conference with a judge can be skipped.

I wish to proceed directly to trial, under the Expedited procedures.

Please confirm that your client wishes to do the same.  . . .

November 28   I went into the Saskatoon Police Office and requested confirmation that my July 2014 complaint against the Plaintiff is on file.  I waited for at least half an hour while the woman searched.  She concluded they had no complaint from me.    Nor could the Parksville RCMP find the complaint, until . . .  See December 7th.

November  29      Proposal for Expedited procedure rejected by Plaintiff  

From: Tyler Dahl [mailto:tdahl@cuelenaere.com] Sent: November 29, 2016 10:33 AM To: sabest1@sasktel.net Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. NEXT STEP

Hi Sandra,

Thank you for your email. I spoke with my client about your proposal, regarding going forward under the rules for expedited proceedings. It is our position that it would be inappropriate for this matter to proceed expeditiously, for the following reasons:

1. This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00;
2. The parties will benefit from examinations for discovery, as the factual circumstances are largely in dispute between the Plaintiff and both Defendants; and
3. The parties will benefit from hearing from a Judge at a pre-trial conference, with respect to the trial’s possible outcomes and the strengths and weaknesses of their case/defence, which may increase the likelihood of resolving the matter without the need for a trial.      . . .  

November  29      I accepted (and later rejected, see Dec 6) the Plaintiff’s position

I started reading Court of Queen’s Bench Rules.

Hmm . . . there are Rules that seem to cover exactly what I need.

I drafted a Notice of Application to Court for Expedited procedure: appn-qb-1-notice-of-appn-request-expedited-procedure

(contains confidential information from Mediation.)

December 6    I rescinded acceptance of Plaintiff’s rejection of Expedited procedure and advised I am submitting documents to the Court requesting to go directly to Trial.

From: Sandra Finley  Sent: December 6, 2016 11:42 AM To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

Hi Tyler,

I rescind the agreement I communicated to you on November 29th:   We will proceed as you and your client wish – – to Questioning and pre-trial conference.

It was made in a state of ignorance.

Under the circumstances I seek to go directly to trial.   I see where the Rules provide for protection against more of the abusive, oppressive and improper behavior exhibited by the Plaintiff at Mediation (5-3-1).

There is also provision for information from Mediation that would is confidential under normal circumstances (5-4-2).

Today, I spoke with the Court of Queen’s Bench, Deputy Registrar.   It is agreed that I will send the Notice of Application for remedy (straight to trial) with any references to information from Mediation in a sealed, marked envelope.

I will get the documents to the Court as soon as possible.

Thanks Tyler,

Sandra Finley

December 7    I called Parksville RCMP ((250) 248-6111)  to find out what happened to the Complaint about the Plaintiff I submitted in July 2014.   See July 28, 2014 for Police file numbers and the outcome – there were two files under my name, the one with the Complaint had wrong birth-date and middle name.

December 7    Plaintiff’s Counsel writes:  application has no hope of succeeding

From: Tyler Dahl  Sent: December 7, 2016 10:42 AM To: Sandra Finley  Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

Hello Ms. Finley,

Thank you for your email.

I strongly recommend that you seek legal counsel with respect to your desire to expedite the trial process. Your email mentions bringing a court application under Part 5 of the Queen’s Bench Rules. However, Part 5 is concerned with the disclosure of information stage of the proceedings and not with expediting matters.

In particular, Rule 5-4(2), which you mention, has no application to the privileged communications that took place in mediation; rather, it applies to the information and documents referred to in Rule 5-4(3), none of which have been produced in this case.

So too, Rule 5-3(1), which you mention, applies to modifying or waiving a right or power with respect to the disclosure of information. It is my opinion that this case requires the disclosure of information and documentation in order for all parties to identify what is in dispute and what evidence is available about the dispute.

Accordingly, my client will vigorously oppose the application that you described in your email. We suggest that you refrain from making unnecessary applications that lack merit. Otherwise, my client and Loose Foot Computing will be put to unnecessary expense, which will undoubtedly result in costs being awarded against you. Furthermore, since your application has no hope of succeeding, we will serve a formal offer in response to any such application, in order to be awarded double costs.

Govern yourself accordingly,

Tyler M. Dahl, B.A., J.D.

December 7    I seek opinion from a lawyer.   See   Private: Ashu Solo. Engage lawyer Sean. Draft application, Expedited procedures.

December 10     To  Plaintiff’s Counsel

From: Sandra Finley Sent: December 10, 2016 11:53 AM To: ‘Tyler Dahl’ Subject: RE: Solo v. Finley, QB 500 of 2015. CHANGE

 

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for your email of Dec 7.

By next week I expect to respond more fully with an alternate proposal to my Dec 6 email to you.

My thinking:

• A role of the Justice system is to help achieve “Peace, order, and good governance”.
• The rule-makers would not construct Rules that have no application.  I just have to figure out how the Rule, procedurally, is brought to bear.

