# SECRETS?



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

Should we, all Canadians, be concerned about this court decision?

This story is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act from today’s (19 Oct 06) _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061019.wwarrants1019/BNStory/National/home 


> Ontario court strikes down parts of secrecy law
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...



The story doesn’t tell me much but, I think:

•	There *are SECRETS* which the government and all of its servants (civil and armed) and, indeed, all citizens have a duty to protect;

•	The government needs laws which allow it to plug leaks and find and punish leakers;

•	Citizens who lack security clearances or, even if they have them have no _‘need to know’_ ought not to be allowed to possess classified information – that means any citizen, including a journalist, and any bit of classified information; and

•	The laws, all laws, need to be obeyed by all of us: politicians, police, journalists, soldiers and ordinary Canadians like me.  Equally the laws need to be enforced equally – for the governed and governors alike.

Has this court ruling made us safer?


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2006)

Lets wait until the written decision is released before piling on.

Cheers


----------



## niner domestic (19 Oct 2006)

So far, all the ruling did was nullify the warrant for search and seizure of the reporter's home and files.  I haven't seen any indication that the Act has been read down, in or voided for vagueness or struck down in its entirety (just the warrants - which means any evidence stemming from such warrants are inadmissible).


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

I understand I’m jumping the gun but here is that the CP said:



> Three provisions struck down
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...



I simply cannot imagine how anyone with the brains the gods gave a green pepper could find anything wrong with 4. (1) (a), 4. (3) or 4. (4) (b).

It says,  as I understand English that: _” Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who, having in his possession or control any secret (with a whole laundry list of conditions) communicates the (secret) to any (unauthorized) person”_, and _” Every person who receives any secret … knowing, or having reasonable ground to believe, at the time he receives it, that the information is communicated to him in contravention of this Act, is guilty of an offence,”_ and _ “Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who: allows any other (unauthorized) person to have possession of any secret.”_

What on earth could be wrong with that?  Who, other than the government’s own experts, *can* or should be allowed to decide on what is and what is not a secret and who, other than the government’s own experts, *can* or should decide on who needs access to secrets?

Finally, cannot parliament decide on what is and what is not a offence?

I think this _judgement_ endangers the state; I think it directly threatens my security and safety and yours, too.

I impatiently await the learned judge’s written ruling and detailed legal interpretation of it.

Until then I continue to believe that Ms. O’Neil should have been locked up until she spilled the beans and the person who leaked the information should have been arrested and tried – in secret – and then imprisoned, also in secret, for 14 years.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2006)

The ramifications of this being overturned by the Courts are astronomical.  Just think of what would happen in a wide range of other cases,  all of lesser importance than National Security and Defence.  People involved in Identity Theft, Security and Bank Fraud, could challenge the rights of people to keep their personal particulars secret, or for Banks and Financial Institutions to keep personal information secret.   Computer Hackers would basically become legalized.  A precedence would have been set.


----------



## niner domestic (19 Oct 2006)

Edward: Perhaps I've been a jaded lawyer too long to consider anything I read in the press to be accurate if it travels outside of which NHL team won the previous night's game especially when it comes to specialized areas of knowledge and more so when it involves issues that surround "freedoms of the press".  Their use of the word "struck down" is concerning me as being slightly, if not entirely incorrect usage.  The courts are pretty clear on how they deal with sections and entire legislation that runs contrary to or violates a paramount legislative act.  Unless it's found to be a completely absurd piece of legislation the courts are reluctant to "strike" it down as that action tends to leave a big black hole in the law (as did the court's striking down the prostitution laws and abortion laws were seen to do - the SCC is wary of doing that and prefers to send it back to the legislators).  The courts normally send the offending piece of legislation/section back to the legislators for revisions and or repeals.  I don't see this particular court doing anything different than that.  

