Mayor Gregor Robertson's chief of staff has been complaining these days about attacks from bloggers. Mike Magee even said he was defamed by an unproven allegation that he spearheaded the creation of a pro-Vision Vancouver blog to smear the party's critics.

Vision Vancouver supporters have told media outlets that they shouldn't replicate the claims of bloggers without subjecting them to greater scrutiny. A former Vision Vancouver staffer, now working in public relations, even invited me to interview a media lawyer today on how blogs and twitter feeds get people into legal hot water.

Meanwhile, a wealthy, right-wing blogger has alleged that Magee helped create a media hit list of three bloggers and 12 journalists who will be targeted by Vision Vancouver.

Surely, there's a legal claim if a political party decides it is intent on "destroying the lives and careers of reporters and commentators because they don’t blindly follow the Vision songsheet", as the blogger maintains.

This right-wing blogger also claims that he was ridiculed by comparisons of him to the Penguin in one of the Batman movies.

A central allegation is that Magee directed the pro-Vision blogger through a private e-mail account, which Magee vehemently denies.

The public is understandably confused because the allegations are so wildly contradictory. Someone is likely not telling the truth.

I'm going to issue a challenge to both of them: file a defamation suit against each other and let's see what a judge says.

The wealthy blogger can sue Magee for injuring his reputation through the pro-Vision blog. If the wealthy blogger added Vision Vancouver as a defendant (after all, he calls it the Vision blog), other party officials could be cross-examined.

With a good lawyer and a well-crafted statement of claim that alleges links between the mayor's chief of staff and the pro-Vision blog, the wealthy blogger could probably obtain a court order for the production of documents.

This would include e-mails, if they exist, in Magee's private account sent to the operator of the pro-Vision blog. If these e-mails were to become public and they showed that the mayor's chief of staff was issuing directives about content on the blog, Magee would be exposed as a liar.

(This option is also open to NPA members or former members who feel they've been defamed by the pro-Vision blog.)

If the e-mails don't exist and if there were no witnesses who would testify under oath that Magee was involved in dirty tricks, the wealthy blogger's claim would lose its lustre in the eyes of the public. Voters would conclude that Magee and Robertson were the victims of a hatchet job.

For his part, Magee could probably easily flush out the identity of the unnamed source in the wealthy blogger's video, which purported that the hit list exists.

Reporters can't protect the identities of anonymous sources in this province without facing the prospect of being in contempt of court.

This was demonstrated in a 2002 case in B.C. Supreme Court, Dr. Ali Bouaziz v. Rick Ouston, Neil Reynolds, Patricia Graham, Teresa Honeyman, Chris Rose, John Olding, and Southam Inc..

The defendants tried to conceal the names of two unnamed sources in a defamation action filed by Dr. Bouaziz.

Justice Brenda Brown ruled that the plaintiff had the right to know the identities of his accusers, two nurses, so that he could proceed with his defamation claim.

This court order was issued during an examination for discovery, which is part of the pretrial process.

Vision Vancouver is a wealthy political party. It could easily afford to cover Magee's legal bills to get a similar court order, and this could conceivably occur before the next election in 2011.

Magee could make the same argument as Dr. Bouaziz: How can he defend himself if his lawyer can't confront his accuser in open court?

The blogger has no shortage of resources to try to get a court order forcing the production of e-mails from Magee.

In both instances, the court orders could be obtained before the case went to trial. The public could draw its own conclusions based on the documents and on the believability of the hidden source. The lawsuit could be dropped at that point, if the plaintiff so chooses.

Global TV's Marisa Thomas could also be subpoenaed to reveal the name of the anonymous former FD Element employee who made some stunning allegations against Magee.

This would be central to the wealthy blogger's defence, and any decent lawyer could probably get a court order forcing her to cough up the name of her source.

In turn, the former FD Element worker could then be subpoenaed to testify. The Vision lawyer could subject him to a vigorous cross-examination.

So what do you say, gentleman? Are you prepared to put your claims to the test in court?

Please sue or shut up.

Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.