Hello;
I am involved with a case with someone who scammed me and a bunch of
other individuals off.  I sued, and confronted the guy with 150+
documents plus the fact that I recorded all of his phone calls which
showed his guilt, and he consented to judgment.  I agreed that I would
not peruse my complaints with the police or any other regulatory body,
but if I asked any questions would have to answer honestly.

Anyhow, he did not pay when he said he would, and I made some
additional comments to the police.  Every fact I have a document to
back up, and the summary to the police was more of summary of
evidence.  Someone pretended to be a victim on the same person, and
after a few e-mails, I sent him a copy of the complaints sent to the
police and other regulatory bodies.

I then get a five million dollar lawsuit for ?slanderous and injurious
comments? made to the police.  There is no question the case will be
thrown out.

What I want to know is there any criminal codes against suing someone
for statements made to the police?  He is simply trying to obstruct
justice and scare the other people he ripped off from going to the
police.  In a few cases, it worked.

This is in Ontario, Canada.

---

Clarification of Question by edgreen123-ga on 13 Feb 2004 08:19 PST

"If there is a settlement predicated on not making a police report, and
the settlement agreement is violated by the plaintiff, it may be
possible for the defendant to set aside the settlement"

What we agreed is if that we would not persue the police and would
only ask them if spoken to.  The police were already contacted, as was
the United States SEC.  He put in that if he paid on time, we would
not speak to the police unless questioned.

In the suit agaist me, he said that I agreed to retract statements
previously made, which were not true.  This guy forged my and other
people's signature on SEC filings, which is easy to find on Edgar.

I know that truth is an absolute defense and have my Statement of
Defense all written up. What I was wondering was if the fact that most
of the lawsuit was based on comments made to the police criminal in
any way.  Can you sue people for comments made to the police?  Of
course it will be thrown out, but can this guy be charged for making
it in the fitst place?  I see that the answer is probably "no".  It
was his right to sue for statements to the police, but it will
probably get tossed before it's even heard.

edgreen123-ga:

I am posting this as a Comment because I am not really certain what
sort of Answer you are looking for.

If I have read your question properly, the person who you say
defrauded you, has filed a civil suit against you for "slanderous and
injurious comments". Comments which, in this case, happened to be made
to a law enforcement agency.

The short answer is that there is a distinction between criminal and
civil actions. In Ontario, it is the right of any individual to bring
a civil suit against any individual or organization, in order to have
their day in court. If you have been served (and from your question, I
assume that you have been), you will need to file a statement of
defense in order to avoid a default judgement against you. If there is
no basis for the suit, the judge can and most likely will toss out the
case. As the defendant, if you feel that there is no basis for this
person's suit against you, you can bring a motion to have the suit
struck due to no cause of action. All of this is best performed for
you by a lawyer.

As for whether frivilous lawsuits are criminal, the answer is
unfortunately no. That's why we have so many frivilous cases filed in
all N. American jurisdictions all the time. Now, if this individual
were to continually file 'frivilous' lawsuits against you for the same
reason, even after the preceding ones have all been dismissed, then
you may be able to make a complaint against him for criminal
harassment; it would be up to a judge, in reviewing appropriate case
law and code, to decide it this would be the case should it happen.

Good luck in this!

aht-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Unfortunately, you MUST defend every lawsuit that is brought against
you and this can be very expensive, even when the case is malicious.

"That's why we have so many frivilous cases filed in all N. American
jurisdictions all the time."

Granted, absurd, high profile suits like last year's suit against Al
Franken may give a contrary impression. But really, we don't have many
frivolous suits filed. Certainly there are some frivolous suits, and
this sounds like one of them, but they're very much an exception.

If there is a settlement predicated on not making a police report, and
the settlement agreement is violated by the plaintiff, it may be
possible for the defendant to set aside the settlement. I would
question whether such an agreement would be in violation of Ontario
law or public policy, as some jurisdictions don't approve of
agreements not to prosecute for criminal offenses as part of civil
settlements. (Some might see it as a short step away from "Give me
money or I'll report your criminal conduct to the police," which would
typically be considered to be extortion.)

In any event, in order to prevail on a suit for slander, you have to
be the victim of *false* statements. If the statements you made to the
police are true, definitionally it cannot be slander - truth is an
"absolute defense" to defamation. There's an overview of Ontario's
defamation (slander and libel) law on the Rene Larson Law Office
website:
http://www.renelarson.com/defamation.html

For a judgement as to whether an act is criminal, as for example
whether an individual has obstructed a police investigation, I would
defer to the law enforcement authorities.

From what you say I gather that your comments to the authorities were
not solicited, so it's unclear to what extent these may have formed
part of a formal police investigation.  If you were questioned by a
law enforcement officer and you feel that you are being coerced into
retracting truthful statements you made at that time, then I'd say it
would be appropriate to contact that officer and explain the
situation.  Certainly I'd be intimidated if someone filed a $5M
lawsuit against me, and your position as defendant in such a suit
suggests the need to hire a lawyer to represent you in the civil suit.

regards, mathtalk-ga

If you are sued for defamation and have homeowner's insurance (or an
umbrella policy), even you don't think your homeowner's policy covers
the claim, you should nonetheless follow your insurance company's
policies for reporting the suit and making a claim. Sometimes
homeowner's policies will step in and offer a defense for a defamation
action. Sometimes, even where they will not, they will have a lawyer
provide an answer to the complaint while they review whether they have
an obligation to represent you. The worst that can happen is that
they'll refuse to do anything, which leaves you no worse off than
where you started.

My experience of Insurance Companies here in the UK is not good. 

They always seem to do their damndest to avoid becoming involved in
any sort of litigation regardless of the cover that is supposedly in
place.

However, you should certainly put your Insurance on notice as soon as
possible (if you think you might be covered) because late notification
can be a good reason for them to reject your claim.

Hello - the answer to my question is "YES" - if the lawsuit was meant
to get someone to either retract truthfull statements and/or not make
future statements, it's an obstruction of justice.
The closest possible fit would be Sec. 139 Criminal Code.

139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct,
pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and
either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or
any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect
of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
 

 (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner
described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course
of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
 

 (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one
shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the
course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or
other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other
corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe
or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to
do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3; 1972, c. 13, s. 8.