Thursday March 12th, 2009
Jeffrey D. STEARMAN
2601 East Chapman Avenue, #114
Fullerton, California 92831 USA
Via: Fax 714-871-7806
Dear Mr. Jeffrey D. STEARMAN:
RE: Ms. Shirin NESHAT
On March 09th, 2009 you drafted a letter to me with “notice of cease and desist”. I would like to bring to your attention several key points:
You are not a judge to issue a court order to me to stop anything.
Even if you were a court, still you did not have a legal jurisdiction to impose anything upon me.
She is emotionally disturbed person due to her father's death, and every year she holds a memorial for her father. She did not have disclosure of her father's death.
She has mental and physical pain because of her insurance, and has nothing to do with me.
She was really crushed because of her divorce, and she told me and my mother everything. She was always in mental anguish because of her second divorce, and she felt like a failure in her life.
Her brother asked her to leave his home, as she began to feel more pressure in her life.
She had self-image problem. She felt that she was fat. So, I helped her to overcome her body image problem too.
I did my best to help her to overcome the above issues.
She has many problems and it is not my fault.
You mentioned that I cannot post materials on the website, weblogs, sending letters to her friends and so on, and assuming that I am doing them. According to
1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”1
2) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”2
Legal Case:
Superior Court. In case of Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc., Petitioner v. Louise Phaneuf Respondent. Date: February 21, 2002. The HON. John H. GOMERY, J.S.C. Canada Province of Québec, District of Montreal.
…
“[6] Petitioner's Motion for slander and for the respect of privacy seeks an injunctive order to compel Respondent to cease and refrain from "expressing anything, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, concerning, naming, involving or in respect of the Petitioner...its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, management and employees..." and specifically, to withdraw from her web-site "any declarations, allegations or references, concerning the Petitioner, its affiliates" etc. The Motion also asks the Court to condemn Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $100,000.00 for punitive and exemplary damages.
[7] The justification alleged for this massive assault upon Respondent's freedom of expression is the supposedly defamatory nature of the contents of Respondent's website, which, according to Petitioner, invades its privacy and damages its reputation. Petitioner also alleges that the privacy of its senior management is violated by the publication of their e-mail addresses on the web-site
[8] The Court is not seized with the merits of Petitioner's proceedings. The application now being made is for a safeguard order in accordance with article 766(4) C.C.P. which empowers the Court, at the time of presentation of a motion and before it has been heard, to "make all orders necessary to protect the rights of the parties for the time and on the conditions it determines."3
…...
[14]…"The other value to be balanced in a defamation action is the protection of the reputation of the individual. Although much has very properly been said and written about the importance of freedom of expression, little has been written of the importance of reputation. Yet, to most people, their good reputation is to be cherished above all. A good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society's laws. In order to undertake the balancing required by this case, something must be said about the value of reputation. Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former luster. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited."4
….
“[16] The same remarks apply to the respect to be given to private life, a value guaranteed in article 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms R.S.Q. C.C-12. The extent to which the right to privacy may limit the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed in article 3 of the Charter will vary according to the degree of privacy to which each person is entitled. Corporations have a lesser right to privacy than individuals. Furthermore it is far from apparent that publication of the email address of a corporate officer constitutes an invasion of the latter's privacy.
[17] Petitioner cites the decision in Investors Group Inc. v. Hudson (1999) R.J.Q. 599 (C.S.) in support of its application. The judgment rendered in that case is not a useful precedent, since the facts upon which it was based cannot be compared to the present circumstances, for two reasons. First of all, in the Hudson case the safeguard order followed a full hearing of the litigation between the parties and a careful reading of the judgment rendered, reported at J.E. 98-1329, reveals that most of Mr. Hudson's allegations about the treatment he had received at the hands of Investors Group Inc. were held to be unfounded. In other words, the defamatory nature of the statements published on his web-site had already been established. Secondly, the particulars of the statements is not known; possibly they were much more intemperate than those by Respondent in the present case.