What I can see by the decision s that the particular sections of the act could not be saved under a section 1 Charter analysis pertaining to rationality and proportionalty (aka Oakes test) therefore the warrants are in question and evidence stemming from those warrants is inadmissible.  It's not quite baby out with the bath water yet just the evidence gleaned from a search (we see 100s of pieces of evidence thrown out and deemed inadmissible because of a flaws in the face of the warrant or procedure and the country has yet to fall competely apart).  

What the Court is signalling to the legislators is tighten up your wording as the section is too vague and overreaching.  (the precedent for this is R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceuticals Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 )

Please don't misunderstand that I in any way are in agreement with this decision but I do understand where the judge had difficulties especially if it failed a section 1 test.


----------



## LeonTheNeon (19 Oct 2006)

George, repsectfully, I don't think so.  The Criminal Code of Canada has those crimes well covered under other sections.  Parts IX & X would cover all aspects of fraud and identity theft.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/index.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ...
> What the Court is signalling to the legislators is tighten up your wording as the section is too vague and overreaching.  (the precedent for this is R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceuticals Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 )
> 
> Please don't misunderstand that I in any way are in agreement with this decision but I do understand where the judge had difficulties especially if it failed a section 1 test.



Maybe I'm just dense but I cannot see what, in those three bits, is - or ought to be - objectionable.  I plead guilty to not understanding.  If one of you lawyers can explain in simple soldiers' English I, amongst others, would be grateful.

New subject: I agree with LeonTheNeon; I think George Wallace is reading too much into it.

I think the decision is dangerous because it appears to me to restrict the government in its *duty* to protect its secrets.  I believe  the _Official Secrets Act_ should be carefully and very, very clearly written, placed beyond Charter challenge, and then enforced vigorously, even harshly, consistently and secretly.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

Well I am reserving judgment on judicial stupidity until the 30 day appeal period is over.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2006)

Although what I have said may be at the very extreme, we have to be carefull and ensure that The Official Secrets Act is very well and clearly written and beyond any Charter Challenge, as Edwards says.  Although certain acts are well defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, once those Laws have been challenged successfully, they have been changed.  How many big name Left-leaning Lawyers do we have in this country who do nothing but challenge the Laws of the Land, sometimes successfully?


----------



## niner domestic (19 Oct 2006)

Ok Edward, I'd be happy to explain it all to you.  Let me get a copy of the whole decision and then I can see where the Judge had issues and where it failed the analysis.  The data bases should have it up loaded by tomorrow (I hope).  Remember it is not always the wording that gets a piece of legislation into trouble it's also the manner in which it exercises it's authority and discretions, if it slams up against an intrinsic Charter right, the subordinate law gets suspended, voided or struck down.  

In the meantime, if you can stand it read the following cases to get an idea of what the judge had to do.  
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103, R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303

This is one of the better articles explaining vagueness and overbreath: http://canlii.org/ca/com/chart/s-1.html (Chapter 9)


----------



## niner domestic (19 Oct 2006)

George: You may not be aware of this but as lawyers we are, irrespective of our political leanings and associations *officers of the court * first and foremost and as such are sworn and held to the standard that it is the law we uphold, not the cause/individual.  If by chance the law is a poorly written one or tromps on an individuals rights we as officers of the court, are bound to defend or prosecute it to the nth degree (not just to our best ability but until there isn't a legal stone left unturned).  If my job for the day as that officer of the court is to save a piece of legislation or whether it is to strike down by my presenting to the court all legal arguments then so be it - that is my job.  So for every "left leaning lawyer" there's a bucket full of right and centre sitting judiciary so in the end it all balances out as there is little room in the court for grandstanding a political preference if the law says it isn't going to happen.


----------



## couchcommander (19 Oct 2006)

I AM NOT a laywer but am relying on outside analysis, but the coments that seems to be swirling around are that these provisions were poorly written and were far too vague (as niner domestic pointed out). The court, it seems, is not saying "these provisions are unacceptable", rather its saying "you need to do a better job of writing this legislation so it more specifically outlines what you are trying to protect".


