Legal Suit Update


Honey Badger Brigade is focused on pursuing those avenues of legal redress that will bring about both the swiftest and greatest likelihood of success. We believe that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should include protections against Canadians being discriminated for expressing their beliefs, however at this time we are not pursing challenging this exclusion in the charter. We support the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in its fight to protect freedom of expression of Canadians everywhere and will inquire with our contributors if they would like any non-compensatory damages we’re awarded to go to the CCLA.

Why are we taking legal action?

The Calgary Comics Expo expelled Alison Tieman and the Honey Badger Brigade from its April 16th Expo, defaming her and the Brigade with false accusations of disruptive conduct to rationalize its decision to censor the group’s views. We want to use this case to establish a legal precedent that would benefit others with dissident views who want to participate in similar activities.

The central focus of our litigation will be to defend freedom of expression of views that do not necessarily accord with majority opinion in the gaming and comics world.  This case will be pursued publicly. Our goal is not only to break the ban and set the record straight as to what happened on April 17th  but also to prevent Expo and other similar organizations from suppressing public access to views that they don’t necessarily agree with.

The lawsuit will be pursued in the name of Honey Badger Brigade and its founder, Alison Tieman. The claim will  include judicial relief for breach of contract, injurious falsehood and a court decision that will denounce the exclusion and expulsion of the Plaintiffs on grounds of discrimination.  In addition the claim will be pursued against writers and media outlets that reprinted the unfounded accusations against the Honey Badger Brigade. The Plaintiffs will pursue compensatory and punitive damages but the emphasis will be to obtain a judicial pronouncement that will clear Alison Tieman and the Honey Badger Brigade’s name completely and restore their right to participate in future Expos.

The Honey Badger Brigade commits itself to use any non-compensatory court award to promote and defend the rights of other dissidents in the gaming and comics world that may be victimized for expressing and promoting unpopular views.

I’ve attached documentation of the funds we’ve received, their transfer to a separate banking account and the current balance.

This balance is in CND. It reflects the amount we received minus 5% transaction fees, multiplied by the exchange rate from USD to CND at the time we received the funds.

It’s also minus a 3500$ retainer paid to our legal council.

Fundraised amount: $30,589.21 USD (250$ refunded after deadline.)

5% transaction fees:  -$1529.46 USD

Conversion to CND(~x1.17): 34032.00

5/20/15 $2,000.00
5/21/15 $1,500.00
8/20/15 $1,500.00
8/22/15 $1,250.00
01/08/16 $2,750.00
05/11/16 $715.63
08/02/16 $3,000.00
08/05/16 $1,214.75
12/02/16 $2,320.33
12/26/16 $3000.00
12/27/16 $3000.00
12/28/16 $3000.00
Total: 25250.71

Total Remaining : 8781.29 CND

As we get additional invoices and statements, we’ll append them to this post.


Alison Tieman
Follow me
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Alison Tieman

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="152397">141 comments</span>

    • I mean, Christ, when’s the last time you saw actual invoices outside of embezzlement trial proceedings?

    • How is that transparency, exactly? Where’s the evidence they retained a lawyer?

      • We haven’t retained a lawyer. The retainer is for Harry Kopyto who is doing the background research and legwork. When and if we need a lawyer we will get one.

        • You had better be careful with your legalese from this point onwards.
          IANAL but I just checked some definitions on legal websites and
          lawyers are notably touchy. If Mr. Kopyto is not a lawyer they don’t
          even want you to refer to him as “of counsel” which means a lawyer with a
          loose relation to a case such as a researcher. Otherwise he is a
          researcher, or more dramatically, a private detective.

    • Those of us from Wisconsin are cheering Go Honeybadgers! Because “Go Badgers” means our college team. But we are cheering.

  • Good luck, make sure you select a good legal firm. Aim for settlement but don’t rule out court. A settlement will be embarrassing to them, doesn’t strictly establish a president but it does establish where the cost lies in future. Expo insurances providers will certainly take note.

    • Lol try reading the statement. They are going for a court decision which will clear the way to them (and anyone else with opposing views) appearing at future expos. How the hell do you think they will do that by settling out of court?