5-3(1) The Court may modify or waive any right or power pursuant to a rule in this Part or make any order warranted in the circumstances if:

a person acts . . .  in a manner that is vexatious, evasive, abusive, oppressive, improper or tediously lengthy; 

• I respect the intelligence of your client.  His actions on November 22 (Mediation) were effective.  Numerous times he has claimed knowledge of the law (I can provide those statements).  But you don’t actually need to be conversant with the intricacies to know that if you do what he did,  the Mediation would be drawn to a close, which is exactly what happened.
• My turn to speak was taken away because of actions specifically described in 5-3(1).   You will of course know that under the Constitution Act, Section 2,  I have the Right to express myself.   Where could that be more critical than in legal proceedings?
• Why would the Plaintiff risk doing what he did when there were witnesses in the room?   Do the cost-benefit-risk analysis.   The cost:  5 credible witnesses observe you in action.  The benefit:  the defendant is prevented from being heard.   The risk:  little, because what is said in Mediation is inaccessible at Trial.    But again,  rule-makers do not construct Rules that have no application.   The (confidential) information must be sealed in a form satisfactory to the local registrar or a judge when filed, 

Since my proposed  application has no hope of succeeding  – – (your words, thank-you)   – –   I have been reading more to understand an alternate way in which the intention of the Law and Rules can be achieved.

It is obviously not the intention that persons can use abusive, oppressive actions and knowledge of how the system works to silence the testimony of others.

Best wishes,

Sandra

 

 

From my perspective,  an overview of communications and events shows that the Plaintiff thought he could

• cyberbully young women and others
• instill fear in people, going as far as trying to get a woman fired from her job
• use the Police to intimidate people
• trample the rights of others
• use the cost of the justice system as a weapon of intimidation and coercion
• use the justice system for extortion  (original Offer to Settle with LFC for $4,900  and  offer to settle with me for $39,000.   The way he gets to $100,000  (See Nov 29) (would be to extort $25,000 from LFC to settle and more than $50,000 from me,  add to that his legal bills to arrive at This claim could easily exceed $100,000.00; ) and
• get away with it all.

His main focus now (December 4, 2016), as I see it,  is to prevent the case from proceeding to trial at which point the proceedings are open to the media and to the public.  He needs to elevate the level of fear and expense so that the co-defendants capitulate.   He needs the password protection in place until the blog pages come down.

He has acted on the belief that there is no vehicle through which fellow citizens can hold him responsible for his actions.  People will not stand up to him, a combination of cost and fear.

PASSWORDS OFF   

2022-12-12   In preparation for Court of King’s Bench Hearings in Saskatoon, tomorrow (Dec 13th)

Question:  In June 2014 with the investigation of Ashu’s complaints against me to the Green Party of  Canada about to commence,  could I not have just given out the password, instead of taking the password off?

There are two facets to the answer.  Both say “No.”:

1.   By my observation of Ashu’s interactions with other people he is fuelled by conflict and engagement.

My strategy for dealing with him from day 1 in early December 2013 is to do my job, but never engage with him in any way.

My job was to forward the complaint against him to the Federal Office of the GPC for 3rd party, independent, arms’ length resolution by the Ethics Committee.   I did that.

Since I forwarded the complaint, as I would have done with any such complaint, Ashu has never received any kind of communication from me,  with the exception of when he appeared at the Saskatoon Airport at 6:00AM when my daughter and I were standing in line to board a flight.  I responded verbally to his verbal attacks on me.  A westJet attendant stepped in and started to call Security at which time Ashu hastily left the terminal.   That is the only time I have communicated with him;  my replies were honest, non-aggressive and bewildered.

I have never varied from the strategy to refuse to engage.  The soundness of that approach was reinforced by the Parksville RCMP when I was questioned by them.

I was not about to send an email to Ashu with the password;  that would have invited a renewed onslaught directly at me.  It was bad enough what he was doing to others;  I did not need more to deal with.

IN ADDITION to this,

2.   The question “Could I not have just provided the password, instead of removing it?”  makes pre-suppositions that are not valid.

The most significant pre-supposition is that removal of the password would actually put Ashu’s safety or that of his family at risk.

I invite you to look on my blog and find the postings related to  Ashu.  They are buried in the back rooms of my blog, very difficult to find.  (Categories X1A and X1B).

Ashu claims that anyone doing a search on his name would find them.  The information that would allegedly place him and his family at risk is related to his name changes.

People who are under attack by Ashu have the same question: “Who is this guy?”.   They do an internet search on his name.  Everyone I know who has done a search on Ashu’s name before and after me has come upon information published by Vital Statistics of Saskatchewan:  Ashu changed his name twice in the period around 1999.  His original surname is Gupta.

Ashu makes it known that his father is a professor of engineering at the U of S;  if Ashu did not himself tell you,  people would search “Ashu Solo plus Gupta”.  They will find the same information on the U of S website, as I did.   They would find the family information on the University of Saskatchewan website long before they’d find it in the back rooms of my blog .