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Ok Edward, I'd be happy to explain it all to you.  Let me get a copy of the whole decision and then I can see where the Judge had issues and where it failed the analysis.  The data bases should have it up loaded by tomorrow (I hope).  Remember it is not always the wording that gets a piece of legislation into trouble it's also the manner in which it exercises it's authority and discretions, if it slams up against an intrinsic Charter right, the subordinate law gets suspended, voided or struck down.
> 
> In the meantime, if you can stand it read the following cases to get an idea of what the judge had to do.
> R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103, R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303
> ...



One can see why lawyers enjoy the intellectual challenge of balancing cause, effect and ‘collateral damage.’

I wonder if the judge did not give sufficient attention to: ‘…both the majority and minority agreed that an approach involving a "formalistic 'test' uniformly applicable in all circumstances" must be eschewed.  Rather, the Oakes test should be applied flexibly, so as to achieve a proper balance between individual rights and community needs.  In undertaking this task, courts must take into account both the nature of the infringed right and the specific values the state relies on to justify the infringement.  This involves a close attention to context.  In my reasons in RJR-MacDonald I stated that the "core" values of freedom of expression include "the search for political, artistic and scientific truth, the protection of individual autonomy and self-development, and the promotion of public participation in the democratic process".  This Court has subjected state action limiting such values to "a searching degree of scrutiny" ‘

It seems to me that, even though the RCMP, may have abused the _process_ – and should not reap any ‘rewards’ for that, the ‘community needs’ in this care are overwhelming and the judge has erred, grievously, in deciding that O’Neil’s ‘rights’ as a journalist are, in any way, even remotely, to be compared with the safety of the state.  That’s arrant nonsense.

Perhaps this is that rare case that proves that Sterling Lyon was right when he insisted on a notwithstanding clause.  Maybe some laws cannot be ‘squared’ with the Charter but, yet, despite that, need to be on the books.  Maybe _Official Secrets_, which, I think has always annoyed a lot of people, needs to be ‘protected’ from the Charter.  No one is conscripted in the civil or armed services, except in war, so everyone who joins should be willing to accept that some Charter protections are not available to them.

There is no rational, acceptable reason why anyone, including any journalist, should ever have any classified information.  All unauthorized people, including all journalists, found in possession of such classified information should be tried summarily and locked away, for 14 years, period.

I’m glad I’m not a lawyer!  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

I just listened to O’Neil’s lawyer (CBC radio) saying, roughly: “Parliament needs to revise this law so that it goes after the ‘leaker’ not the reporter.”

I think he's wrong.  'We' (our agents, anyway) need to go after, to find, try, convict and then punish both.

I think parliament must protect the *secrets* from all unauthorized people – including foreign agents, terrorists and journalists.

If the secret matters then Juliet O’Neil should be in jail, even though the RCMP abused the legal process.  Since she is not it appears to me to mean that Judge Ratushny has decided that the information was not classified or the information was classified but the abuse of process is a greater threat to our national security than the leaking of information to a civilian with no right to have it.  With all respect I contend that the judge has no duty, much less the knowledge to make that judgement.

O’Neil’s lawyer explained that the current Act is a direct, largely unchanged lift from the old (_circa_ 1940) _Official Secrets Act_  which, in his ill-informed opinion, is not valid in the 21st century.  More rubbish.  Official Secrets matter in war – they did in World War II and they do, again, in this World War.  Nothing substantial has changed so the Act need not change either - in my ill-informed opinion.  But I understand D9's admonition that we must re-read our laws in light of the Charter and the SCC's interpretation of it.

I respect the judge’s right to send a message to parliament saying: "rethink this law, it doesn’t pass my _smell test_."  Maybe (probably certainly) the Act can be ‘tightened’ but in doing so parliament must ignore O’Neil’s lawyer’s advice.  They must protect the secret, not unauthorized rumour mongers.

If parliament believes the law as written is correct then it needs to signal back: “F__k off, judge; rude message follows!”  There are two ways to do this:

•	Appeal this decision; and

•	If necessary, use the notwithstanding clause.

And yes, I appreciate that no one- especially not anyone qualified in these matters – has read the decision, yet.  I’m just _venting_ because I’m bloody annoyed and I believe that secrets are waaaay more important than journalistic ‘freedom.’

I accept that the RCMP abused the process – their chiefs, uniformed and political (that’s you, Stockwell Day!) need to answer for that – not just to O’Neil for bending the law to her disadvantage but to all Canadians for not doing their job right, the first time.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2006)

Notwithstanding clause won't be used, so forget that.

The Oakes test is a load of justice crapola, unless you're the accused. One really has to question the ethics of our judiciary when they let the legal test developed as a method to get a 2 bit pot smoker from London, Ontario out of jail also be used to defend weakening the security of the state. The test is supposed to take into account policy considerations and less intrusive means. As far as I know we don't officially hang traitors anymore so the threat of a jail sentence is the only less intrusive method left to keep things secret. Maybe we should resort to unofficial remedies. There is no honour system in the land that can replace that threat.


----------



## armyvern (19 Oct 2006)

I think that the secrecy law is fine as it is.

I think that anyone who leaks classified documents etc needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I also believe that any journalist who obtains "their story" from classified documents that they have been provided with also needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. After all, they are further perpetuating the release of the classified information to those who have no "need to know."

I especially believe this to be the case when the journalist writes their story and freely admits in it that the information comes from classified or secret sources.

Now, when there has been an abuse of the statutes by law enforcement etc, I also believe that they should be punished for that to fullest extent of the law.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2006)

Armyvern said:
			
		

> I think that the secrecy law is fine as it is.
> 
> I think that anyone who leaks classified documents etc needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> 
> ...



Well, if we equate it to the same thing as 'stolen property', then the Journalist is just as guilty as the person who stole it.  Knowingly being in possession of stolen property is still a crime, is it not?


----------



## armyvern (19 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, if we equate it to the same thing as 'stolen property', then the Journalist is just as guilty as the person who stole it.  Knowingly being in possession of stolen property is still a crime, is it not?


One would most certainly hope so.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2006)

Yeah, George and Armyvern- so if someone intentionally or inadvertently posts classified material on this website, knowing that it will be exposed for a few minutes before the information gets yanked by a Mod and deleted to archive or placed in hidden storage - is that a leak and then knowingly in possession by army.ca? Yeesh. 

I think there is a duty to refrain from using or further disclosing the information and to not retain any copies in tangible or accessible format but only when there is actual knowledge or at least a reaonable suspicion as to what it is. This is the line the reporter crossed, and she needs her ass severely kicked for it. She knew exactly what she had, and now she's a frickin' hero to the press. 

Whiskey601


----------



## armyvern (19 Oct 2006)

I agree Whiskey that "knowingly" is indeed the key here. And then perpetuating it's dissemination via their story. 

Not using the classified info in their story or indeed immediately deleting it from public viewing on a thread in Army.ca for example falls into a far different category. 

By acknowledging that the information is classified/secret, and therefore the "source" remains confidential in the story, and yet they then proceed to publish that classified information for public consumption, they are guilty in my books. And as I said in my previous post, this is what she did in this instance as she herself noted in the story.


----------



## TCBF (19 Oct 2006)

"... as lawyers we are, irrespective of our political leanings and associations officers of the court first and foremost and as such are sworn and held to the standard that it is the law we uphold, not the cause/individual."

- Just curious, but, if most Members of Parliament are lawyers, why are our laws so poorly written?



Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "... as lawyers we are, irrespective of our political leanings and associations officers of the court first and foremost and as such are sworn and held to the standard that it is the law we uphold, not the cause/individual."
> 
> - Just curious, but, if most Members of Parliament are lawyers, why are our laws so poorly written?
> 
> ...