[18] Respondent is defending herself in this matter without the assistance of an attorney. She says she does not have the means to engage counsel. This is unfortunate; she finds herself embroiled in litigation where the resources of her opponent are enormous, and its readiness to use all the means at its disposal to intimidate her and to contest her claims is evident. Furthermore, because she is not a member of the Bar, costs in her favor cannot be awarded.
[19] For These Reasons, Petitioner's application for a safeguard order is dismissed without costs.”5
Criminal Code of Canada:
“423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) with the intent to provoke a state of fear in
….
(c) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.
(2) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) consists of
(a) using violence against a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them or destroying or causing damage to the property of any of those persons;
(b) threatening to engage in conduct described in paragraph (a) in Canada or elsewhere;
(c) persistently or repeatedly following a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them, including following that person in a disorderly manner on a highway;
(d) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them; and
(e) besetting or watching the place where a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them resides, works, attends school, carries on business or happens to be.
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years. 2001, c. 32, s. 11.”6
Now I am going to file a complain against Mr. STEARMAN at Law Society of California for violation of my legal rights, as well as, United Nations. In addition, according to yahoo shneshat@aol.com sent me viruses, and it appeared that she stole data from me. Thus, I am not responsible nor accountable for anything to appear anywhere. Shirin NESHAT can play these legal tactics, and mind games with me, as long as, she wants. I already have spoken with Royal Canadian Mounted Police about her, as well as, her other associates.
Dear Mr. STEARMAN do not send me anymore plea letter, do whatever you want to do please, be a man of action, and not just empty words.
Thank you
Kind regards
C.C. Shirin NESHAT via e-mail: shneshat@aol.com
C.C. Shervin SHAHIAN via e-mail: shawnshervan@yahoo.com
C.C. Mehdi HAERI via e-mail: MEHDIHAER@YAHOO.COM
C.C. Korosh Arya via e-mail: irans_aryan_nation@yahoo.com
1 http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html July 17th, 2007
2 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#juridiques July 17th, 2007
3 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf July, 17th, 2007. PG 2
4 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf July 17th, 2007. PG 4-5
5 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf>July 17th, 2007
6 http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec423.1.html> August 03rd, 2007
You are not a judge to issue a court order to me to stop anything.
Even if you were a court, still you did not have a legal jurisdiction to impose anything upon me.
She is emotionally disturbed person due to her father's death, and every year she holds a memorial for her father. She did not have disclosure of her father's death.
She has mental and physical pain because of her insurance, and has nothing to do with me.
She was really crushed because of her divorce, and she told me and my mother everything. She was always in mental anguish because of her second divorce, and she felt like a failure in her life.
Her brother asked her to leave his home, as she began to feel more pressure in her life.
She had self-image problem. She felt that she was fat. So, I helped her to overcome her body image problem too.
I did my best to help her to overcome the above issues.
She has many problems and it is not my fault.
You mentioned that I cannot post materials on the website, weblogs, sending letters to her friends and so on, and assuming that I am doing them. According to
1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”1
2) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”2
Legal Case:
Superior Court. In case of Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc., Petitioner v. Louise Phaneuf Respondent. Date: February 21, 2002. The HON. John H. GOMERY, J.S.C. Canada Province of Québec, District of Montreal.
…
“[6] Petitioner's Motion for slander and for the respect of privacy seeks an injunctive order to compel Respondent to cease and refrain from "expressing anything, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, concerning, naming, involving or in respect of the Petitioner...its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, management and employees..." and specifically, to withdraw from her web-site "any declarations, allegations or references, concerning the Petitioner, its affiliates" etc. The Motion also asks the Court to condemn Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $100,000.00 for punitive and exemplary damages.
[7] The justification alleged for this massive assault upon Respondent's freedom of expression is the supposedly defamatory nature of the contents of Respondent's website, which, according to Petitioner, invades its privacy and damages its reputation. Petitioner also alleges that the privacy of its senior management is violated by the publication of their e-mail addresses on the web-site
[8] The Court is not seized with the merits of Petitioner's proceedings. The application now being made is for a safeguard order in accordance with article 766(4) C.C.P. which empowers the Court, at the time of presentation of a motion and before it has been heard, to "make all orders necessary to protect the rights of the parties for the time and on the conditions it determines."3
…...