      • First it’s all well and good to aim for an in court victory, it’s a noble goal (and yes I read the statement). However winning in court is both costly and far from certain in any case. And it can often be overturned at appeal, which adds further cost and so forth. That is why any honest lawyer (yes there are some of those out there) will always encourage his or her clients to reach an out of court settlement if at all possible. An out of court settlement is final, simpler, faster and less expensive (and just keep in mind this could end up with the Honey Badgers ordered to pay all court expenses and legal fees if a court decision goes against them).
        Secondly an out of court settlement does indirectly set a precedent since it will be clear to all parties involved where fault lies and who is out of pocket. Other expo and convention organisers in Canada will take note of the decision and will take steps to avoid their own future liability. And companies which provide event insurance will most likely take measures to reflect the decision in future insurance fees.

      • Court is the last and worst place to negotiate when people have a disagreement so vast, they need a court of law to look at the facts and evidence and make a decision binding on both the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s). Ideally, you want to prepare for trial, but manage to settle on consent.

        The Badgers, namely Alison made an attempt to mitigate this matter in writing. This good will attempt was not even responded to. Now, they are working the matter towards a court of law for address and disposition.

        Anything you can achieve in court can be achieved outside of court in terms of settlement, save getting an order which is legally binding and subject to contempt of court hearing if any party disregards a court order. Being held in contempt of court can lead to being incarcerated.

      • When you deal with lawyers you have to pick nits. The terrm is “legal precedent:” not “legal president”.

  • This is the sort of transparency you need a court order to get from the likes of Sarkeesian.

  • Thanks for the update. Have you reached out to any high-profile legal experts to submit an amicus brief?

  • So, we already weakened Gawker Media via the email campaigns.
    Now they might get a bloody nose from the HBB over libel.
    And then there’s the incoming Hogan lawsuit.

    Oh children, it’s happening.

  • I wonder what kind of relationship Calgary Expo will have with The Mary Sue after the court action?

  • > It’s also minus a 3500$ retainer paid to our legal council.

    Which firm did you retain?

    • We retained the legal services of Harry Kopyko. He is a very controversial figure in the area of human rights and discrimination law and a disbarred lawyer. However he has received awards for his work defending human rights–specifically he has fought for the rights of dissenters and underdogs, marxists, gay people, racial minorities and now us.

      He also works on scale, which is necessary since 30k is basically nothing when it comes to legal costs.

      • It’s a felony for a disbarred lawyer to practice law in the U.S. Is it not in Canada?

          • The lawsuit will take place in Alberta not Ontario. Further because he has experience in these kinds of cases, he’s doing the legal leg work.

            If/when we need the services of a lawyer, we will get one. Until then we’ll avoid the 250-500$ price tag for research.

          • You need a proper admitted lawyer to set foot in an Alberta courtroom, meanwhile you’re burning money on a disbarred Ontario lawyer?

          • Harry can function as a paralegal in Alberta if necessary. Incidentally how is it “burning money” to go to someone to do background research?

          • Considering you’re the one who took $30K in donations from supporters and gave it to a guy disbarred for fraudulent billing and then denied even a paralegal license, I’m not sure you’re capable of understanding how you’re burning money.

          • Considering I’m the one who will be facing the possibility of being legally liable for the Expo’s legal costs should this go south, I think I’m very aware of the costs.

            If you’re a donor, you donated what? 5$, 10$? 250$? You realize I(Alison) could be responsible for tens of thousands of dollars if this case fails if we take it to small claims court.

            Hundreds of thousands if we take it to a higher court.

          • None of this changes the fact that you literally took $30K of other people’s money, promising them a trial, and gave it to a proven fraudster who can’t even set foot in a courtroom with you.

            Anyway, I do applaud your honesty on that point.

          • Again, he can function as a paralegal in Alberta. If and when we need a lawyer we will get one. Until then, he can function to do the legal legwork and prepare the paperwork.

            >promising them a trial

            And what makes you think they won’t get one? Even though I’m going to be facing the brunt of the potential fallout, I’m going to do everything in my power to make this get to trial, if the Expo doesn’t settle beforehand.

          • If you have good relevant evidence and it is prepared well, the other side in most cases will want to settle as losing in court be it on a motion or trial leads to having to pay court costs. Most cases do settle on consent and only those cases that do not settle, go to trial.

            The end game is to achieve a goal as set out in a Statement of Claim. That goal can be reached without ever setting foot in a court of law. A Statement of Claim is just the beginning of a negotiation process where if need be, one can obtain legally binding orders including judgements against the plaintiff(s).

            It is far more effective and advantageous to have a party agree to your terms outside of court.

