Defamation of character

Off topic posts are welcome in this forum!
No smear campaign, or you will be banned!

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Defamation of character

Post by luc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:18 am

Dear members,

I guess that by now, many of you have noticed a Web link found under Viv's each postings as his signature, link that leads to an "Abrick Wordpress" document titled "Twice as long as it is wide but only half as high".

Now, as you will all agree, this document as untrue full as it may be, is also very offending and discrediting towards me, but above all, very untrue and I must now re-establish what is the truth with the following.

First and for the readers benefits, let it be know and clear that indeed there was a law suit against Conception GLC, which made the company the "Defendant" and Viv the "Plaintive" or "Attacker" and not the other way around.

So, lets start with the truth that I will re-establish by extracting and commenting some of this document's affirmations, which will be written in "Italic" and "Bold" text.

"was a legal case we had to bring against an ex business partner Luc Laforest"

Wrong … The legal case was against Conception GLC inc. including 17 other shareholders who once trusted the plaintive with a major investment just before this law suit. I was just the assigned legal representant for this case.

"he turned out not to be an honest or truthful person as we found out"

No comments on this one for this is the writer's own opinion, but strangely, there might be something wrong in the above for I have been GLC's president since then and still am now, even after having offered my president's chair to the plaintive on many occasions before all this. But he always refused the responsibilities. Maybe I am not that bad after all?

"and he was even less honest or truthful about were he got the assets from that he used to pay his way in to the old project company"

All assets origin were declared from the beginning, legally registered in or to the company according to the Canadian Accounting Rules, accepted by the local development agencies and to the full knowledge of the plaintive. The company also has written documentation from the plaintive not only confirming his knowledge of it, but also authorizing these assets and their use.

"we found some extremely serious financial irregularities"

Next to the plaintive own imagination, there never was irregularities in this corporation and for which the corporation detains year end Financial Verification Reports since the beginning and issued from accontant financial verifications claiming and proving so.

"due to software that he copied from his ex employer’s with out their autherisation and then added to the inventory of the project company at its full market value of $38500 cad."

First … It is "Authorization" not autherisation.

Second, the software's were not copied, but borrowed with proof at hand and to the pplaintive full knowledge since him self used them way before all this issue and for a "Tramac" contract we got at the beginning of GLC.

And third, their origin and values were declared from the beginning, legally registered in and to the company according to the Canadian Accounting Rules, accepted by the local development agency and to the full knowledge of the plaintive. The company also has written documentation from the plaintive confirming and authorizing these assets and their use.

"As you can imagine this came as a blow to us at the time"

Again, all assets origin were declared, legally registered in and to the company under the plaintive full knowledge and authorization and the company has written documentation issued by the plaintive proving this.

"effectively he ended up destroying a very promising company through his dishonest actions"

Oupsss … I might be missing one here, for to my knowledge since I am still the president, the company is still very active and going toward success. And actually, she is much better since this non sense is over and the plaintive out.

"we won that case"

Yeaaaa … Sureeee ... Only in his dreams I guess.

It is unbelievable how some people's imagination can operate sometimes. Let me re-instate the truth here and refresh some memories.

1. December 2006, a legal lawsuit is issued against GLC (Not Luc Laforest).

2. November 2007, before crossing the door to meet M. the Judge, the plaintive come to GLC asking for an "Out of court" settlement that lead to a six month "Option" agreement to buy the plaintive out of the company, but the option was never completed in time. Please note that it was the "Plaintive (The attacker)" who came asking for an "Out of court" settlement. Correct me if I am wrong and to my knowledge, isn't it strange for a "Plaintive" to ask for a settlement and especially if he is supposed to have solid cases?

3. May 2008, back to court since the "Option" was not realized and honestly, I really was eager to cross that court room door to go talk with M. Judge. But the reality was, that again, the plaintive came to GLC asking for another "Out of court" settlement, which this time lead to GLC buying the plaintive out, including full and legal intellectual properties and technology transfers to the benefits of the corporation, for an amount to the plaintive.