Don't confuse good drafting with good lawyering. Most lawyers are neither - except for IT lawyers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Oct 2006)

*cough cough*


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yeah, George and Armyvern- so if someone intentionally or inadvertently posts classified material on this website, knowing that it will be exposed for a few minutes before the information gets yanked by a Mod and deleted to archive or placed in hidden storage - is that a leak and then knowingly in possession by army.ca? Yeesh.



The difference between army.ca and the journalist in this case though, is that the website, Mike and Mods, would most likely not protect the source from the authorities. In fact, I can guarantee you some of the mods here would be on the phone with said authorities just as they removed the info.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Oct 2006)

Like this?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021/post-465017.html#msg465017


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Like this?
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52021/post-465017.html#msg465017



Just like that  

Maybe I'm prejudiced by being in a trade where Comsec is part of our bread and butter, and where Comsec procedure is ingrained into us, but IMO, wether purposefully or accidentally, the release of sensitive information and/or equipment is never justified, no matter the reason, and the book should be thrown at any offender.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2006)

I’m (quite clearly!) not a lawyer so I deal with _opinions_ rather than legalities.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is the _opinion_ of the _Globe and Mail_’s editorial board, from today’s (20 Oct 06) editorial page:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061020.EPRESS20/TPStory/Opinion/editorials 


> The RCMP's press raid was an indefensible act
> 
> You can't do that kind of thing in Canada. Two winters ago, the RCMP raided the home of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill, looking for secret documents. Yesterday, a judge said the RCMP had been trying to intimidate Ms. O'Neill into giving out the source of a government leak of classified information. This attempt at intimidation -- which failed -- was an abuse of RCMP powers, offended "the public's sense of decency and fairness" and undermined "the integrity of the judicial process," Madam Justice Lynn Ratushny of Ontario Superior Court concluded yesterday.
> 
> ...



Not surprisingly, I have some issues with the _Good Grey Globe_’s opinion.

First, however: I am in broad agreement with the need to have a ‘free’ press – one unfettered by government oversight and censorship.  I, like most Canadians, have neither the time nor the resources to attend parliament and the legislature and city hall and the UN Security Council every day and night and find out what politicians and officials are doing to me and for me.  I depend upon journalists to tell me what is happening in the world, my country, my province and my community.

Second: I have no doubt that Judge Ratushny’s finding that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acted in an improper, indeed reprehensible manner is well founded.  The leadership of the RCMP and that of the government-of-*that*-day must be held to account – publicly.  Canadians need, we are entitled to have trust in the judicious conduct of the politician in charge of the RCMP (Solicitor General, later Minister of Public Safety) and of the forces, including the RCMP, that politician controls on our behalf.  If, as I believe Judge Ratushny correctly concludes, the RCMP’s actions were injudicious and improper then both that force and its political master or mistress, at the time and now, must be held to account.

*But*: the _Globe and Mail_ says the Judge Ratushny _”… affirmed the media's right to seek, obtain and possess some government secrets.”_  If that is true then Judge Ratushny’s decision must be overturned, by whatever means necessary, because no person – not even a journalist, has any ‘right’ to possess any government secrets, unless properly authorized by the government.

Journalists are not, by and large, authorized to possess secret information.  Those who, without such authorization, do possess such information must be found, arrested, tried, convicted and punished.

This brings up an important point.  I believe, *based on my personal observations* (many years old, now) that governments do over-classify information; political _operators_ managed, some years ago, to classify embarrassing information which, in my professional opinion, had no reason to be classified or even _protected_ except that it might expose a minister or a political _operator_ to ridicule, or worse, for their silly and, perhaps, even improper actions or inactions.  I believe the same thing still goes on.

There is, I think, a pressing need to reform the way material is classified or protected.  Specifically _official secrets_ – described in the _current_ Act (just struck down) as _“any secret official code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information”_ need to be redefined.  DND used to have a definition related to why information was to be classified as CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and so on which I think gave good guidance as to what information must be classified and, equally, therefore, what must not be classified.

