Thursday, November 17, 2005


Underbelly News
Downtown Eastside


Posted below is my defence and Libel action against Jim Green and Heather Deal. I will not allow these AMERICAN bullies to smear my good name and reputation in the City in which I was born and raised. I am not anti-american but do not respect these two American politicians who have brought their American style politics to this Country. They have stomped on my freedom of speech rights which are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And Mr Green and Ms Deal should be sent packing, back home to the USA.

Jamie Lee

No. S- 055384
Vancouver Registry




The Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Statement of Claim, and puts the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof.
The Defendant says she was born and raised in Vancouver.
The Defendant agrees with paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim, that she is a writer, community activist and a prominent personality in Vancouver and in Canada.
The Defendant began a political column on the web in 2004, where she writes about mainly civic politics and issues surrounding her neighbour-hood of the Downtown Eastside.
The Defendant has been cited by many respected journals for her writing style. These include the Vancouver Sun, the Straight, and the West-ender, the Courier, Calgary Herald and a local radio station. A few of her stories prompted a number of mainstream papers to write feature length stories on unique issues the Defendant raised.
On her web-blogs, the Defendant has been critical of the Plaintiff but only from a political perspective.
The Defendant's writing can be best described as gritty by nature and witty by design.
The Defendant is from the Gay Subculture which has distinct language that they use. The community that the Defendant belongs to also is known for its flamboyancy and often pushes buttons of which have formerly been taboo subjects. The community and the Defendant are known for their colourfulness. The language has best been described as being sometimes catty. This Cattiness isn't intended to be malicious. It is implemented more for it?s over the top language and shock value.
The Plaintiffs have taken exception to two blog entries in the writings of the Defendant as set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Statement of Claim.
The Plaintiffsare alleging that the Defendant in one of her postings implies that the Plaintiffs are having an adulterous affair.
The Defendant denies her writing in two blog entries as set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Statement of Claim libelled them either in the natural and ordinary meaning of the words or false innuendo as suggested in paragraph 20 of the amended Statement of Claim but are, as Plaintiffs point out in paragraph 17 ?both parts of a longer piece.?
Full context must be considered which includes the entire publication containing the words complained of, the factual background of the publication, the medium through which it is presented, and the manner in which it is communicated.
At no time did the Defendant libel the Plaintiffs.
Once the Defendant received confirmation that the Plaintiffs were upset over the blogs, and in a public way, apologized to the Plaintiffs and took the blogs down, and in response to Paragraph 33, the Defendant removed the statements on her own,
In response to Paragraph 30 to 32, the Defendant did not republish blog entries as set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Statement of Claim but referred to issues set out in Paragraph 37, 38, and 40 of the Amended Statement of Claim allegations. At no time has the Defendant libelled them, in any manner, before or after the Statement of Claim was filed or transmitted to the Defendant..
In response to Paragraphs 35 and 40, the Plaintiff provided no documents with the letter to the Defendants in an attempt to address the alleged defamatory statements in paragraphs 35 and 37 of the amended Statement of Claim.
In response to Paragraphs 38, Plaintiffs did not convey to the Defendants any interest in a resolution of this matter.
In response to Paragraph 37, 38, and 40, the Defendant pleads ?fair comment?. Suspicions have been circulating in the Downtown Eastside since the incident some 13 years ago. The Defendant has referred a witness to these events to the Vancouver Police Department in November, 2005.
These comments were fair comment made by Defendant in good faith and without malice upon a matter of public interest:
The removal of $ 20,000- from DERA was illegal even though it was partially replayed from money borrowed from the, Gulf and Fraser? Credit Union.
The removal of $ 20,000- was suggested to be salary advances to DERA staff.
The matter, up to now, has not been investigated by the Vancouver Police Department.
Wherefore the Defendant prays that the proceedings of the Plaintiffs will be dismissed with costs.


On or about the 6th day of October, the Plaintiff, Jim Green, or his spokesman, Clay Suddaby, or his close colleague, Larry Campbell conspired and with the knowledge and consent of Plaintiff Heather Deal, made statements to the media about Jamie Lee Hamilton :

That Jamie Lee Hamilton is a very troubled individual;
That Jamie Lee Hamilton attacks people who try to help her;
That Jamie Lee Hamilton was put up to making these comments by the N.P.A.;
That Jamie Lee Hamilton , in many instances, stretches her relationship with the truth to the breaking point;
That these statements to the media about Jamie Lee Hamilton were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, and in the innuendoes contained therein in that they mean and were meant to mean the following;

That Jamie Lee Hamilton is mentally ill and mentally unstable;
That Jamie Lee Hamilton is unable to think and act for herself on issues of significance to the community;
That Jamie Lee Hamilton is not a truthful person;

While the Plaintiffs state in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim that ?Jamie Lee Hamilton has contributed much to Vancouver?s civic political debate over the years?, the Statement of Claim is a complete attack on the character, integrity and person of Jamie Lee Hamilton.

The intent and the effect of this scheme has been, and will be, to cause further damage to Jamie Lee Hamilton?s reputation, and professional career.
Both Plaintiffs knew, and intended, that the statements in paragraph 19 would be re-published by others.

The conduct of the Plaintiffs was intentional and malicious.
It was intended to impair the Defendant?s chances of success in the upcoming political election. It was also intended to enhance the chance of success of their own party, the Vision Party.
The Defendant has been severely injured in her credit, character and reputation as a citizen, in the practice of her profession, and in her office as a possible elected official.
The Defendant has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt, and has suffered damages.


general damages;
exemplary damages;
costs; and
Such further and other relief as to this Honorable Court seems just.
Dated : November 14, 2005