4. The deal was completed.

5. The intellectual properties and technology were transferred to the corporation's name.

6. The plaintive was paid in full and OUT of the corporation, amount that was also the equivalent of his original investment in the corporation.

7. Court case over.

He won that case??? … Well, not to my point of view. What I saw at the time, is a plaintive bending his knees and working very hard not to cross that court room door and meet M. the Judge … End of case and this was what really happened. If not, we would not have an "Out of court" document in our records.

BUT again, complying in a "Godwill" measure to the plaintive efforts, is a decision that I soon after learned to regret after seeing the plaintive actions breaking that agreement soon after, this "Abrick" publishing and claims beeing a good examples, especially that this agreement also included a "Non publishing or disclosure" agreement ... Requested by the plaintive and his lawyer them self and first broken by the plaintive/writer. What a nice example right there (Thanks).

But trust me, I won't make that mistake again.

"the attorney recovered what he could financially from it"

Indeed, the equivalent value of what was originally invested in the corporation by the plaintive AND only in a mather of "Goodwill" BUT certainly not because we were forced too or scared of.

Here, I will recommend to the writer to "Step down from what he believe to be his podium", for this is not the last memory or picture that I personally have of him and next to a "Crawling" one.

"we had to wait until the end played out in court"

CORRECTION … This case never went "In court" like the writer writes or pretends. The case was never pleaded before a judge since the plaintive kept on coming back with settlement offers. I wounder why????

"it was just boring the hell out of us"

My only comment here would be, "One should think twice before attempting such action, especially if he is to find this "Boring"". Now, the writer should maybe ask the corporation's investors and shareholders if they feel this was "Boring", especially after seeing their investment wasted only six months after they trusted the "Writer".

"The real point in that win was it allowed us to put a full stop on a particular time in our life"

There was certainly no such thing as a "Win" and certainly not on the plaintive side. Everybody lost in this madness and mostly the plaintive.

This was not a "Win", this ended-up as a "Buy Out" after the plaintive offered to settle.

Let it be known and take my word for it ... That the day I will initiate a law suit ... I WILL NOT "CHICKEN" OUT OF IT.

But at the time, it was best that I put a stop at all this non sense for the best benefits of the corporation and remaining shareholders.

"the fact that the ex partner only got to keep a prototype"

Strange … I do recon the corporation to have and sell well working production units ... Strange ... Very strange. But I also do reccord and take good notes that the writer is again, infringin the out of court agreement when talking about, discrediting and/or commenting on GLC's business, for is Ex partner has nothing ... It is all GLC's properties.

"that would never work and he would never be able to get it to work"

Strange again … Maybe I am missing something here, for I do know for sure that the corporation is selling "Well working" units … Strange indeed.

"the real intellectual property was never asked for as part of the settlement so I still own it outright".

The real intellectual property that interested the corporation, including the 2nd generation pressurejet as burner and jet engine, the inline pressure as burner and jet engine and also know as the PulseRam and the Land Mine Hunter and/or all others clearly described in the M.O.U (Memorendum Of Understanding), was asked for and all were legally transferred to the benefits and name of Conception GLC inc., cession documents at hand.

There is also a clause in the "Out of court" agreement that states "The plaintive will no longer participate and/or interfere with the corporation's normal course of its businesses" and for which the plaintive still has to comply with.

"I still own it outright"

Point of note here and to my personal knowledge still being a major shareholder and president of the corporation, that I do remember an specific may 4th, 2007 event, where and individual organized a secret meeting between him and GLC's employees at the time and to offer them money, engineering support and also influence them with drugs and alcohol, and asked them to copy and build a burner / jet engine out of the company for this individual's and associate's benefits.

Of coarse, GLC having very good employees, all this was immediately reported to me (They never figured this would happen I guess) and soon after to the law authorities (Provincial police, RCMP and one other).

It was later found that this "Individual" at the time, was working for a group of peoples wanting to put their hand on GLC's technology in a wrongfull way.

Now, maybe some members will ask them self "Why the eck is he telling us that story?" Well ... I will let you figure that one out and I have nothing more to say about "I still own it outright".