There is a separate problem for which information is _protected_ and why (cabinet confidentiality, commercial confidence, personal privacy etc).  In my opinion, the two ought not to be mixed, even though both may end up being _official secrets_.

In the (necessary) redrafting of the Security of Information Act the government must preserve the essentials:

•	It is an offence for any unauthorized person to possess any classified or protected information;

•	It is, _ipso facto_ an offence for an authorized person to _communicate_ any classified or protected information to any unauthorized person; and

•	It is an offence – a very, very serious offence – for any person, even one with a very high security clearance, to possess any information which (s)he is nor specifically authorized to possess.  Just because you have a TOP SECRET clearance does not mean that you can look at any TOP SECRET information.  There is a _need to know_ principle which needs to be enforced by regulation and law.

There is also a need to find ways to prevent people from abusing the classification/protection system to hide information which can be made public, even if it embarrasses the minister or political aids.  This will be hard to accomplish but politicians owe it to citizens to manage.


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Oct 2006)

Ah, the Globe, she didn't inherit the Times' old moniker "the gray old lady of treason" for no reason after all eh?

I am perfectly content with the Globe editor's assertion that it was 'a red letter day for press freedom'.

Perhaps the Globe would be comfortable with _my_ further assertion that _my_ right to freedom is inseparable from the _government's_ right to keep secrets that, if in the hands of our enemies, could compromise _my_ personal safety and the safety of my _fellow_ citizens.

I trust that journalists given the right to secrets will not, willy-nilly, splash them all over the pages of their respective rags, in the process exposing weaknesses in our society, thus readily exploited for terror and criminal ends. ...Or do I???


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2006)

A quick skim of that Editorial, gives me some rather evil thoughts......As this is a form of the Media - the World Wide Web and a site open to the public set up for open discussion, I wonder what the Judge would say to an inquiry through the Freedom of Information Act into her personal information, covering home address, phone number, employment records, Tax Records, Education records, Marital status, etc.  I am sure that all these items, and more, would fall under her judgement and should also be provided as 'Open Source'.  

Her judgement is very faulty and really opens up a plethora of problems for individual and collective Security.


----------



## niner domestic (20 Oct 2006)

What else would you like to know about her?

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/ja/1999/on0702.html

OTTAWA, July 2, 1999 -- The Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointments: 

The Honourable Lynn D. Ratushny of Ottawa, currently an Ontario provincial court judge, is appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) in Ottawa. She replaces Mr. Justice W. Dan Chilcott, who has chosen to become a supernumerary judge. 

After graduating in Law from the University of Saskatchewan in 1967, Madam Justice Ratushny joined the Privy Council Office, where she worked as a legal adviser and research assistant until 1974. After being called to the Ontario Bar in 1979, she joined the Ottawa law firm of Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill & McDougall. Before her appointment to the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) in 1991, Madam Justice Ratushny had practised mainly corporate and commercial law with the firm of Soloway, Wright since 1987. 

Madam Justice Ratushny has been a member of the County of Carleton Law Association, and she was also a founding member and President of the Thomas More Lawyers’ Guild of Ottawa. From 1995 to 1997, Madam Justice Ratushny served as Chair of the Self Defence Review.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2006)

If a secret is intellectual property and knowingly accepting stolen property is as much a crime as trafficking in stolen property or stealing property then on what grounds should the reporter receiving the stolen secret not be punished in the same manner as the person stealing and disseminating the secret?

The pawnshop owner is liable for the contents of his/her store.  The reporter should be liable for the contents of his/her stories.


----------



## probum non poenitet (20 Oct 2006)

Don't worry gang ... it's not like anything _*serious * _ got leaked ... like an advance copy of a Harry Potter novel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3002520.stm

_Then _ the crap hits the fan ...


----------



## niner domestic (3 Nov 2006)

Just as a follow up to the original post, the Crown has decided not to pursue an appeal.  http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6f928e19-27c0-471b-8996-bd090f3415a8&k=46023


----------