          • “promising them a trial, ”
            I missed this part of the fund drive.
            And why would people insist on a trail for their money anyway? The entertainment value? Please clarify.

          • Like you and the other femtwats even care about other people’s money unless you’re begging for it yourselves. Plus isn’t it mra money? Carry on and take your meds darling lol.

          • She does have a point here. If this fails, there will be serious consequences, mostly for them, not the donors.

            I know this must be painful for you, Alison, because on top of the humiliation suffered at the hands of Calgary Expo, now you have to coordinate all these hard legal efforts and you’re probably not the best individual to deal with high stress (not meant in a bad way, I also have a lot of trouble coping with stress), but the point is, people are panicking. I am panicking, @disqus_r7RaKkM4ZB:disqus is panicking, everyone is scared. I don’t even know what else to say.

          • Hey, what proof do you have that Harry Kopyto was disbarred for fraudulent billing as you stated? I will answer that for you. You have no proof, because that is not why he was disbarred. Harry Kopyto was disbarred because he, after 7 years was unable to have RCMP officers charged for falsifying evidence against high school students in an investigation to stop and break the students involved in a protest at a high school. In frustration he uttered these words in court. “The courts and the RCMP are sticking so close together you’d think they were put together with Krazy Glue.”

            The, the LSUC, went on a witch hunt to have Harry Kopyto disbarred because he refused to apologize to the courts. In other words, he refused to bow to the courts when he knew they were protecting criminals, RCMP officers. Instead, he fights for the rights of his fellow man often the most poor and the most stuck who have exhausted all other means in the courts.

            “In 1986, Kopyto was charged with a contempt of court citation by Attorney-General Ian Scott for “scandalizing the court” by telling the press, following a judge’s decision to dismiss Dowson’s case, “This decision is a mockery of justice. It stinks to high hell. It says it is okay to break the law and you are immune so long as someone above you said to do it. Mr. Dowson and I have lost faith in the judicial system to render justice. We’re wondering what is the point of appealing and continuing this charade of the courts in this country which are warped in favour of protecting the police. The courts and the RCMP are sticking so close together you’d think they were put together with Krazy Glue.”[9] Kopyto faced a fine and up to six months in jail if convicted”

            I don’t think you you are capable of understanding what you are talking about. And stop misstating facts. Look at the CIBC bank statement. The money is in the bank and a $3,500 retainer is/has been paid to Harry Kopyto.

            I attended many of his good character hearings by a group of LSUC lawyers, that was an embarrassment to the practice of law. One of the three panel members, picked her nose at length, in front of a crowded room of supporters. There is ZERO chance of a fair hearing in a panel hearing run by the LSUC who’s side Harry has been a huge thorn in since years before he was disbarred. Stemming from being the target of a witch hunt refusing to drop his duty to have RCMP officers charged for committing a serious Criminal Code violation.

          • Since paralegals are now regulated in canada and need to obtain a license to practice it is very very likely that this applies to paralegals. Unless he has already obtained a license from Alberta which is very unlikely. There is really no way shape or form that he can represent you and charging for legal work as a disbarred lawyer and not certified at a paralegal is a huge red flag.

          • Paralegals are not regulated in Alberta. They’re regulated in Ontario.

          • Let say that is true. Can you explain the reasoning behind hiring a disbarred lawyer over say a real lawyer that is certified and can actually represent you. You are paying double what you need to. A law firm will want to do its own research. They won’t just accept his research and go off that. Unless you pay them both to work together? Even then it could have some legal issues. Either way there is no way this is not a bad idea and a waste of money + some really horrible publicity.

          • Disbarred, by the way, for ripping off his clients. He billed previous clients for more than 24 hours work per day.

          • Provide your proof of the allegation you make against Harry Kopyto.

            Would it shock you to know, I attended his hearings at Osgoode Hall where at his good character hearing, it turned out he actually under-billed legal aid?

            Would it shock you to know that former officer Greenaway, who was harshly rebuked by a judge of putting policing into disrepute for his and his fellow officers going into the Pussy Palace just to gawk at nude women, was charged with investigating his good character?

            Which client has he ripped off Alex? Show me proof Harry Kopyto billed any client more than 24 hours of work in a 24 hour day clock cycle.

          • To be fair, he wasn’t disbarred for ripping off his clients, he was disbarred for ripping off Legal Aid

            To the tune of $150,000 if I recall correctly.

