Editor: We have lots more than one lie. We’ve got a pattern, going back years, backed by handwriting experts and a solid source. It dates from before he was an MLA, back when he was Mayor, right up to date.

Lawyer: Okay . . . so "lies" plural. Will that be okay?

Editor: If we have to – for legal – we have to, but I thought "is a liar" was stronger.

Lawyer: Well, it is. That’s why I’m wondering . . . you see, "is a liar" is a textbook example of defamation. It suggests that he’s systematic about it, does it every time he gets the opportunity, lying is part of his nature. And one more thing . . . I think it’s a factual thing – not a matter of opinion - it’s fact all the way, you’d have to prove, as a fact, that he intentionally stated false facts, repeatedly, habitually.

Editor: Okay, well, I’ll tell you what we have. We have his handwriting on letters, on the envelopes, going back years – all praising himself and criticizing his adversaries. They all have fictitious authors. They’re all sent to papers for publication. He must have intended to mislead us and our readers every time. What’s more, when I confronted him, he lied about it. So . . . I don’t know. If we have to say "Paul Reitsma tells lies" instead of "is a liar", I suppose that’s the law . . . but I don’t see the difference in this case.

Lawyer: I guess I’m always a bit nervous about that word "liar". First of all, it’s so strong that the judges usually require compelling proof. Secondly, a liar is someone who knows his statements are false. I hate cases where we need to prove the other side’s thinking. Sometimes they come up with some plausible explanation. Thirdly, I’m nervous of any situation where we have to prove a negative – that Warren Bechanko or Jane Smith didn’t exist and didn’t hold those views.

Editor: Yeah . . . okay . . . but in this case we’ve got his handwriting in the signature. He’s got to know he isn’t Warren Bechanko – or any of the other names he has signed. I can see your point in the usual case – but here he has to know who he is when he signs a false name. He did it to try and sucker us into publishing praise of himself. He’s trying to sucker us and our readers. I think we’re entitled to be a little mad about it, and so are our readers.

Lawyer: It’s pitiful, actually.

Editor: And it’s insulting – that he’d think he could get away with it – that we wouldn’t catch-on. And then he has the gall when we confront him to lie again to try and get out of it. He must think we’re really stupid. I think we’re entitled to be a bit mad, for ourselves and for our readers.

Lawyer: Whoa . . . Whoa . . . You are changing defences on me . . . This isn’t some right of reply – a kick at the cat can get a scratch – this headline either makes it on the defence of truth or it doesn’t.

Editor: I know . . . I know . . . we’ve got to pick our defence and stick to it . . . you’ve told me that before . . . it’s just when it comes to the difference between "lies" and "liar", I wonder if we have to close our minds to the context.

Lawyer: You may be right about that . . . I don’t mean technically right . . . there’s no technical qualified privilege of reply unless you’ve been attacked . . . I mean you may be right that a judge would consider the context and excuse a bit of a reaction . . . whether or not the judge should do that under the law.

Editor: What’s Reitsma going to do? Sue us because we said "liar" instead of "lies"? We’re not saying he never tells the truth. He probably does. But that just makes him more dangerous. He lies . . . over and over . . . he’s a liar.

Lawyer: . . . Pants on fire . . .

Editor: Right . . . so it’s approved?

Lawyer: Right – based on truth, which you tell me you can prove.

Editor: Right.

Lawyer: Is your publisher aware of this headline?

Editor: Why do you ask?

Lawyer: Oh, I don’t know. This headline sort of positions you in the market on this one story, maybe beyond.

Editor: What do you mean?

Lawyer: The "we can prove it" part – its’ got your paper in the story.

Editor: Well . . . he lied to us. . . sat here in my office and lied . . . so it’s part of the story for sure.

Lawyer: Okay . . . I understand . . . I guess the publisher knows that any defence comes out of your publisher’s budget – at least to the deductible.

Editor: Publisher’s on side . . . but I’ll run it past again if you want.

Lawyer: No, probably once is enough, unless you want to. There’s one more thing . . . when you say you can prove it, I just want to be sure that you’re not thinking anything like "he’ll never recover from this report so he won’t sue" or "even if we’re a bit wrong, the part we’ve got right is so damning that he’ll never take us on."

Editor: I never think like that – or perhaps I should say – I never let that type of thinking influence me – I’m assuming he’ll be around and I’m assuming next week we’ll be asking him for comments on the quality of ferry food or whatever. And when I tell you and the readers that we can prove it – I’m assuming he has sued – I have to – look at how brazen he’s been so far.

Lawyer: Okay – you’re approved – but this is once in a lifetime – not a precedent.

Editor: Right.

Lawyer: (thinking . . . How many times, just before we sell a paper, does it get interesting? Oh well!)