"we stopped working on the failed project"

Indeed … The writer has stopped working on the failed project, that soon after became a "Successful" project, solved by my 16 year old son at the time and one of our employee under my guidance, who at the time, had very little knowledge about the technology, but a lot of determination to succeed where others (One actually) had failed.

"as we launched the law suit against the scum bag and his cronies"

Obviously, the "Scum bag" is me and I will waste no time and efforts following the writer in this path, for I will respect my self being a better individual not dropping to this level. There are some laws here in Canada against "Defamation of character".

But it is for the "Cronies" that I will stand against, for I wish to remind the writer and the readers, that the "Cronies" as the writer calls them, are actually real honest and good persons and shareholders, that only after the writer promised to complete and build the product, invested close to 1/2 million dollars in the corporation and from which a very decent portion ended-up straight in the writer's pockets in CASH, not mentioning the salaries pays he also ended-up making above this and soon after.

But for these investors, it was not a completed burner / jet engine they saw coming out the shop … It was a lawsuit issued against their corporation by one they trusted they saw coming in and wasted their preciously saved money and investments.

As for the burner / jet engine, "We" meaning my son, our employees and my self, ended-up building it to the level of a final product for the corporation to finally register some sales for.

In conclusion, I wish to inform the readers that all the above "Corrections" are backed-up with paper works, documents, court case minutes, intellectual property legal cessions, recordings and others, all at hand and filed.

Next to this, I feel very sad that I had to probably have you members waste precious time reading about all this, but I will not stand discredited, lied upon and/or insulted and neither towards our good investors, without revealing the truth and certainly not by someone against whom there is a box full of documents proving the opposite.

Be trustful that however the writer has chosen to describes me, the above past events or our shareholders, is only the fruits of his own imagination or originated from is own reality diffinition and nothing close to actual reality. But again, it is you the readers who are the final judge of all this non sense and I sure hope you will be able to see the real and clear picture in all this.

I certainly hope one day the writer will get over his obsession against me, calling upon his good nature since they say everyone is suppose to have one, to "Let Gooo" and leave all this behind, since for my self I hold no grudges against the guy.

But again, can I believe in "Miracles"??? ... You tell me ...
Designer & Inventor

Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Defamation of character (Viv's Abrick publishing)

Post by luc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:45 am

Dear owner,

Now that the true facts from the "Other side" have been said, I would now ask you to please to "Lock" this topic for I do not wish to start a debate over this, for all this has already wasted way to much time and created all it has too.

The writer (Viv) has his published and public "Abrick" document and I now have this posting to defend against it.

Therefore, I will then suggest no more be hadded here and/or under and leave all the rest to the readers own discretion and judgments.

I wish to express my thanks for letting me this occasion to write and defend my credibility and somehow, the corporation I also represent.

Designer & Inventor

Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Defamation of character

Post by luc » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:43 pm

Greetings members,

I guess many of you remember the above story and will waist none of your precious time resuming what was already wrote.

What I wish to inform you about, and the following being the only time I will write on the matter, is that following the above, the saga went on for many months and years, although the closing of Conception GLC inc. in early spring 2010 and me facing burnout beaten to exhaustion and leaving the Roberval area and my family thinking this would satisfy the guy in leaving me ALONE.

But it did not, for soon after and many following months, I discovered on the Internet great numbers of blogs, Web pages and texts describing me not only a dishonest person and scum bag, but also a "Conman" having perpetrated ponzie schemes and fraud, a men having abandoned his wife, family and children, a unfaithful husband, a guy having ran away from shareholders, although I was at the time living at one's place, and the one responsible for the GLC corporation bankruptcy. Not enough, the perpetrator made certain I could be clearly identified posting pictures of my self, my wife, my children, my mother and my brother, all published under tags such as "Conman" and including my personal email and residential address.

To this non sense, I lost my credibility, my reputation, my private life and some employers even requested that I "Clear my name" before I could again be publically exposed as an inventor and/or related to any projects. In fact, few months ago our team went on a special Aerospace conference and where my boss could shake hand with Professor Niel Armstrong ... Yes ... THE Neil Armstrong ... But I could not attend this conference or any other public events until "Clearing my name" was accomplished, missing a "Child's Dream" chance probably never to come back again.

So I did this and on August 2010, I decided I had ENOUGH and decided it was time for me to regain my dignity, my credibility, my reputation, my private life and to protect my self and my family from this character by launching a lawsuit against the guy on December 2010.

If your remember in January 2010 when I discovered the first defamatory document, I wrote a letter to the guy on warning the publisher and I quote; "Let it be known and take my word for it ... That the day I will initiate a law suit ... I WILL NOT "CHICKEN" OUT OF IT."

Well, I gues by now the guy has learned that; "When Luc says something ... He really mean it and trust he will do it", for on June 28th 2012, The Quebec Superior Court on behalf on the Honorable judge Gratien Duchesne;

Ø Ordered the defendant to remove ALL material about me from the Internet within 30 days.
Ø Condemned the defendant to Damages and Interests fines.
Ø Condemned the defendant to Punitive Damages in order to serve justice.
Ø Ordered the defendant to write, sign and provide me with a "Retraction letter" clearing my name over the subjects I was defamed on".

My Name has been cleared, this victory is a true one and NOT a "Pretended" one like stated in the guy's above defamation and the "TRUE" perpetrator ... Has now been "Delt" with ... :wink:

5 YEARS I have been the target of his attacks; 5 YEARs I had to shut-up not to either damage GLC's case at the time and this last one until conclusion; 5 YEARS I saw my credibility, reputation and personal image subjected to destructive documents and publishing, but still had to remain honorable while all this non sense was taking a toll not only on me, but my wife and children ... And I DID Remain Honorable.

Do you know Why I remained honorable not "Giving in" to this non sense? Simple ... Because I AM NOT LIKE HIM ... :wink:

In fact, Thomas D'Ansembourg and many other psychologists stated that; "Who talks about others ... Talks about himself first" and the gentlemen here, "Was only telling the world about him" and I need to add no more.

Now, some of you might conclude to; "Hooo my God, Luc will now seek vengeance" … But I WILL NOT, for I'm BETTER then this.

All these years being the target of such destructive behaviors, have further motivated me in energetically fight such plague and contribute that my fellows are not only well informed to prevent such destructive actions, but also knows how to retaliate against these "Loose Fingers".

This is why I dedicate this topic against such behaviors by informing peoples, while hoping you will all join me stopping such so we not only become better publishers, but stop being victims of these peoples. This said, I have also dedicated a Facebook page against "Defamation" and intend to soon publish a Web page addressing this plague.

As a favor and given there is now a court judgement addressing this case, I will ask any of you not only to help me stopping this, but also inform me if you are aware of ongoing defamation against me.

This is MY STORY ... It REALLY happened to me ... For "Clearing my name HERE" ... Where it was Started ... Is required and approriate.

Thanks for your support and time reading this story,

Designer & Inventor

Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

"Rights of image" ownership

Post by luc » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:32 pm

Good Members,

Here is a subject I would like to make part this informative topic, which is the "Right of Image", and becomes even more important if you're an Internet image or video user, or a public domain (Any types) owner … And you should read what follows ... :wink:

Few weeks ago while watching TV news, I saw a story about a photographer that sewed a company for copying a picture(s) from his public blog and used it for other purposes. Although the picture(s) was on a "Public blog" (His) … The photographer won his case.

Being surprised by this outcome, especially thinking that usually public pictures and movies always seems the be deemed "Public property", I decided to investigated the subject further and here's what I found.


Ø This survey was carried out over ten (10) recent related court case decisions.

Ø This article applies to Canadian residents, and more especially to Quebec residents (If you're not, you should still read this and seek information according to your country's laws).

Ø The "Right of image" is defined as follow by Canada rights & liberty chart, Quebec's person rights & liberty chart and Quebec Civil Code.

"A person that can be identify on an image detain a "Right of image" and total authority over this image"

Ø The "Right of image" SURPASSES any "Author's and freedom or expression rights".

Ø To further define, "A movie or video contains images".

Ø Some exceptions or provisions are applicable :

o Images taken during "Recognized" public events (i.e. : Football match …ect) while many peoples appears on the same image(s) (Your BBQ party IS NOT a "Recognized" public event).
o Known public personalities (i.e : Stars, politicians, city councilors …ect.).

Ø Since the Suzan Corriveau vs Canéo inc. court case, now Forums, Blogs & public domains owners now have a responsibility watching their domains against illicit publications. (Canoé inc. a blog owner, condemned to 107,000 $ in damages to the plaintive for inaction against public defamation by members, some anonymous, against that lady) (This case was a first and not the last).

Ø A member to be "Anonymous" is not an excuse or defense for owners (Watch your property and take action).

Ø ALL Internet publishing are deemed "Voluntary" (And it's obvious why).

Ø Internet is now recognize as a "Unity", and therefore, publications made on foreign public domains and/or owned by foreigners make no difference (Especially if the person has sufficient money pay for an international lawyer).

Digging deeper on the subject, here are tree story I found and chose as examples because of their "Extreme" context (i.e : Hazard, consent, relation, paid service, author's right vs right of image …ect).

Story #1 (Pure hazard, author's right vs right of image)

A lawyer's office is right in front of an hotel across the street. Every morning, this lawyer goes to this hotel to get his morning coffee. As he's coming out of the hotel with his coffee, a photographer takes a picture of the hotel (For different purposes, nothing to do with the guy) while the lawyer is coming out and gets both the hotel and the guy on a shot.

Time after, the lawyer's secretary spot the picture in a magazine with her boss on it and informs him.

The lawyer sewed the photographer and won.

Story #2 (Consent, paid service, author's right vs right of image)

A "strip dancer" hires a photographer to take naked pictures of her for her port folio and "paid" him 100$ for digital copies. After taking the pictures, the photographer "verbally" asked the dancer if he could use the pictures and she "verbally" answered No. Still, the photographer decided otherwise (Illicit & voluntary act), used the pictures in a magazine, pictures that was later spotted by one of the strip dancer's friends.

Although she consented these pictures be taken, paid for them and knew the photographer was taking pictures for many magazines, she sewed the photographer and won her case.

Story #3 (i.e : Consent, relation, right of image and privacy).

Pictures and movies (some very private) are taken while a married couple are together before divorcing. Soon after their divorce, M. X decides to publish on his blog, pictures and videos of his Ex wife.

She finds about the blog, goes after her Ex husband and won her case.

Highlights of cases

The following can be found in Canada's rights & liberty and Quebec's person rights & liberty charts, the Quebec Civil Code and supported by both Canada Supreme Court and Court of Appeals;

Ø Every person is the owner of rights of personality, such as the right of life, the non violation and integrity of his person, the respect of his name, of his reputation and his private life.
Ø A person that can be recognize on an image detains a "Right of image" and full authority over the image.
Ø Every person has a right of reputation and privacy respect.
Ø A "Right of image" is part of the "Right of private life".
Ø A "Right of image" surpasses "Author's rights" (Remember our photographers).
Ø The "Rights of image" are non-transferable.
Ø Past or present relationships (Any) provides no rights to use pictures and/or movies.
Ø Mutual images or movies requires mutual consents.
Ø No attack can be carried in the private life and reputation of a person without his or his heir's consent or the law authorizing it.

In most reviewed cases, defenders pleaded the "Right and freedom of expression" and here's what The Supreme Court as to say about it;

The Supreme Court also enounce that this freedom of expression is not absolute and the subjects of public interest must be discussed in a reasonable manner, with the best intentions, within limits and requirements of the right of other people's reputation to the protected.

In one case, the "Defeated" defender pleaded "I did not know …" and in this case, the judge stated …

"Ignorance" is not an excuse nor a defense …

In resume

Ø Image(s) or movie(s) you might have of others that can be identified, even taken by you with your own camera … Are NOT YOURS, and strictly owned by the identifiable person present on the picture(s), including full control over it.

Ø Whatever sources you got image(s) of others that can be identified (i.e : Copied, Transferred, Emailed, From a public domain, published or sent by the "Right of image" owner himself, or from a friend that got it from friend and so on …) IS IRRELEVANT … "Rights of image" are non-transferable and It's NOT YOURS.

Ø If you plan to use image(s) on Internet, whatever the web space is yours or not, or in Emails, makes no difference… Get a written authorization from this person before.

Ø If you have already used image(s) as described above without written consent … Delete, zap, radiate them immediately before the "Right of image" owner notice or learn about it … Or you risk a lawsuit if they find out and wish for $$$.

Ø If you already received a written request (Any form) to cease using or publishing such image(s), comply immediately and here's why :

o In all reviewed cases (10), the "Right of image" owner won.

o The average "Moral" fines were between 1,500 $ and 7,000 $.

o Most important, if you don't comply immediately, you risk falling under "illicit and calculated act" if you're sewed (Read below to understand why).

o Illicit and calculated (Voluntary) damages are added to moral damages and subject to "Exemplary fines " (i.e : Prescribed + Moral + Exemplary = $+$+$ instead of just $$).

Note :

- "Prescribed" is establish by law or chart (i.e : Such offense = Such fine).
- "Moral" is establish by the Judge (i.e : The fine is $ for moral damages).
- "Exemplary (or Punitive)" is establish by the Judge (i.e : $ added for bad intentions).

"Illicit and calculated" definition

«An illicit and calculated attack to a right or to a freedom recognized by the present Chart, grants to the victim the right to obtain ceasing of this attack and repair of the moral or material prejudice which results from it. In case of illicit and calculated attack, the Court can besides condemn his author for exemplary damage.»

This article is shown to further insist on "Complying" if you get a written request to cease, and for :

o "…Chart, grants to the victim the right to obtain ceasing" …Crystal clear don't you think?

o "… the Court can besides condemn his author for exemplary damage", the word "besides" meaning "In addition" and as witness.

As seen;

o In some cases, judges seemed more forgiving and waiving off "Exemplary damages" for "None repeated offenses" or cases where it was somehow accidental (Oups … Sorry … My intentions was not to …).

o None the less, ALL defeated defenders (Accidental or not) ended-up paying, since "Oupsss" and/or "Ignorance" are no excuses (Be informed before you act).

o In opposite, "Repetition" (i.e : Numerous pictures and/or published all over the Web) and "Ignored request to cease" seems to be severally punished, ESPECIALLY if intentions clearly appeared as bad intentions and/or voluntary and/or vicious.

In conclusion,
I strongly recommend this not to be ignored, even more, I will recommend you do your own research to confirm the above with your own contry's laws if you have dough's or don'r know, my goal here being strictly informative.

Good day,
Designer & Inventor

Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Defamation of character

Post by luc » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:09 pm

Dear Members,

Now is the time for me to close this story once and for all, for all that had to be done and said was, and the perpetrator being properly delt with now ... ;-)

Through this story, many of you remained passif watching this none sens, while some of you were kind and supportive to me and for which I now thank you.

Now, for the others and very few of you who in the past, clearly showed me their allegence to the guy, BE INFORMED that your "Preferred one", was granted few days behind bars after showing TOTAL disrespect toward the justice system; A fight he lost learning there are some ABOVE HIM (Rudde awakening for him I guess).

As for my self, my name has been FULLY cleaned ALL documents at hand, and the last image I now have of this guy who once greatly affected my life and family, was him signing a retraction letter with handcuffs.

I remember having read from one of the guy's Web page and I quote; "You have been weighed and found insufficient" ...

Welll ... I will now reply to this; "YOU sir ... Have been tried, convicted and punished" ...

Like a dear friend said to me lately ... "He has been exposed for what he is" ... ;-)

I will write no more ... Case closed ...

Thanks and have a nice day ... ;-)
Designer & Inventor

Post Reply