          • As one of your donors, let me stress that the sentiment being expressed above certainly doesn’t reflect my opinion, or the opinions of a number of others that I know have donated.

            I am more than happy with your choice to maximise the effectiveness of your budget. Selecting a disbarred lawyer who was disbarred for administrative reasons rather than ability ensures that you can get quality legal advice at a much reduced rate.

            Don’t listen to these idiots, they’re probably part of the crowd that cheered when you were kicked out. This looks to be part of a misinformation campaign – hoping to discredit you before you get to trial.

            This isn’t a social justice war though, the law doesn’t give two hoots about their feelings. Just ask Pao.

          • Selecting a disbarred lawyer who was disbarred for administrative reasons rather than ability ensures that you can get quality legal advice at a much reduced rate.

            Yes, I imagine a legal assistant who who was previously disbarred for billing fraud, and who is being hired to act in a capacity where his billing rates are unregulated probably offers a pretty competitive rate. But it certainly doesn’t include “legal advice”

            The Law Society of Alberta: “Paralegals and legal assistants are an integral part of many law offices and perform a valuable function when working directly under the supervision of a lawyer. However, legal agents, paralegals and legal assistants are not lawyers and they cannot give legal advice.”

          • I disagree. Vernon Beck of Canada Court Watch was recently granted leave (permission) in Superior Court to represent a minor in Family Court.

            His good character hearing ruling is being appealed. I am not a licensed lawyer, but have argued hundreds of motions in court, successfully.

            Does anyone understand or even know, WHY, the LSUC had decided to license (regulate) paralegals? To stop them from taking billing by lawyers at hundreds of dollars per hour to at or about $100 per hour by a paralegal.

            What do you know about the law, the courts, LSUC and the terms that bind lawyers and the public in practising law? Do you have a Google degree or do you actually understand law?

          • ETHICS!

            I know these are mental midgets like Tieman and Straughan that we’re talking about here, but oh man this is hilarious

          • If you think you’re smarter than them, why don’t just you bring forth legitimate criticism, evidence logic and just prove them wrong then?

            You know.. instead of just barging into the place and calling people names…

        • So they hired a guy who can’t represent them in court, who has a proven track record of billing fraud, and who, if he should take this money and provide service on par with a retarded fifth grader, can not be held accountable in any way? And they did this all with other peoples money?


          I hope the donors are pleased with how their money is being thrown away

          • I corrected that, I apologize for constantly editing my comments.

            It would seem according to the Law Society of Alberta that he can indeed represent them in court.

            Please tell me where you have heard about billing fraud. I have only heard about his former girlfriend, who is a lawyer herself having issues with that.

            Anyway, I suggest reading this article:
            Kopyto is indeed a very controversial figure, but I’m starting to have mixed feelings. Maybe it’s not a bad decision after all. It’s definitely a very risky move, but who knows.

          • what keywords did you search for, I can’t find it in the article…

            I only found this:

            “While dissenting votes occur, for the first time in a LSUC disbarment vote, one of 40 elected lawyers sitting as Benchers issued a written dissenting opinion. Bencher Thomas J. P. Carey said he was so “fundamentally in disagreement with the majority in Convocation, as well as the Discipline Committee” that he felt compelled to issue the dissent in which he asserted that there was no basis for the Society’s initial claims of fraud and that it is notable that the Legal Aid Plan never asked Kopyto to return any of the funds paid to him on the basis of his “inaccurate accounts.” Mr. Kopyto remains a disbarred lawyer and is not permitted to practise law in Ontario.[22] Writer David Primack added to Carey’s argument by pointing out that unrelated funds owing to Kopyto, which were frozen during the disbarment case were eventually paid to him in full.[22]”

          • “So it’s not clear.”

            He was charged with professional misconduct by the Law Society of Upper Canada for overbilling Legal Aid. 39 of the 40 benchers ruling on the case found his conduct deserving of disbarment.

            Seems pretty clear to me.

            But there was one single bencher who disagreed, and felt so strongly about it that he submitted a written dissent.

            If all it takes is one guy out of forty to convince you that maybe he really was innocent, well, it seems that’s fine I guess — reasonable people can disagree. Though i wonder how other donors feel about it

          • Well, that’s their side of the story.

            Normally I would believe the rest of the 39 guys, but it may as well have just been that he was simply a person they needed to get rid of because of his statements about the RCMP which by the way are quoted in his Wikipedia page as well.

            In 1986, Kopyto was charged with a contempt of court citation by Attorney-General Ian Scott
            for “scandalizing the court” by telling the press, following a judge’s
            decision to dismiss Dowson’s case, “This decision is a mockery of
            justice. It stinks to high hell. It says it is okay to break the law and
            you are immune so long as someone above you said to do it. Mr. Dowson
            and I have lost faith in the judicial system to render justice. We’re
            wondering what is the point of appealing and continuing this charade of
            the courts in this country which are warped in favour of protecting the
            police. The courts and the RCMP are sticking so close together you’d
            think they were put together with Krazy Glue.”[9] Kopyto faced a fine and up to six months in jail if convicted.[10]

            and then a few years later:

            Kopyto told the press that “I admitted to guessing at the exact
            amount of time spent on some accounts. On some accounts, I overbilled.
            On some accounts, I underbilled. In the end, I’ve averaged out to being
            underpaid. If I wanted to rip people off to make money, I wouldn’t have
            taken a Legal Aid certificate. To say you can rip off Legal Aid is

            Worth mentioning, he wasn’t asked to pay anything back (which he should have, if he did overbill. He was just summarily kicked out and that was it.

            He told the disciplinary committee “Any inaccuracies in the bills I
            submitted were not intentional and were minimal in nature, I was
            attempting to reconstruct events which I hadn’t recorded properly.” The
            three person disciplinary committee recommended disbarring Kopyto.[21] The Law Society’s benchers voted to disbar the lawyer on November 7, 1989.[19] Mr. Kopyto was disbarred.

            You’d have to wonder if that wasn’t set up, because Kopyto was just too uppity for the Justice System’s taste.

          • “It would seem according to the Law Society of Alberta that he can indeed represent them in court.”

            No. Maybe you are unclear on what “disbarred” actually means? I mean, i could be wrong – you have a link that explains this? Because all I could find was this:

            “Practising law without a licence or insurance is called Unauthorized Practice of Law and is monitored vigorously by the Law Society of Alberta and self-governing regulators in other provinces.

            Some legal matters can be performed unsupervised by paralegals, legal assistants and other legal agents. Only members of the Law Society can practise as lawyers.”

            And this:

            9. How can I tell if my lawyer is authorized to practice law?

            You can check your lawyer’s status with our Lawyer Directory service.

            As several people in this thread have stated, he may be able to perform as a paralegal in Alberta (even though he is specifically barred from doing so in Ontario) , but this does not allow him to represent them in any way. I can’t be arsed to look up the Alberta specific rules, but I strongly suspect he won’t even be allowed to be present in court with them

            “Please tell me where you have heard about billing fraud.”

            It’s the reason he was disbarred

            Keep in mind, there is is no governing body in charge of paralegals , so if there are problems, the client has no recourse for review, complaint, or discipline. This also means that If you feel you are being overcharged for their services, you have no avenue for complaint. Not a strong selling point for hiring a guy who was disbarred for billing fraud to the tune of $150K

            Also remember that conversations with a paralegal are neither confidential nor privileged; they can even be called as a witness against their own clients. They are not required to adhere to any code of ethics. They are not required to be insured. They are under no obligation to preserve client files, or keep them confidential.

          • Hm, I’ll keep that in mind, but I’ll look more into this, to make sure I don’t get it wrong.
            So far I’ve been against this, for this, against this and for this again, it’s hard to tell what to make of it.

            Even if he can’t represent them in court, he may as well provide enough useful input to them so they can either forward exactly what needs to be done to whoever ends up representing them in court. And I would find it understandable if lawyers don’t quite flock to take HBB’s case.

            Plus Vinczer’s post show there’s more to that disbarment that just him being accused of “fraud” (whether he over-billed or under-billed is also up to debate, it seems). Read the above posts.

            At any rate, I KNOW for a fact Alison wants this to succeed about as much as we do.

          • It would have been quicker and more efficient to just set the money on fire.

        • But why would they pick him? His track record is not very good, he has a history of rule breaking and grandstanding, and his representing them is iffy at best. Why not go to a real law firm?

          He has done some good things and stands up for the right causes but I wouldn’t bet 5 bucks on him.

          • I think I have an idea why they picked him.

            He seems very dedicated to human rights issues (probably has something to do with his family being holocausted and him developing a bit of a fucking martyr/savior complex), and yes, he sometimes breaks the rules to try to win his cases, hence the spotty record.

