July 10/2024 Jeff Buziak has something to say to Shirley Zailo & her lawyer Michael Scherr.
A 2-year senseless legal case spurred on by Shirley Zailo in an attempt to destroy Lindsay’s father. Where will it all end? Her acclaimed media lawyer by her side every step of the way. Shut the bastard up was their goal, and for a while they succeeded. Jeff’s silence wasn’t enough to satisfy Shirley though because she would rather see him dead. Then her and Scherr got wind that Jeff had a serious heart condition and was awaiting major surgery. Rather than step on the brakes, they stepped on the gas pedal and ramped up their attack. Their reasoning is simple. A dead man keeps his mouth shut.
Not only has Shirley Zailo spent the last 2 1/2 years looking to destroy Jeff Buziak
she has done everything in her power to take down two other people, whom she claims slandered her name on social media. There is no evidence to support any of this. Why is it that hundreds of written comments about Shirley and her family continue on throughout multiple social media sites these last few years?
Even though the Saanich Police cleared the entire Zailo family of having any involvement in Lindsay’s murder in 2010, the public has never bought into what the police were selling. The suspicions continue on, evidenced by thousands of posts out there still pointing the fingers at two members of the Zailo family. Just take a look at U-Tube, Reddit and so many more. It’s just never stopped. Why doesn’t Shirley go after all of those people.
How does the mighty media lawyer Michael Scherr choose his prey?
Well, Shirley Zailo selected the chosen ones for Scherr to take to slaughter, then Scherr who has been making hundreds of thousands of dollars on this case alone, goes to work. Look at the smug smile on his face, looks like he has his pockets lined with cash, but most likely he’s kept the bulk of his d money in the bank. It is clear too by looking at his picture that he does not work out at the gym. He scored big time when Shirley Zailo walked into his office that day two years ago. This case should have gone to trial a year ago, but it’s been one delay after the other. It seems like he has been playing the stall card for a very long time.
A few hundred thousand dollars spent so far, and all to take down 3 people who dared to speak their minds. Or did they? So far there has been no evidence to prove one way or the other, and by the time this case ever sees its day in court Lindsay’s father may be dead. If this were to happen, Shirley & Scherr will be overjoyed because that is what they set out to do in the 1st place. Shut the bastard up. The Saanich Police will be pleased because Buziak has been a thorn in their side for 16 years. Imagine that the guy’s daughter was slaughtered to death, and he dares to put pressure on the cops to find her killers? The nerve of him!
THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT LINDSAY’S MURDER WILL EVER BE SOLVED.
Lindsay’s murder investigation was botched from the beginning, and the mistakes made cannot be undone. The Saanich Police, the RCMP and whoever else claim to have been involved in this investigation don’t want this murder to ever be solved. Why? Because it would expose the higher-ups involved, the cover-ups that have been going on for the past 16 years, and the truth would embarrass a lot of upstanding people who knew the truth and did nothing.
One thing to remember, if Jeff Buziak dies before arrests are made, there will be others to carry the torch and keep Lindsay’s memory alive. The dark side will always exist, and these two are a perfect example of dark. But there is also the light, a light that will never die out, as there will always be people out there who will fight to the end to get to the truth.
It is a well-known fact that the longer a murder case goes unsolved the less chance it will ever be solved. Witnesses, informants, involved cops have died along the way in many high-profile cases. If you’ve got dead bodies of important witnesses your case is done. That is exactly what the killer and the conspirators are waiting for, and the Saanich Police and the RCMP are aiding and abetting to make sure this is the outcome.
Here we have a defamation case where lawyer Michael Scherr represented the defendant tim balL. This time Scherr is representing the client who allegedly made defamatory statements about the plaintiff. On appeal, the judge ruled that the comments made by Tim Ball were not considered defamatory. One statement the judge made was that the article was poorly written and did not advance credible arguments, and the words lacked a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable to a reasonable person and was an opinion piece. Based on what I am reading here, Scherr damn well knows that there is a good chance he will lose this case. He’s milking Shirley for all she’s worth knowing the likelihood of a win in the courts is just not there. Good luck Michael, you are going to need it.
2020 April 30
Weaver v. Ball, 2020 BCCA 119
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, allowing the plaintiff Andrew Weaver’s appeal from a trial judgment dismissing his action against Dr. Tim Ball, held that the trial judge “erred in his approach in determining that the words in the [online article by the defendant] were not defamatory of Dr. Weaver. Applying the classic test of whether the words have a tendency to injury the person’s reputation in the estimation of reasonable right-thinking persons, the words were defamatory.”
The Court of Appeal held that trial judge erred in his reasoning with respect to “the following three key reasons for finding the test of defamation was not met:
1. first, the article was poorly written and did not advance credible arguments, and the words lacked a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable to a reasonable person and was an opinion piece;
2. second, Dr. Weaver did not consider his reputation to be genuinely threatened; and
3. third, as a person who is at the forefront of a public debate, it could be expected that Dr. Weaver’s actions and word will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism.”
With respect to the quality of the online article by the defendant Dr. Tim Ball, the Court of Appeal noted that “the judge’s observations as to the Article lacking credibility listed a number of errors and inaccuracies in the Article. But this was based on evidence that came out during the trial, not the content of the Article.”
The judge’s comments that the words lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable “was based on the judge’s subjective understanding of the many flaws in the Article after hearing evidence as to the Article’s errors and inaccuracies. These errors and inaccuracies are not apparent merely by reading the Article and cannot be said to be common knowledge.” “The judge fell into error when determining the question of whether the Article was defamatory, by taking into account the poor quality of the writing of the Article in a subjective way based on evidence known to the Court but not to the ordinary and reasonable reader.”
The Court of Appeal held, with respect to the second factor, that “it cannot be said that Dr. Weaver’s reaction to the Article was proof it was not defamatory.” “Even if it could be said that the reaction of a person allegedly defamed may be some circumstantial evidence from which inferences could be drawn of how a reasonable person would interpret the statement, I question the reasonableness of the inferences that were drawn in this case. It is not inconsistent with the fact of defamation for a person who is defamed to publicly refer to the words in some way, in an attempt to diminish the messenger or the message.”
With respect to the third factor (public debate), “the judge’s analysis erroneously blurred the lines between the question of whether statements are defamatory and the question of whether the fair comment defence applies.” “On the facts of this case the opinion aspect of the Article was more relevant to the stage of analysis addressing the defence of fair comment and perhaps even damages.” “The judge’s consideration of the public nature of the debate also blurred the lines between the fair comment defence and the issue of whether the statements are defamatory”.
“In this digital age, the public forum for the free exchange of ideas is more and more often electronic. But many internet publications purport to report news and information without employing standards of professional journalism. A false statement damaging a person’s reputation can spread widely and rapidly, instantly and often permanently available to anyone who uses an internet search engine.” Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the trial court on the remaining issues, namely, publication, the applicability of the fair comment defence, and damages.
2018 BCSC 205 (CanLII) | Weaver v Ball | CanLII
EMAIL ADDRESS: murderondesousa@gmail.com