First let me say something about how Canadian law works in defamation cases. I will use hypothetical offers to settle.
Let’s say the plaintiff make the defendant an offer to settle for $100,000. If the defendant turns down the offer, loses the case and the plaintiff is awarded $101,000 in damages, the plaintiff can make a claim upon the defendant for 100% of his legal fees since the date of the offer.
If the defendant makes an offer to settle for $50,000, the plaintiff turns it down, the defendant still loses and the plaintiff is awarded $49,000 in damages, the defendant can make a claim on the plaintiff for his (the defendant’s) legal fees since the date of his offer.
If both parties make the above offers and the plaintiff is awarded damages that fall between the two offers, the plaintiff can still make a claim for his legal fees but the amount awarded would be much less than 100%.
Hence the case becomes a bluffing contest between the plaintiff and defendant: a cross between a poker game and a protection racket, having little to do with the law or justice. In Canada between 80 and 90 per cent of defamation cases are settled in this way.
For my particular case, there are 31 items in dispute and I only have to lose on one of them to lose the entire case; as of this writing, we have not settled..
Both sides have exchanged an affidavit of documents for Discovery. The Examinations for Discovery were set for August but have been delayed until the latter part of October owing to the bishop’s vacation among other things.
I had written to Justin Welby thinking he might be interested to know that a Canadian bishop is suing a parishioner; I suspect he didn’t see the letter, but I received a pleasant response from his Liaison Officer:
Dear Mr Jenkins
Thank you for your e-mail of 5 June 2013 to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the statement of claim that has been made against you by Bishop Michael Bird, which you sent for his information.
Thank you for taking the time to write in this way. I fear that because the Archbishop has no archiepiscopal jurisdiction in any Province other than his own, it would not be possible for him to intervene in any way in what must be a very difficult situation for you. Please, nevertheless, be assured of his prayers that this lawsuit will be resolved amicably.
With all best wishes.
Yes, a pleasant and professional response. Considering the situation, I’m not sure what else they could have responded. I HOPE that the Abp saw it, but you never know.
I do not know all the complexities and legalities of man’s law and legal systems, but I do believe in prayer, and it’s immeasurable power. I know there are many mighty prayers going out for you, for God’s help, and His comfort and confidence for you, His intervention and support, and for His justice to prevail, superseding man’s law, and the vindictive and vile works of Satan. Let all who read this cry out in prayer to our God, who loves us, who hears us, and will answer His children’s ardent prayers for justice, rest, and relief for David, and for all who are hurt and offended by the destroyers of His Church.
You are in our prayers every day, as are the prayers of many saints that are in your corner, and the Lord our God is gleaning and gathering them up, with His all His angels, and He will deliver you.
“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God; and the peace of God which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.” Phil.6-7
I daresay the bishop is enjoying his holiday the more for knowing that he is keeping you dangling in front of the court. What a pleasant man.
Continued prayers for you and your family David
Assuming that Ontario is similar to NS, Bird can sit on this for years [5 or 7 I think] after which it just disappears off the courts books. I doubt he spent a penny of his own cash; so unless you push for a summary judgement of your counter claim the man has purchased years of your silence: no more talk of knicker fetishes or other strange acts that his thin skinned ego cannot simply ignore or laugh off, like normal people
Bird’s brief bio tell us very little about the man himself; although married with children, he is silent on his sexual orientation; however, appears to be a strong supporter of the GLBT faction.
Like Ingham, he has acted to disenfranchise many decent Anglican folk, who have supported the church both financially and spiritually all their lives. All of his actions do not fit the profile of a Christian; never mind a so-called prince of the church.
As far as I can see, silence must be his goal, because any court that found in his favour over a few relatively harmless remarks would likely end up with litigation that would proceed to the highest courts in the land to defend free speech.
David Jenkins; every political cartoonist; all of us are entitled to our opinion.
Mine can be found at http://www.abbacanada.org/letter.html