[14]…"The other value to be balanced in a defamation action is the protection of the reputation of the individual. Although much has very properly been said and written about the importance of freedom of expression, little has been written of the importance of reputation. Yet, to most people, their good reputation is to be cherished above all. A good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. It is an attribute that must, just as much as freedom of expression, be protected by society's laws. In order to undertake the balancing required by this case, something must be said about the value of reputation. Democracy has always recognized and cherished the fundamental importance of an individual. That importance must, in turn, be based upon the good repute of a person. It is that good repute which enhances an individual's sense of worth and value. False allegations can so very quickly and completely destroy a good reputation. A reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its former luster. A democratic society, therefore, has an interest in ensuring that its members can enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited."4
….
“[16] The same remarks apply to the respect to be given to private life, a value guaranteed in article 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms R.S.Q. C.C-12. The extent to which the right to privacy may limit the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed in article 3 of the Charter will vary according to the degree of privacy to which each person is entitled. Corporations have a lesser right to privacy than individuals. Furthermore it is far from apparent that publication of the email address of a corporate officer constitutes an invasion of the latter's privacy.
[17] Petitioner cites the decision in Investors Group Inc. v. Hudson (1999) R.J.Q. 599 (C.S.) in support of its application. The judgment rendered in that case is not a useful precedent, since the facts upon which it was based cannot be compared to the present circumstances, for two reasons. First of all, in the Hudson case the safeguard order followed a full hearing of the litigation between the parties and a careful reading of the judgment rendered, reported at J.E. 98-1329, reveals that most of Mr. Hudson's allegations about the treatment he had received at the hands of Investors Group Inc. were held to be unfounded. In other words, the defamatory nature of the statements published on his web-site had already been established. Secondly, the particulars of the statements is not known; possibly they were much more intemperate than those by Respondent in the present case.
[18] Respondent is defending herself in this matter without the assistance of an attorney. She says she does not have the means to engage counsel. This is unfortunate; she finds herself embroiled in litigation where the resources of her opponent are enormous, and its readiness to use all the means at its disposal to intimidate her and to contest her claims is evident. Furthermore, because she is not a member of the Bar, costs in her favor cannot be awarded.
[19] For These Reasons, Petitioner's application for a safeguard order is dismissed without costs.”5
Criminal Code of Canada:
“423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) with the intent to provoke a state of fear in
….
(c) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.
(2) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) consists of
(a) using violence against a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them or destroying or causing damage to the property of any of those persons;
(b) threatening to engage in conduct described in paragraph (a) in Canada or elsewhere;
(c) persistently or repeatedly following a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them, including following that person in a disorderly manner on a highway;
(d) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them; and
(e) besetting or watching the place where a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them resides, works, attends school, carries on business or happens to be.
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years. 2001, c. 32, s. 11.”6
Now I am going to file a complain against Mr. STEARMAN at Law Society of California for violation of my legal rights, as well as, United Nations. In addition, according to yahoo shneshat@aol.com sent me viruses, and it appeared that she stole data from me. Thus, I am not responsible nor accountable for anything to appear anywhere. Shirin NESHAT can play these legal tactics, and mind games with me, as long as, she wants. I already have spoken with Royal Canadian Mounted Police about her, as well as, her other associates.
Dear Mr. STEARMAN do not send me anymore plea letter, do whatever you want to do please, be a man of action, and not just empty words.
Thank you
Kind regards
C.C. Shirin NESHAT via e-mail: shneshat@aol.com
C.C. Shervin SHAHIAN via e-mail: shawnshervan@yahoo.com
C.C. Mehdi HAERI via e-mail: MEHDIHAER@YAHOO.COM
C.C. Korosh Arya via e-mail: irans_aryan_nation@yahoo.com
1 http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html July 17th, 2007
2 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#juridiques July 17th, 2007
3 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf July, 17th, 2007. PG 2
4 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf July 17th, 2007. PG 4-5
5 http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2002/2002canlii37381/2002canlii37381.pdf>July 17th, 2007
6 http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec423.1.html> August 03rd, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment