RUBY& SHILLER BARRISTERS Clayton Ruby (Profesional Corporation) September 14, 2010 Brian Shiller Gerald Chan Nader R. Hasan iam JS. Eliott 11 Prince Arthur Avenue Commissioner Toronto, Ontario Royal Canadian Mounted Police MSR 1B2 1200 Vanier Parkway Ottawa, Ontario Tae Kia OR2 F 416 964 8305 W rubyhlerom Dear Commissioner: | represent AVAAZ, a non-profit, non-governmental organization with offices around the world. AVAAZ = meaning “voice” in several European, Middle Easter and Asian languages ~ was launched in January 2007 with a simple democratic mission: organize citizens everywhere to help close the gap between the world we have and the word most people want. it has grown to 5.5 million members from every ‘country on earth, becoming the largest global web movement in history AVAAZ has been the victim of crime committed in Canada and they have asked me to represent them here. On their behalf, I am asking you to investigate conduct which in my view amounts to the ‘commission against them of serious criminal offences. ‘On or around the evening of September 2nd, 2010 an individual operating from IP address XX.XXX.XX.X at roughly longitude xx.xxx and latitude —xxx«xx ie., Ottawa, accurate to an area code, signed up the following email addresses to the servers owned and operated by Avaaz Foundation respecting a petition entitled Canada: Stop "Fox News North”: [email address attached to “Boba Fett” Email address attached to “Snuffleupagus” Email address attached to Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail Email address attached to Jane Taber of the Globe and Mail ‘As well as a number of other email addresses attributed to high profile journalists) tel‘The petition text read: To CRTC Chair von Finckenstein and PM Harper: As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the RTC's refusal to allow a new *Fox News North” channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada's democratic traditions, and call on Prime ‘Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter. Some of the names added were fictional (example snuffleupagus). Others were the actual names and email addresses of existing Journalists including Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail (who penned a column on august 19, 2010 that was critical of Sun TV). This individual then sent the list of fraudulently entered names to Kory Teneycke, head of Sun TV. Kory Teneycke admitted on the CBC on September 3, 2010 (show entitled Power and Politics) that he had been in touch with the individual who falsely submitted the names. He tweeted that he received the list of names added at 9am on September 3, 2010. That means that Kory Teneycke likely received the list of fraudulent names on or around the same time as he was drafting and submitting an op-ed attacking Avaaz that was published in all Sun Newspapers the morning of September 3, 2010. Venclose a transcript of the relevant portion of the CBC interview with Mr. Teneycke and Mr. Patel who is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of AVAAZ. First, the perpetrators have committed the offence of Identity Fraud: ““s.403 (1)Every one commits an offence who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead, (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another Person; or {2) For the purposes of subsection (1), personating a person includes pretending to be the person or using the person’s identity information — whether by itself or in combination with identity information pertaining to any person ~ as if it pertains to the person using it. (3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more ‘than 10 years; oF (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.” ‘Second, they have committed the offence of Fraud: “s.380(1) Every one who, be deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or note, of any property, money or valuable security or any KS {b) is guilty(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.” “Fraudulent means” has been defined as “objectively dishonest conduct” but in any event this crime was ‘committed by deceit and by falsehood. The creation and forwarding of a petition is a “service” provided by Avaaz Foundat ‘Third, this is a Theft of Telecommunication Service: "s.326(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently, maliciously, or without colour of right, {b) uses any telecommunication facility or obtains any telecommunication service. (2) In this section and section 327, “telecommunication” means any transmission, ion or reception of signs, signals, writing, images or sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual or other electromagnetic system.” This crime is obviously committed both maliciously and without colour of right. The electronic servers Used by AVAAZ for signing people on to petitions is a “service”. ‘And, if that offence has been committed, ¢ fortiori, there has been the commission of the offence of identity theft pursuant to s.402.2. We consider this matter to be urgent. We do not know the identity of the user of the computer referred to above. But that should be readily ascertainable. | am instructed to offer my services and assistance to your investigation. Please do not hesitate to call on me. Yours very truly, Clayton C. Ruby drm. KsCBC “Power and Politics” Aired September 2, 2010 ‘Video can be found here: http://www.cbe.ca/ video/i/News/Featured_Videos/ID=1582123926 Start time: 9:35 Evan Solomon: You've got Mr. Patel saying there’s 50,000 signatures but I’ve got journalists here at CBC saying they've found their names on this petition. They never signed up. They’re not part of Avaaz.at all and yet, they’ve found their names on this petition. Some have said that there’s been — and Avaaz has accused maybe your organization or supporters of mucking with their system. Can you tell us, did you sabotage, or did anybody in your organization make an attempt to sabotage this online petition that the likes of Margaret Atwood have signed, by the ‘way, and you've written about that? Kory Teneycke: Online petitions of this nature are much like bulletin boards on news sites. ‘Anyone can go in and they can call themselves whatever they want and they can sign up whatever phony or fake email address they want and there’s no controls. It's not scientific, it's not verified. Ricken Patel: But it’s a crime. KT: It's not verified. It's a farce. RP: But it’s a crime to sign up someone else’s email address KT: I think it’s fareical that you can sign up... Sauffleupagus as a supporter of that. I have not signed up to this petition nor have I signed anyone else up to this petition although I, like some of these journalists, was signed up by someone. I don’t think it's a big deal. RP: You can’t sign up ~IfI could just get in on that. ES: Go ahead Mr. Patel. RP: You can sign up Snuffleupagus, but you can’t sign up someone else, A particular other person, That’s a violation of privacy. KT: Well obviously you can, because somebody signed me and I didn’t sign up. RP: And somebody did that last night, just as you were writing the op-ed that you then published in your newspapers the next morning. And you seem to have knowledge of it. ‘And I’m wondering how you came to knowledge of that and if the police do investigate and it does, in fact, come out that a crime has been committed, will you be — ah — will you give the name of the person who you say you've been in touch with who may have committed this fraud, ES: You tweeted that a source had told you about this. KT: A source had told me about this and I’m sure that someone who pretends to defend freedom of speech and journalism would understand you don’t reveal sources.RP: In the case of criminal conduct, the Supreme Court has given a different answer to that question, a much more nuanced answer to that question. End 11:50