PattiWatch Edition #3 - Covert Assistance?

October 10th, 2013

Today’s big headache for CSA started out as Patti’s little problem; how to threaten an elderly man and his son into paying protection money while making their demand look like a copyright claim.  The entire CSA scandal started with that shakedown attempt.  But she botched it, we’re fighting hard, and CSA might not survive.  I don’t think Patti’s all that popular at CSA these days.

That said, some of the CSA staff are very popular here at RestoreCSA.  We are particularly grateful for Mr. Anthony Toderian, CSA’s Manager of Corporate Affairs.  His services in our cause are most warmly appreciated.

What services?  Well, Anthony handles media relations for CSA, and every time the media come calling Anthony’s interviews are usually disastrous for his company.

For instance, RestoreCSA has long claimed that the CSA merely coordinates the development of regulations, its role is small, its investment is minimal.  In fact, we have described CSA’s participation in the drafting of standards as “secretarial” in nature. 

In contrast, Anthony told the National Post that CSA’s role in standards development “requires significant investment, resources and dedication,” and that revenues from the sales of access to the resulting legal statutes is “used to support the work CSA Group does” in drafting more such statutes.  So Anthony is now on record claiming that CSA’s investment is “significant” and that equally significant revenues are needed to “support” their work.

But back in 2010, the CSA filed a legal statement in British Columbia which claimed the opposite.  In that filing, the CSA described their development committees as entirely “composed of voluntary members.”  They characterized their committees as “composed of a matrix of volunteer members.”  The CSA made these sorts of statements repeatedly in and throughout their filing:  “The volunteers develop and set standards,” “These members are not employees of CSA,” and so forth. Everything volunteer, nothing salaried, everything inexpensive.

But Anthony told the National Post that the key to supporting their apparently expensive standards process was “to take in revenue from the sales of [CSA’s] copyrighted materials” and then reinvest it in Code development.  So, once again, Anthony was hyping the “significant investment” of CSA’s role in standards development.

Back in BC however, the CSA claimed the opposite in court, causing Justice Macaulay to conclude that “the CSA is largely a volunteer organization.”  Did the CSA testify about “significant investment” in court?  Apparently not, because the Judge concluded that CSA’s role was restricted to “offering non-voting administrative support and compliance with […] policies.”  The Judge, in other words, is agreeing with RestoreCSA, that the CSA’s role in standards development is “secretarial” in nature.

Secretarial indeed. “The voting members of the technical committee are all volunteers and the committee is an important part of a broader volunteer committee structure.”  Lest there be any residual confusion, Justice Macaulay bluntly states that “the participation of any CSA employees is non-voting, consultative or administrative in nature.” 

According to CSA’s testimony in BC, “employees of the SCC or the CSA have limited involvement in the process of developing, recommending and reviewing specific standards.” 

So how do we reconcile the CSA’s claims of having “limited involvement” with Anthony’s claims of “significant investment, resources and dedication”?  Good question.  Newspaper interviews aren’t given under oath, Anthony can tell the press whatever he likes, but testimony in court is another matter.

If it is true that CSA has “significant” expenses in standards development, then there are grave issues surrounding the CSA’s court testimony claiming the provision of only secretarial services and negligible expenses by using volunteers instead of staff.  Obviously, the one is the opposite of the other. 

Either Anthony Toderian has repeatedly mislead the media and, by extension, the Canadian public who are paying for CSA operations, or he has made CSA’s management vulnerable to charges of perjury.

RestoreCSA is quite pleased with this development. Without our paying him even a stipend, Anthony has managed to back his company into a corner, either as lying to the media or perjuring to the court.

The purpose of the RestoreCSA campaign is to recover the CSA organization to its former credibility, capability and productivity on behalf of the Canadian people.  We value your continued assistance, and that of Anthony Toderian, Patti Ensor, Lisa Ebberman and so many other of the hapless characters at CSA.  We couldn’t do any of this without any of you!  Thank you all for your continued support.