            This is the equivalent of using all your money to buy an expensive but damaged anti-tank sniper rifle when your enemy has a mere cheapo uzi machinepistol. If you land a hit, you obliterate them… but then again if there’s mechanical failure, it will blow up in your own face and maim you.

            It’s a desperate all or nothing situation, I think.

            And too I am about as worried as one could be. I am literally shaking in my seat as I’m typing this, because I can’t tell what the odds are this will work out.


          • Don’t rule out him picking them. “Hey you’ve got a law suit here…” Never trust anything when a lawyer is involved. 🙂

  • Is it your contention that your right to “free speech” means you can say what you want, where you want, and when you want to say it?

    What is it, exactly, that you’re suing for? What was the tort?

    • The right to enter private property under false presences, and to be given a platform by private companies regardless of what they say or do.

      • “The right to enter private property under false presences, ”
        You seem to think your right to free speech permits you to lie, don’t you?

      • What are those ” false presences” you speak of, sir ?

        Mind you, CalEx printed all necessary HBB identifying materials and badges – they knew who they had allowed to exhibit.

        People made pictures of GG logo and cried it’s harassment. CalEx didn’t know HBB are on their best behaviour and even record themselves – so they felt free to throw them out on made up charge of “harassment”.
        Not true, should not happen.

        People realise how ridiculus this bid for censorship is, that’s why they support.
        I mean really, throwing out people with “stand up against censorship” banner… “censorship: you are doing it wrong”.

        If CalEx just ignored the badgers and calmed down crybabies scared of an anti-censorship poster, they now wouldn’t have 30K in donations.

      • They paid a fee to the private company and represented themselves as the
        Honey Badger Brigade. They paid for a booth and the payment was

        There have been attempts to say they misrepresented
        because the internet link on their application was to Alison Tieman’s
        cartoonist site. If they had represented themselves as Ms. Tieman’s
        content site and it was a ruse to trace back to the Honey Badger’s then
        that could be construed as a misrepresentation.

        Their critics therefore have the logic backwards. This is known in formal logic as an “antilogism”.

    • No. The incident in question was during the question and answer part of a discussion. One person had the floor and expressed a wonder at to what the MRAs could think about this.

      Alison Tieman asked to answer the question and was duly recognized. She gave a succinct answer and yielded the floor afterwards.

  • For those that are unfamiliar with Harry Kopyto, please take a few minutes to view this 1989 Fifth Estate interview with Kopyto. It explains why he remains a disbarred lawyer, by HIS choice as a matter of principle. His crime, he wanted RCMP officers charged for committing a Criminal Code violation, fabricating and planting evidence against high school students. After 7 years in court trying to lay an information, refused by court, he out of frustration made this statement in open court; “The courts and the RCMP are sticking so close together you’d think they were put together with Krazy Glue.”

    Furthermore, as a result of his non impartial quasi court LSUC tribunal, it came out as a matter of fact that he actually under-billed legal aid! Rest assured, legal aid of Ontario would be demanding he repay them if in fact he unlawfully obtained payment from them. They would probably also demand he be charged criminally. There are people at the LSUC that would like to see Kopyty vanish from the face of earth.

    I see there are plenty of people who would attack this man, one of the greatest advocates for human rights in Canada who refuses to bow to those that thwarted his ability to have RCMP officers charged.

    • I took this video at Osgoode Hall during a recess at Harry’s good character hearing. On this day I heard LSUC lawyers argue that a man who hijacked an airplane from Canada to Cuba, is now deemed of good enough character to qualify being a lawyer in Ontario! A woman I interviewed who went to school with this man, reported she was routinely sexually harassed at law school!

      Instead, they (LSUC) question the character of a man who has never committed any crime and has fought fervently for minorities, the underprivileged and the common man in Ontario, Canada. If you feel the need to character assassinate Harry Kopyto, please provide proof of your allegations and get your current facts straight.

    • David Futrelle is a twat.

      And they “didn’t go silent about their lawsuit for a long time”. In fact I was genuinely surprised HBB are already advancing with this.

      I have some legal issues of my own, but all in all it took me ONE ENTIRE YEAR between the offense and filing my lawsuit. The first half spent trying to work out a solution with the other party (and busy recording their lies as to what they are doing about it), the second half going silent and compiling/redacting my evidence in a big-ass folder to make sure I got every detail covered. True, I’m representing myself for the time being, but a legal battle is in any case not something you get done in a couple of weeks. This shit takes a lot of time and preparation, and you’re thinking in terms of months/years.

      And even if he needs lawyer supervision, it’s not like Kopyto has been sitting on his ass and done nothing so far. Spotty career, but still fighting the good fight for human rights and all articles on him are a testament to that.

        • And you support someone who’s hunted nothing more dangerous than a ham sandwich, forget a mammoth.

        • You know that the story behind the title of David’s blog (now that he’s changed it from the illustrious and thought provoking moniker “Manboobz”) discredits the feminist argument that women have to be feminists because they claim everything they’ve done is for us, right? You guys are a joke. ^_^

          • I love that you come here with nothing, can’t respond to information that discredits your source, & then have the audacity to claim we’re the fools. I wish everyone I debate would be as easy as you. XD

          • You made a fool of yourself by hiring that man. I am not a supporter of David futrelle so I don’t give a damn what you say about that guy

          • * Cites Futrelle as evidence that hiring an expert in the area we’re pursuing is a bad idea
            * Responds to evidence against Futrelle’s credibility as a commentator with empty vitriol
            * Responds to ridicule of bad argument style with denial of support for his own source
            * Repeats claim Futrelle made

            Yeah, guys – we should totally be taking our advice from Venny here. He really knows his shit.

          • its not a claim that he made, its a claim you made. You hired that fellow, you said so yourself, it doesn’t matter if I found out from futtrelle

          • It’s adorable that you keep trying after you’ve been so soundly trounced. Attempting to move the goalposts from your own name calling in response to Futrelle’s assessment to the expert we hired does not improve your position. Just shows you knew how shitty your points were when you posed them in the first place.

          • Up yours. You made a bad hire. Avfm is not a good group y’all keep making fools of yourself

          • avfm is a shitty group! paul elam is a scammer! avfm is a sinking ship, thats why they had to cancel their conference! people didn’t want to go to it!

          • AVfM is fine. They put out nice articles and really interesting hangouts, so it’s worth the “scam”. And Paul Elam is actually a good guy. He’s a bit of a dick sometimes, but I still like him.

            Yeah, people not going to the conference might have something to do with all the death threats we get, but hey, as long as the recordings (and the guests) survive the event, I’m happy to watch them on YT.

            ps: you sound really desperate. sweaty enough yet?

          • they knew people were not gonna be the tickets and it would all be a big embarrassment so they cancelled it to save face! i knew it wouldnt go ahead!

          • fuck avfm! all the best people have left, like john the other and bernard chapin and the mad shangi

        • True, but they didn’t hire him to act in an official capacity as a legal representative. They hired him to help with some research.

          I’m not saying Alison and company can do no wrong. If they went to court with a non-practicing attorney representing them, it would reflect poorly on their judgement.

          But that’s not what was described in the above update.

          If they hired a disbarred attorney to fetch coffee, it would have comparable ramifications here- which is to say, none. Anyone using this instance for fault-finding is in desperate need of something more substantive.

          • Oh my god- I never thought of it that way.

            I see now. It’s ineluctable- You’re correct, of course. Thank you, thank you for taking the time to articulate your logic, it’s all so clear now.



            How could I have been so naive.

            You have disillusioned me, good sir, I must retire to the wreckage of my once-proud fantasies.

            “Life is the art of being well deceived; and in order that the deception may succeed it must be habitual and uninterrupted.” ~William Hazlitt

    • Venny, I was once browsing my Disqus posts and when trying to see who upvoted me I clicked and a bug in Disqus recorded an upvote from me to me. Doubling down on their bug there does not appear to be a way to remove it.

      I see that one of the upvotes for your post is from you to you.

      Please assure us that you have not found this bug in Disqus and turned it into a hack.

  • Excellent update- stating your intent, your actions, your expectations, and providing evidence to that effect. You’re proceeding optimally, which seems to be a hallmark of the Honey Badgers.

    Indie creator very much rooting for you guys- get in there and strike a blow against the Thought Police!

    • Wait, are you the guys doing the furry comic with the same name?!
      Wow, I’m totally surprised to see you here of all places :3

      I wholeheartedly agree. Fuck the Thought Police!

      (ps: seen some of your stuffs posted on and found it really really nice, the attention to colors and details and backgrounds particularly stuck in my memory. You rarely see that for that kind of comic. I should probably go to your site and read the whole thing some day. Keep up the good work, I’ll definitely bookmark you guys)

      • That’s us. 8 ) Normally I steer clear of politics- I want to offer fantasy, an *escape* from that kind of pain-in-the-ass reality. But seeing as how politically motivated people are seeking to suppress and censor creations they don’t like, well, it seems I’ve got skin in the game whether I like it or not.

        I figure the least I can do is cheer for the people soaking up bullets on the front-lines, which in this case would be Alison & company.

  • How can I donate? Oh and to the fems I don’t want your concern over what happens to my money that I donated. Go find a safe space:)

  • Good luck wishes from AVfM Sweden. The scales are falling from peoples eyes and the real sexists are really worried now that their lies finally are about to be exposed. The signs are visible everywhere. Even though they are doing their best to suppress the truth.

    The day of reckoning will be glorious.

  • Well done. Perhaps you should name Kandrix Foong in the suit as he is the founder as well as the founder of the upcoming Edmonton Expo

  • What an unfortunate waste of time and money. $30,000 can do a lot more good than be wasted on a lawsuit with zero percent chance of winning.

    The way I see it, this suit basically boils down to the Expo’s claim that guests were harassed by the Honey Badgers. This is essentially a he-said, she-said argument. How is the Expo supposed to provide proof of the harassment? And how are the Honey Badgers to prove there was no harassment? Sworn statements from each of the thousands of attendees?

    Consider: The Expo allowed the Honey Badgers to set up a booth. They allowed you to attend the feminist panel and participate in it. If censorship was their goal, why didn’t they act earlier? I’m not an expert in Canadian law, but I find it highly unlikely you will be able to provide satisfactory evidence of censorship.

    And you intend to sue the media outlets that defamed you? Again, I see very little chance of success in this battle. I read just about everything I could on this expulsion, and I don’t recall any media outlets being grossly negligent in their reporting. Some cases may have been slanted and incomplete, but not to the point of being held legally accountable. Even The Mary Sue provided links to Honey Badger videos where the people in question told their story in their own words.

    So please, don’t waste too many resources on this fruitless battle.

    • It’s not he-said, she-said – Badgers were recording themselves, especially during Women in Comics panel and there is no harassment.

      They were expelled becouse people were complaining on twitter when they saw “Stand against censorship” poster which featured “GG Ethics” logo (GamerGate).

      imagine we both are on a convention. It’s fun.
      However, convention organizers for some unknown reason allowed some Muslim exhibitors. As we know, Muslims are not fun – they are all terrorists, aren’t they ? Who didn’t hear about 9/11 ? About ISIS ?
      So we both (and our friends) tweet #CalEx telling them that we feel unsafe and how could they allow terrorists/murderers/harassers/misogynists in.
      CalEx security comes in and throws exhibitors out.

      Is it really the perfect world you want to live in, Dallin ?

      • For the sake of argument, let’s pretend the Honey Badgers did have a complete, comprehensive recording of every single thing they said and did at the Expo. This would illustrate that they were polite and civil, which could help their case. But it would not completely absolve them of the claims of harassment because they displayed posters that others consider offensive. And displaying offensive materials is creating a hostile environment, despite having polite, courteous behavior.

        And let’s not compare a Twitter hashtag to a major, centuries-old world religion and culture. A better comparison would be to the Confederate battle flag. I acknowledge it’s unfair to compare GamerGate to the complex, 150-year history of the Southern United States, but there a few, basic similarities worth noting:

        Most supporters of the Confederate flag do not consider themselves racists, and would argue quite passionately that the flag has nothing to do with racism. But so many other people equate that flag as a symbol of racism, that even NASCAR is asking people to not bring Confederate flags to their races.

        To a much lesser degree, most GamerGaters do not support abuse or misogyny of any kind. They argue passionately about how the movement is solely focused on improving journalism ethics and standing against censorship. But many people see the abuse, hostility and harassment surrounding GamerGate and are uncomfortable when they see GamerGate propaganda.

        For the record, I think the Calgary Expo’s decision was an unfair, knee-jerk reaction. I believe they were simply attempting to defuse a potentially messy situation before it got out of hand, and they responded rashly and harshly. But not illegally, in my opinion. I find it impossible that any court would recognize this as an act of censorship.

By Alison Tieman

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather