Slashdot Mirror
Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian stay-at-home mom of 3 recently created a website to report on environmental problems around her neighborhood. The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'. However, not everyone was quite as happy, as she soon found out, when one company decided to sue her for libel to the tune of $2 million."
"The truth" was a solid defense against libel claims?
But she has to prove it, and they've got the bigger pocket books...
I guess they have silenced her!
In the U.S. this is a no brainer, but this crap happens in canada too? I thought they were ALL enviro-hippies there.
Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
Good to know its not only in America where you can get sued for anything. God Bless the coporations, and their willing to sue the people.
Yay, I have a sig.
Bad: Woman rights remarks about your company.
Worse: Sue said woman for more than she can ever possibly make under normal circumstances, breaking her family apart and probably separating her three kids.
They could have made it 'better' by being like "We're glad you brought this to our attention and we're going to fix it. Thanks for your vigilence!"
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
To an AnCap, a natural right is a limitless right. The freedom of expression is limitless, as long as the following is true:
1. You are on your own property or the public property.
2. The form of expression causes no physical damage to the physical property of others
3. The form of expression doesn't breach any contracts you are committed to.
To me, all speech is a natural right as a form of expression. Swearing, discrimination, yelling fire in your own theater, or even preaching the murder of another. If you don't like a certain form of expression, don't allow it on your property.
I don't believe in libel or slander. Words, in the long run, can damage a reputation -- but creating a quality product will always trump it. Did the fallout of criticism over DIVX make people stop shopping at Circuit City? No.
I could care less about what media companies might do with the freedom to libel. Who cares. If you're in the public eye, accept it. If you run a big business, combat it with great quality of service.
...Canada is in America. Shocking!
Remember Bush's Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Actually, I first applied that to Poppy many years ago, but it goes double for Dubya.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'm so glad I live in Canada, we don't have to deal with this bullsh.. uh, wait.. what the.. oh crap.
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
"Won't Anyone Think of the Children!?"
Do me a favor. Put me on your foe list so I won't see your crap in the future.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
--davecb
davecb@spamcop.net
Unless she lied outright and maliciously, she'll be just fine. The courts in Canada tend to favor individuals when they are pitted against large companies.
In other words, if she lied maliciously in order to defame them, then yeah, she'll be in trouble.
If she just wrote what she saw, and some of it was somewhat inaccurate, then nothing bad will come of it.
1. Sue the popular hero
2. ???
3. Watch profits tumble!
They'll pay for this, or my name isn't Darl McBride!
Have you even read her website?
I just wondered how you were able to categorize her so confidently.
The summary does not state the womans name, Louisette Lanteigne, nor does it link to her website (it's geocities, so this is a google Cache), nor does it mention the company's name, Activa Holdings Inc.
http://brandonbloom.name
If there were just misunderstanding (wrongfully interperted information), then company would have invated this lady, described problems and how they will solve that and then all problems with bad PR would go away. Of course, if they choose this course, they have something to hide - because it is typical defence nowadays - attack.
Of course, a little bit more details about which claims company thinks are false would be helpful for more concrete judgement.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Not quite true. Canada has a loser-pays system, so the losing party has to pay the winning party's costs, but it's usually only a portion (depending on the case - if the judge feels the actions by the plaintiff are malicious and without merit, then the losing party will receive most, if not all, of their legal fees paid by the plaintiff).
Before anyone sets up any kind of web site, I strongly advise you to purchase an Umbrella Liabliity Insurance Policy. Among other things, these policies protect you from accusations of libel and slander.
While truth is an absolute defense against libel or slander, you don't want it to cost you your life savings to defend against a frivolous lawsuit because you spoke the truth someone didn't want to hear. For the cost of the umbrella policy - typically around $300 per year you can virtually stop any potential frivolous lawsuit. Such lawsuits are designed to intimidate the little guy and you're much less of a little guy when a multi-billion dollar insurance company is the one that is paying to defend you against the suit.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I've been to a handful of corporations that have radically switched from a 'Covetous' image to a more 'environmental-and-neighborhood-friendly' image. Refineries like Valero (Houston, TX) are among those.
Let's slashdot the website and every one will be happy.
More seriously, this is the job of the gouvernment to check this kind of stuff. When there is enough material and when they are aware of it, what are they waiting for? There is rarely, in such cases, smoke without fire.
Million Dollar Screenshot
A SLAPP suit. They are illegal in the US.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
There's a big difference between being negligent and allowing your kid to play around a swimming pool or bucket and pointing out where pollution caused by corporations, et al is occuring.
The second is something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years.
Whoever moded you insightful needs to have their head checked.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Who's the company? Is this going to be another McLibel?
Who are "Activa Holdings Inc", and do they have any reputation to lose?
...Libelous statements sue... uh...
In South Korea, only old libelous... damn.
I, for one, welcome our Libelous Housewife... shit.
Uh, well, good for her. Fuck the man. Yeah.
Anyone got a link to this woman's website? I'm giving odds that theres a few crafty animated gifs on there.
s'wut i sed.
That's not how it works...
The woman pays her lawyer out of pocket. She very likely doesn't have the millions of dollars to spend fighting a lawsuit against a company with very deep pockets. Eventually she cannot afford her lawyer and ends up settling with the company for her silence and perhaps a statement absolving the company. Whether or not her accusations are correct have little to do with the outcome. What matters is if some lawyer, seeing her evidence, is willing to take on the case.
My first reaction is that the company is scum. It tries to bury the truth instead of dealing with it. But it is essential to know whether or not her claims are in fact false before questioning the validity of the suit. After all, I can't just say something bad about a company that does bad things.
Then again, you would think the firm would go out of its way to disprove her allegations. It doesn't seem to even try. At trial, the firm would likely need to show her statements as false. If she's telling the truth, I bet the firm will crumble. Rather that having all of their dirt come out in open court, they'll use a last minute excuse like "We felt bad for her kids, so we are letting her outrageous claims go... this time."
I can't wait to see how this turns out.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
--dave (who went to university in KW) c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
Case in point: I have a neighbor. He's an old man with a bad attitude who is basically a crank. He also walks around the neighborhood look for "issues" and is a total PITA if you get on his bad side. A few years ago, my boy (who was about 3-4 years old at the time) was obssessed with hoses, drains and pipes. He LOVED to put together sprinkler systems using PVC in my back yard. Of course, I encouraged him in his hobby, even though my water bill wasn't exactly pleasant news.
Well, the water running down the street just drove my neighbor insane. He tried to convince the neighborhood that the water was going to degrade the street. When that didn't work, he actually reported me to the Environmental Protection Agency (who sent out a very nice woman, who was very impressed with my son's sprinkler systems when I happily showed her around).
And I wasn't the only one -- at various times, he has had run-ins with the neighbors over phantom problems. The guy lives to find issues that don't exist.
So you'll pardon me if I don't necessarily believe this woman isn't a total wack-job without more evidence beyond this article.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Of course, if these developers had nothing to worry about, they would have doubtless been able to convince everybody of the truth of their case without recourse to litigation.
Any environmental scientists in Canada with soil sampling equipment who might be prepared to volunteer to go and do some soil analysis to help the defence prepare its case?
Pining for the fjords
I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
Parent as +2 insightful?? Mod down, please.
Nice assumption about rich stay-at-home moms, but my family had five children, my mother stayed at home, and we lived below the poverty line. I think that's more typical than the rich "busy-body do-gooders". Sorry to burst your own little self-righteous bubble.
I will NEVER buy anything related to Activa Holdings Inc. If that is how they behave when someone challenges them, then I will not support their company or any company that works with them. Since I'm in the market for a house, I will make sure that my future house was not built or supported by any company related to Activa Holdings Inc.. If they feel they have been wronged by what was posted on the website, maybe they should show how it is wrong. By sueing, its saying to me that they have something to hide. I hope there will be a way to give and support the fight against Activa. Companies that sue like this, are not companies that we need.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
Her Webpage
Since she's on geocities and this trounced her bandwidth, I linked the Google cache. Cheers.
This is supposedly the URL:
t _topic&f=5&t=001759
http://ca.geocities.com/infringements@rogers.com
of course, its exceeded its transfer alloted for the day, so its down.
Typical. It IS cached by google, though.
Found some info here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=ge
Theres some info with contact information for the woman and the company.
s'wut i sed.
Suing people with limited means for their free expression is, I believe, the way of getting every pro-bono civil liberties lawyer in the country on their case.
When Soderberg finishes the true-to-life movie, they'll probably sue him for the grosses.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
It has seemed to me, that over the past little while, that women are the only ones that seem to have enough backbones to stand up to the big corps. And typically its even the stay at home moms that are sterotypically not supposed to have such big Kahunas.
It also seems to me that the men are playing the part of the big a**hole. You can read that as the ones who do the sueing in the first place.
So, I just have to say, GO MOMS!!! Fight for our rights! We especially thank you since you are the only ones that seem to be doing it.
Maybe you'll shame some others to do the same thing as well.
... these cases don't happen in america... oh wait. RIAA... crap.
Speaking is NOT communication
Here are the rules:
1) Money is all that matters.
2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen
3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available
4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad.
5) If you buy something from a company, they own you
6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal.
7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies.
8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over
Let's see, we're all guilty of...well, pretty much everything.
Where are the facts in this piece of "news that matters"?
...what? Should those details affect libel laws? If a single guy with no children were sued for libel would this be /. front page news?
Did her website make libelous statements?
What we have is her gender and the number of her children. The relevance of which is
Seems to be offline but here's the google cache link if you're interested: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+Louise tte+Lanteigne&hl=en&client=firefox-a
If someone gets sued for 2 million bucks that doesnt have 2 million bucks, what happens? Do they lose everything and declare bankrupcy? Do they keep losing what they earn until 2 million?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
I know your joking, but it looks like the situation is changing.
Take a look at the exchange rates for the Canadian dollar versus the US dollar over the past five years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CADUSD=X&t=5y
Notice that the value of the Canadian dollar has been steadily rising relative to that of the US dollar since about March, 2003. Now, I'm sure you know what began in March of 2003 (hint: invasion of Iraq). Again, look at that chart if you do not believe me.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Now, the problem I have is that even if she drops the website and the company continues to pursue the lawsuit, she has so much to lose. She's risking the well-being of her three kids to battle a libel case, one which she (presumably) has no funds to support. I'm not suggesting its wrong to take a stand, but I know first-hand what it is like to battle a corporation when you are being sued. My best friend was sued $150,000 by a company (he had an accidental fire in the house he was renting) and lost everything. The company never got a dime from him, but he was forced into bankruptcy, fell behind on all his bills, and to this day is still being tracked by companies trying to collect for unpaid bills. He lost to the one with financial superiority, and this really threw his life off course -- all over an accidental fire. Now he can't get a mortgage, credit cards, or much else.
If I was in this woman's position, I'd value the well-being of my kids over battling a corporation, because odds are she will not walk away from this in a better position than she was before this lawsuit started.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
... MILS ... Mothers I'd Like to Sue ...
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
Wasn't that Jafar in Disney's Aladdin?
If their actions have placed her kids at risk and (been part of what) led her to spend the expense and time of putting up the website to document their illegal actions, that should be just cause for a countersuit against them.
Sue them for direct costs, her time (at a consulting rate of $60/hour), and punitive damages of $2Million. If they have said anything public about the suit (like claiming that she lied), then she can also countersue for libel. (In Canada, You can't sue for statements made in court or court documents, but you can sue for what's said on the courtroom steps before or after you file.)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
What is this company hope to obtain in order of the suit, a pair of used baby bottles and a couple of hand me down t-shirts?
God must be blessing America, or maybe the people do that?
How is this news worthy? The company in question should be shamed.
Thank you, Google Cache!
c a.geocities.com/infringements%40rogers.com/+Louise tte+Lanteigne+&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zQLM8Fs0lo8J:
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
2 million $ if it's as clear cut as it seems to be and they lose this case eventually ... if companies can get away with this sort of thing it wont stop, if there's a financial deterrence then they'd stop doing it unless there was a real case.
Since I can only go by what we've read in the article, I have to ask you "what the hell are you talking about?".
Something that affects a lot of people who didn't cause the problem in the first place and can continue affecting people in that area for years?
What something? What people? What problem? What area? What effects?
The article says NOTHING about what her complaints or accusations were. The ONLY comment in the article is the following:
She said she was constantly keeping her kids and their friends out of trouble, as they would keep running into hazards around their neighbourhood.
What neighborhood doesn't have "hazards"? What neighborhood exists where you don't have to keep your children away from some "hazards"?
I'm not going to get on my knees and praise some busy-body armchair activisit with a pack of pampers and a website, just because we're told that she's being supposedly unfairly sued by a big bad evil corporation for some vague unnamed things that she claims they did. Until then, she's just a do-goooder busy-body trying to stir up trouble so she can get a little attention. I mean, unless her kids are falling down 30 foot wells or growing an arm out of their foreheads . . . Or at least she has some medically documented evidence and solid basis for whatever claims she's making about.. whatever.
Seriously, what a bunch of sycophants that you're all reading this "your rights online" crap and assuming that she's the next Mother Theresa based on an article that says *NOTHING* more than "this breeder chick said some stuff about this company that does some business in this place where she lives and they didn't like it so are suing her".
And hell, if she's not making the shit up and is sure about the claims she's making and the company she's making them against, what does she have to worry about? Someone will pick the case up pro-bono, she'll win and she'll be able to go on a talk show circuit and parade her snotty little toddlers around on cable news. It'll be all awesome and stuff.
What if she's wrong? What if she's LIBELLING this company? It happens.
This
Why is there no PayPall donate button on her site?
to the tune of $2 million.
Is that Canadian? So, about $35 USD?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
If she has a case, someone will take it pro-bono. Lawyers love a good "david versus goliath" fight on their record, if they know they can win and the person has a case.
On the other hand, if she doesn't have a case and her claims are baseless, she's doing damage to a posssibly innocent party and no lawyer will touch it. If no lawyer will touch her case, it's a sign that she's full of shit. Or at least, she's spouting things without anything to back it up - which is just as bad. It's one thing to go around claiming, say, "Microsoft is teh evil!" as a rather generic sentiment. It's another to go around saying "Microsoft is releasing toxins into the local water supply from their software packaging and is killing thousands of babies as a result". If you're saying one, it's opinion. If you're saying the other, you should have some sort of evidence to back it up. If you have evidence to back it up, you'll get support and legal help by throngs of hungry lawyers. If you don't... they'll laugh at you and you'll be stuck paying the bill for your thoughtless and wild comments.
In the end, she'll get what she deserves. Since the article is "People Magazine!" light on details, we can't really know.
I am for due process of law, but if a jury calls your case a SLAPP and the judge agrees with that, I think the amount you have sued for should be taken away as a fine and the right to appeal the ruling should be eliminated. Call it a fine for trying to turn the justice system into a tool of injustice.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
We need the government to enforce environmental laws, because you can't sue the government.
Here is Activa's contact info for all you slashdot do-gooders. I'm posting as AC as I live in Canada and don't want to be sued by them (I actually live in one of their subdivisions), so please MOD thos up.
Name Werner Brummund
Job Title President / CEO
Postal Address Activa Group 735 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V 2H1 Canada
Phone 5198869400
Fax 5198868955
Email kyantz@gto.net
They keep losing what they earn (or have already earned, including assets) until $2 million, unless they file bankrupcy.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
http://www.sorbaralaw.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.ht ml
maybe mention that they just got their clients north american coverage for their mis-deeds! that wasn't very smal.. uh?
I don't know about this case and I did not read TFA. But this isn't OT, it summarises my feelings after reading all of todays stories. Although many make the obvious comment that "It's all about money", money is only a piece of the jigsaw. Control through FEAR is what this is all about. With enough frightening publicity and lawsuits to stifle speech everybody clams up and we become silent. Something is needed to really put the fear of God back into the corporations. We desperately need a massive victory where a household name is hauled over the coals, no holding back. Something that utterly breaks and bankrupts a major corp. The economic impact, job losses etc have to be considered 'collateral damage'. Those jobs will reappear elsewhere in the economy so its no big. Maybe it could be Sony? Maybe one of the other media or drug companies, who knows. It doesn't really matter who, but an example should be set. It seems the government and the legal system are becomming useless to protect the individuals rights. I propose a war chest. What it really needs is a major donation by a rich benefactor and some very ruthless, determined and smart lawyers on the side of the people. Starting with about 5 or 10 million such a fund could be carefully managed, only going after cases that stand a VERY high chance of success, gaining damages and adding to the war chest. In fact with a run of luck such a scheme could snowball into a deadly machine that has the corporate weasels quaking in their boots. Seriously people, we need to get on the offensive, to attack, not just keep defending. A change of tactics is needed from passive to active and highly aggressive. Yes, I am openly advocating organised premeditated ecomomic warfare and a premptive and vicious attack against a major corp. Lets give THEM something to be really afraid of. Instead of getting a little bit angry drip by drip as each corp makes bolder and bolder moves against us, let's just pick one and go after it full force and no stopping until its dead. Any suggestions for an unredeemably evil corporation that could be 'killed'? And how?
Will this also work for copyright infringement, I.E. P2P, BITTORRENT, ECT? If so, this might be a good investment for us all.
Speaking from near-total ignorance, I'm guessing no. Slander/libel is a tort, while copyright infringement is a criminal case. I've never heard of insurance that would defend you against prosecution for criminal acts. In fact, I'd argue that such insurance would be a bad thing, since it would make people more likely to commit crimes.
As I said, though, this opinion is straight from my butt.
How was I able to categorize her? This is how:
Her claims are bullshit:
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Do you see why I keep saying she's a nosey busy-body do-gooder?
What do roofers without proper safety equipment have to do with the safety of her children? What do locked oil tanks have to do with the safety of her children? Why is she letting her childrne play on a construction site? This chick sounds like the kind of person who would call the EPA because your jeep is leaking oil in your own driveway or she doesn't think you have proper city permits to build-out your bedroom extension on your own house.
But of course, I'm called a troll by all the people who obviously DO NOT care to find out what's going on. OH MY GOD! Roofers not wearing proper protective gear! Unlocked oil tanks on a CONSTRUCTION SITE...! Won't someone think of the children?! The... uh... children.. uh... roofers...?
According to her website: "I will proceed with years of documentations and photos to back me up". It would be great if they go to court and lose, what will that do for their PR?
There is no god but Google and GTalk is the messenger of Google.
Actually, you can. It happens a lot. Google search for "sues canadian government".
Roofers working without safety equipment? WTF I don't think I have ever seen roofers work with any, except maybe safety googles. As for her "getting sick" during construction? Gimme a break we are talking buildings made of wood and concrete there aren't things used in residential construction that are going to make a larger area sick. She sounds like a nutbag hypocondriac to me.
"the malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of the Defendant warrants an award of punitive or exemplary damages to ensure that the Defendant is appropriately punished for her conduct and deterred from such conduct in the future."
The adjectives used at the beginning of that seem to describe the entire complaint, actually.
Basically, they want her punished, and for that reason they should lose the case automatically; criminal law is for punishing, civil law is for settling disputes.
And since when is $2million 'appropriate' to hand down to any 'normal citizen'?
FGD 135
Well :)
This case shows the merit of the loser pays rule.
It's the only way civil court proceedings can be made even remotely fair -- instead of the extortion/lottery they are in the US right now.
Then perhaps the company could've proved her wrong, not sued her.
Piece of cake. Send out a plane ticket to Mrs. Brockovich.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
i don't know what activa's all angry about, slashdot probably just took down her site anyway.
From the site:
"I saw a suspicious looking diesel tank. I took a closer look and saw it was intentionally supported on a pile of scrap wood on a tilt. That's when I noticed the rubber hose. The hose was being used to syphon the diesel fuel and below it was evidence of a spill. The area smelled strong and the ground was saturated."
So, essentially, she had a nice suburban neighborhood and then somebody came in and dumped a tanker of diesel fuel all over the place. Yeah, I'd be pissed, too, if that happened on my street. I'd be demanding a cleanup.
And:
I saw many unharnessed roofers and dozens of workers without hard hats actively working on site. This one unharnessed roofer was quite a site to see. The yellow cable in the roof photos is the extention cord for the nail gun this fella was using while working on a roof of the house at 23 Big Springs Court. He squatted down on the wood of the roof and slid down it like a slide.
Now, this is probably not her business. But still, this speaks of massive unprofessionalism. Some guys may be too macho to use safety harnesses, but every site I've ever been on required hard hats *everywhere*, even with nothing overhead. I don't know how things are regulated in Canada, but here in the USA that sounds like tens of thousands of dollars in OSHA fines, just for starters. Still other reports seem kind of iffy. Empty beer bottles can be left by any passing gaggle of kids - pictures of workers on the job in the daytime with the bottles in their hands would have been more damning.
It looks like she might have had pictures, but they're not coming up in the Google cache. Pity, as even a photo or two would confirm this. I pray for her sake that this gets the throwing out of court that it most probably deserves. As for Activa Holdings, stupid move. Before, they had one website bad-mouthing them, now they've got half of Slashdot.
How does the management of Activa Holdings Inc. sleep at night? There are so many better ways this company could deal with this problem. The company is worried about slander, about their reputation being sullied? They're making themselves look worse and drawing even more attention to their alleged environmental crimes.
I guess the important thing to do is follow up on this story. Write, phone, fax or email the CEO of Activa Group, Werner Brummund at:
Activa Group
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON
N2V 2H1
Canada
Phone 5198869400
Fax 5198868955
Email kyantz@gto.net
Send letters and emails of support and/or financial support to:
Louisette Lanteigne,
700 Star Flower Ave,
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
Canada
butterflybluelu@rogers.com
We should spread the word about this, the more people who know about this David and Goliath fight, the better. The worst thing we can do is just shake our heads in pity and forget about this whole thing.
Btw: what materials does Activa Group sell?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
She should have just called herself "Mrs. X." They can't sue you if they don't know you who are...
Yep, you can't go wrong with "Mrs. X".
Oh please. Now who doesn't understand the way the world works.
Company: Now see here young mother. I realize the webbery has been great fun for you but your facts are ever so spurious.
Mother: Oh I see my ways were errant. Let me unpost the hideous libels I have lain upon you.
This
And until
1) judges throw out lawsuits where a more powerful entity has no case and is just trying to abuse its power over a littler guy,
2) and people boycott larger entities that engage in such sleazy tactics,
then such injustices will continue. I'm not holding my breath on #1, because judges are attorneys too, litigation is their business, and they like it, and the last thing they would want is less of it.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
The U.S. has the Sullivan decision that defined libel and, if memory serves, ruled that the offending party has to prove that the particular writings at issue were made with malice and without regard to the truth. Prior to this the defendant had to prove that what he said was the truth.
This could prove to be an excellent test case of Canada's libel laws vis a vis our Charter or Rights. If Activa Holdings is successful in their lawsuit then just about any negative comment about any company made in the press, on the radio or TV or by the public is actionable. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, have SLAPP legislation that helps in defending such lawsuits but Ontario, where this lawsuit was filed, to my knowledge does not.
The statement of claim outlines stories by Lanteigne involving diesel oil spills on subdivision sites, unlocked oil tanks, roofers working without proper safety equipment and possible contamination of soil and water.
Somebody explain this one to me please.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I'm not surprised that the builder is trying to screw over the lady, while making a huge mess of their construction site.
... Adera ... is the same kind of company.
... again all from an AWARD WINNING building company! No wonder there's so many leaky condos in this city.
... even though they will simply shut down, start up under a new name, and carry on with their crap.
The 'Award Winning' company that built my townhouse in Burnaby BC
They knowingly built my whole complex below code. You can not get a queen sized mattress to the top floor going up the stairs, they are too narrow (yes, this is a building code they ignored). In fact some of the original owners here forced Adera to buy special two-piece mattress sets.
Then there's the brutal water heating system. They knew damn well that once the place had sold out, the water heater system would be totally inadequate and prone to breakdowns, forcing our strata to look into a Boiler system.
Then there's the creaky floors due to various other codes being ignored, such as distance between the stringers, and the methods of tying down the floor.
Then there's the fact that every damn outlet in the house is crooked, the builders couldnt take 2 seconds to level them, not even the ones cut through tiles!
And how about the severe cracking in the cement foundation in part of our underground parking.
And the insufficient gutters and downspouts, built below code, that overflow in a heavy rain.
And there's the landscaping that has been eroding away due to poor construction, one person has pretty much lost their back yard.
Our building is only 6 or 7 years old. These are just the bigger problems
I wish the lady luck, take down those bastards
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
I remember hearing about this case. My local newspaper had an editorial that was basically cheering for the guys who libeled McDonalds.
That was when I decided that, if they care that little about the truth, I didn't really need to read that newspaper any more.
It's pretty hard to get money out of people who don't have any. At least that's the case in the states. Most of the time a judge will not even take a house or car, only excessive property can be forced to be sold.
You can get sued for libel and slander. Who knew?
Also, go read the woman's site if you haven't already. The entire website is full of "I saw this, I took pictures of that. Activa is the developer of this site."
How can it be libel if she is simply reporting what she sees? It's obvious from her tone that she has concern for her neighborhood including many sincere warnings to parents in the area about specific threats (stagnant water, pressure treated wood).
I'm at a loss here as to what Activa's case is.
:wq
These suits want to achive a long-term scare factor: "we have a bigger war chest and look what we can do to you in the court" so that nobody dares to speak out.
She should create a defense fund where people could donate money. After all, how much do we value our Freedom to Know (CC)?
And then there should exist an universal defense fund which would have the mission to support whistleblowers and to counter Big Money (R). (the ACLU does this kind of work pro bono, but I am talking about an exclusive fund for free speech ).
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
The woman appears to be quite the alarmist. For example, she falsely states that pressure treated wood is not safe since it is treated with, among other things, arsenic. Such wood is safe if handled properly.
On the other hand, she doesn't say anything on there that is immediately libelous as most of it is "i saw this happening the other day at the site."
I've always wondered what the internal culture is in companies that leads them to launch suits like this, as they almost always backfire even if they are won. The McDonald's lawsuit against a couple of people distributing anti-McDonald's pamphlets, for example, certainly led to much more anti-McDonald's media coverage than a couple of nutty activists could ever have managed on their own.
Wow, this happened in my University town of Waterloo Ontario. More here http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get _topic&f=5&t=001759 I wonder how this will turn out?
Yes, actually it doesn't hurt to ask. Sue first and ask questions later is a rather bad practice, especially for a business which is trying to protect its image. They're only going to drag their own name through the mud now.
GPL: Free as in will
My wife and me, her being a conservation biologist, me just your regular treehugger, were planning on making a site here ins Costa Rica, based on photos we would take riding around the country, me on my bike, her on her quad (both silenced, small bore, so don;t flame about exhaust fumes and saving the earth ....
....
.... so not we are re-thinking our strategy ...
........ but now we are really reconsidering ....
There are a bunch of local and foreign companies making serious damage, and we want to give it some exposure, besides riding around on our vehicles
quite honestly that news piece made us think about how many companies would want to sue our asses if we get noticed
Our plan was to sneak around various industrial installations with a GPS and a digicam, and then post it blog-style with the help of goolge maps api
Would YOU have the balls?
...damn right. Leave it to a forum full of nerds who have never worked a construction job in their lives to immediately jump o nthe "B00sH and teh 3vil corporations" crap straight away. OSHA says that anyone over 6ft off the ground needs a tether. Ain't happening. I know of no roofing company that tethers its roofers on a one story house. But, the insurance companies got it thrown in so they could deny Worker's Comp and force the employee to sue the contractor for injuries.
And, then you have Nosy Nellies like this bored housewife who is out to save the world, one tether-less roofer at a time. I mean, what if he fell and landed on her child? Reminds me of this State Trooper that used to harass me on a Interstate Litter contract I had. Contract stipulates that workers need to wear bright orange vests. In reality, it rarely happens. In 20 years no one was ever injured on the job that didn't occur from an intentional act by a passing motorist, like someone hitting a worker with a cup of ice (knocked the guy out and put him in the hospital for 3 days). So, one 100 degree hot sunny day, this Trooper pulls over and tells me my contract says I need to wear a vest. I tell him to go get bent. He doesn't have shit for jurisdiction over whether or not I comply with my contract, that its entirely up to the DOT. And, I added that it was rather interesting that he was too busy harassing the man picking up the shit-bags and piss-bottles the crystal meth using truckers pitch out on the side of the road to, oh I dunno, keep truckers from pitching shit-bags and piss-bottles out the window. Needless to say, Fatty Mustachio was nonplussed. He is the authority! Respect him!
This women is obviously cut of the same cloth.
The lady should counter sue the company for attempting to drive her into bankruptcy. She should sue for percentually as much, based on the company's income, as the company is suing her, i.e. if her yearly income is $60'000 and she get's sued for $2million, then if the company's yearly income is $10million then she should sue for $400million. She should plainly state that she is counter suing because the company is maliciously attempting to drive her into bankruptcy with an amount that she could never pay instead of just suing to get her to close down the website.
She might not win, but it would provide precedence for annyone who is harrassed by giant companies in the future. (Hallo RIAA, did you hear that?) IT sure would be good to see some of those corporations think twice before abusing their power in future.
2. Sue the shit out of anyone who speaks up about it.
3. Profit!
There's no ? about it anymore. Sad.
The three most important words in a relationship are "I love you." The two most important are "Humor me."
Their purported reason for bringing this lawsuit about was to punish this woman for damaging the reputation of the company, and yet having the filing of the suit appear on numerous websites such as /. is somehow good for its reputation?
From her website: "I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles." As if the fiberglass wasn't enough, now we have to worry about !#$%!# tadpoles??? I'm suprised the frog unions aren't suing for libel as well. Unless..... Activa is obviously run by tad-people.
I find it difficult to believe that she's worried about worker safety, oil and gas spills, construction refuse, and water drainage. Those are pretty diverse interests. When I read the article, what I saw was that she doesn't want development in an area that might damage an aquifer (or maybe she just wants to keep it in it's natural state), so she's looking to get at the company any way she can. The way that it looks to me is that the woman is part of a group that is trying to stop development in an area. So... she's intentionally poking the bear here.
I am OK with that. It's a noble goal to protect the aquifer (if that's what the real goal is). But, let's tell the story correctly. And... before we start donating to this woman through paypal, the group that she's part of needs to pony up a little money to take care of their own political/environmental problems. After that, and when they are truthful about their goals, paypal away. Until then... lady, if you intentionally poke the bear... you can't blame anyone else if you lose a hand (even the bear).
I guess it is good and all that this women is documenting potential enviornmental problems in her subdivision... But really, a subdivision is a big giant enviornmental problem! It is kind of like driving a SUV, and then being pissed off because those people driving Hummers are wasting fuel.
It sucks that the woman is getting sued, that is an outrage. But I wouldn't glorify what this woman is doing too much. She seems more the neighborhood busy body who calls the police when kids are playing touch football in the street, or who get a restraining order to keep their neighbor from painting their house purple, than some real enviornmental crusader.
This is the first time I've ever seen a banner on a wikipedia article warning readers it's been linked to by slashdot.
Play Command HQ online
Libel is one of the few cases where the US is better than Canada. It's one thing that routinely pisses Canadians off who discover it.
Canadian libel is based on British libel, and, we have none of the zealous first amendment jurisprudence to mitigate it. You can be seriously fucked in Canada for libel, where in the US you would not.
"I have seen kids playing in a stagnant pond of water that was 4ft deep. It was filled with building debris including paint cans, fiberglass insulation, pressure treated wood, oil residue and tadpoles."
Damn slimy tadpoles, polluting our ponds.
Bwahh haha
She has nothing, even if she's made bankrupt (been there done that) she won't lose much. She won't lose her house.
"The company never got a dime from him, but he was forced into bankruptcy, fell behind on all his bills, and to this day is still being tracked by companies trying to collect for unpaid bills."
This is not true, when you are forced into bankruptcy, you no longer pay your bills, they are paid for you, your wages are taken together within any cash saving, and used to pay your creditors and you are allocated expensese, after a period (3 years is typical) you legally walk away from your debts.
During your bankruptcy things like your mortgage are paid for you, your living expenses and so on, however your creditors will get only a part of whats left.
She has nothing to lose, she can ask for legal aid and they will pay her bill, if she loses, they get nothing but a tiny fraction of her spare income for a few years, if she wins she will get her costs back and they will be many millions in the red.
" I'd value the well-being of my kids over battling a corporation,"
I'd value showing my kids how to stand up to bullies over cowering in false fear.
This is Canadian dollars, so that's about $20 American, right?
Disclaimer: I was peripherally involved in the support campaign 1997-2005. As such, my neutrality may be suspect. OTOH, my knowledge of the McLibel case is excellent.
1. The burden of proof lies on the defendant
What can you prove?
Can you prove that the sky is blue, or that the sun will rise tomorrow?
UK (and, I think, Canadian) law means that you have to defend allegedly libellous statements by proving their truth.
If the jury is still out, or you can't prove it beyond a reasonable supposition, then it's libellous. It can be completely and wholly true (in the long run), but if you can't prove it, then you're guilty of libel.
You are guilty until proven innocent.
Let's take a quote in the leaflet that was ruled defamatory:
That was one of the statements in the leaflet that McDonald's found most defamatory.
It came from a 1990 World Health Organisation report on diet and nutrition.
When McDonald's expert witness, Dr. Sidney Arnott, was brought up in the witness box for cross-examination, he was asked what he thought of the above statement.
He said:
However, since the link between junk food and cancer had not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, the statement was ruled to be libellous, even though it came originally from a WHO report!
(It was subsequently ruled proven during the appeal, as Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane were given access to medical data that had not been present in the original case.)
2. Not proven =/= not true.
Again, since the truth is an absolute defence against libel charges, you need to prove in a UK court that something is true. If you fail, it is not necessarily because you lied. You can repeat someone else's findings in perfect good faith, yet be sued for libel if you are unable to prove the truth of those statements. There is a big difference between something that you haven't proven to be true, and something that is proven to be false; and even with something proven to be false, there's no automatic malicious intent involved.
This goes hand in hand with another major point: at the time of the case, you didn't get Legal Aid in the UK for libel cases. It didn't matter whether the case was in the public interest or not; you had to pay the legal bills yourself.
Consider the case of two defendants earning less than $20,000 between them against one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world. The ability of both sides to summon witnesses and prepare documentation was directly linked to the amount of cash they had.
On issues like rainforest destruction, there were any number of people the McLibel defendants could have asked to act as witnesses - but they couldn't afford the flight tickets and accommodation expenses; so the witnesses never made it to the courtroom.
Over the case, McDonald's spent $16,000,000. The McLibel defendants managed to raise $35,000 in donations.
Consider how that affects a case, when your ability to produce the relevant witnesses depends on how much money you can spend.
So they had to stand up in court and defend themselves - against one of the best libel lawyers in the UK and a highly-paid team; they gave up 15 years of their life to do so, all told.
And they gave McDonald's such a bloody nose that McDonald's abandoned SLAPPs altogether.
Your local newspaper was quite right.
Gideon.
They could have contacted the lady and cooperated with her to clean up the mess. Would have been great PR. Instead, they sue her for an amount they know she can't pay, basicaqlly strong-arming her.
Nice going. I am hoping this puts them in the public eye even more, and they get booted from tenders in Canada. Let's see how that affects their bottom line.
Sigged!
They filed a bogus suit to try to quiet a concerned citizen, and instead have turned her into a cause célèbre on the Internet, and savvy government officials will play up punishing Activa for votes. When will these idiots learn?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
http://images.google.com/images?q=http://ca.geocit ies.com/infringements%40rogers.com&svnum=10&hl=sv& lr=&start=0&sa=N&filter=0
Well, it just got greenlighted at That Other Site. I'm sure the kids over there will show plenty of respect for Activa.
Pity I already used up all my mod points modding you up. =) That post above all was the one that SHOULD have been modded up most of all. I just kept modding up all your other ones because that's pretty much the first thing I thought when I read the article.
Isn't the point of Geocities that they're an ad-supported site? Why do they buckle under the /. effect so quick?
Oh, here we go...
Have you considered the possibility that this woman actually broke the law?
Of course not. You read the 'corporation vs. evironmentalist mom' headline and made your mind up in an instant.
Okay, so there is no legislation to protect this poor woman from this SLAPP lawsuit in Canada, but can't she countersue for defamation if she wins?
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
Oh come on. This isn't even RTFA, you've gone a step past it to RTF summary:
The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'.
I'm sure you still think everyone is lying but the poor, poor, corporation. Here, look at her response to the lawsuit in the article you didn't read:
"I learned the only way they could get me to remove the site was with an injunction, and an injunction would mean they would have to bring this information in front of a judge," Lanteigne said.
"I thought, 'That's excellent,' because I need a judge to see what's going on here."
She's actually happy that the truth will be heard. Maybe, just maybe, she's actually the one telling the truth.
Being sued has always been a risk of publishing. New technology, like blogging, changes nothing. The fact is that lots of people lie, and the threat of bringing suit is about the only way to protect your reputation.
There is a kneejerk tendency to assume this is an innocent blogger versus an evil corporation. Maybe, maybe not. If she's can convincingly argue that she did not commit libel, lawyers will be lining up at her door with thoughts of huge percentages in their heads. If she can't convince a lawyer who wants her to win, maybe we ought to reconsider the merits of the corporation's claims.
Publishing is publishing, whether you're the NYT or someone's cat blog. No one gets, or deserves, a free pass. Anyone unprepared to deal with the consequences ought not to publish.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There was at one time in the western system of jurisprudence the notion of a Trial by Combat whereby the acused had the right to compel the acuser or his champion to engage him (the defendant) or his champion in a judicially sanctioned duel whereby the judgement of God would decide the winner. The theory being that God would strengthen the arm and sharpen the skills of the party representing the truth thereby allowing him or his champion to overcome the guilty or his champion. Although there is little evidence in the modern context to prove it, I would bet that society in general would be more civil and courteous if one risked life and limb by slandering his neighbor or falsly acusing him. How many corporate executives would acuse people of slander or insult them in public if they had to face the defendant or his champion at the wrong end of a sharp and pointy object?
Fundamentally, your argument stinks of elitism - it should be the right of landowners in Georgia to refuse to rent anything nicer than a tarpaper shack to black people, it's their property; it should be legal for movie theatres to exclude blacks, for business owners to have a policy against hiring blacks, for the university to refuse to admin blacks.
If the black people don't like it, they should buy their own apartment blocks, their own movie theatres, their own university. Never mind that the blacks are overwhelmingly poor, so this is a completely impossible thing for them to do.
Being poor does not make you a second-class citizen. If you don't like that, move to a country where they didn't execute their royal family two hundred years ago.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Chairman: Peter Armbruster
Activa Group
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo, ON N2V 2H1
Phone: (519) 886-9400, Ext 104
Fax: (519) 886-8955
E-mail: parmbruster@activagroup.ca
Thanks to the AC and the grand parent for the links...
PLEASE MOD UP!
Having complaints lobbed at you has always been a risk of running a business. New technology, like blogging, changes nothing. The fact is that lots of people speak their mind whether or not it is the truth, and like it or not, their is a matter of a little thing called "free speech" which you can do *nothing about*.
There is a kneejerk tendency to assume this is some poor company that could lose millions versus one person with a grudge. Maybe, maybe not. If she can convincingly argue that this "poor company" actually has a problem, then there should be people lining up to protest at this company. If she can't convince anyone, then she's a nutcase that should -- and will -- be ignored.
Publishing is publishing, whether you're the NYT or someone's cat blog. Everyone gets free speech. Anyone unprepared to deal with this freedom should move to China.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
This is just bullshit in the highest form. All Activa Holdings Inc. is doing is silencing someone who is speaking against them and threatening others to do so as well. If people just back down shit like this will keep happening untill no one is willing to speak against or protest things they belive are wrong.
I gave the bat commader a high five.
as found here
Peter Armbruster
Vice-President, Operations
parmbruster@activagroup.ca
website (under 'construction' - HA!)
"Bad: Woman rights remarks"
Yeah, I hate hearing about women's sufrage too. We should end it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I am familiar with the area. Many homes and businesses in Kitchener use well water.
Perhaps, protecting the ground from contamination in cities isn't quite as crucial, but in areas where most homes and businesses, if not all, use well-water, permitting contamination of the aquifer is unconscionable.
3 the sig... poor moleman
IANAL, but it seems to me the only way to stop this is to establish a legal custom of awarding the people subject to such Corporate Terror with massive punitive damages, to the amounts that can actually deter a corporation from practicing such terroristic behaviours. Also, right now it's a loss-only game for the defendents: they either lose a small quantity of their time and money, or a great quantity of those (assuming of course they don't immediately back down). In the event of a serious loss, this can be a life-wrecking event. Inserting a potential for massive compensation would make it a loss/win script, with the potential to radically change the defendants' life for good, not just for the bad. And of course, it would mean corporations would file lawsuits against private people only in extreme cases (read: the cases they meant to be filed in), and not as part of a standard-practice policy of corporate muscle, getting what they want from common people and stomping their civil rights in the process.
You just did the company a favor, now her site's down! Hurray for free speech!
/. editors didn't remove the coral links whenever someone posts them, I'd be really grateful - so much for coral if the submissions are decoralized (can you hear me ScuttleMonkey?).
Now if the
--that's what she says on the site. I certainly hope it's good stuff.
wait a minute
let's be fair
The gov't never said she was right! They said they agree with WHAT she's doing. And, frankly, so do I.
As long as she is right.
This
could someone tell me if the activa corporation that is suing this
e mentdisplay_id=5216
person is the same company involved in _this_:
http://www.labour.gov.za/media/statement.jsp?stat
call Greenpeace! It's in times like this when they can help!
Okay, let's make nicey-nice. Please mark me as your foe. My settings will then make you almost invisible and we can eagerly ignore each other forever.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
------ Thanks so much! I have a pretty strong case of defence at my end including many letters of thanks from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour. To want to sue me for $2,000,000 is just a way of "SLAPPing me." "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence e.g., taking down websites or comments made on line - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP. This method will not work with me. I've got way to much evidence at my end. I could actually counter sue for what I have been through so we'll see what happens. Either way, I'm glad it's out there in the media. Folks really need to know. With letters like yours it's great to know the message is getting out there. Thanks for your support! Louisette Lanteigne Waterloo Ont. -----
Meh.
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get _topic&f=5&t=001759
someone may have tracked down activa holdings.
activa's web site is "under construction"...
Allow me to play devil's advocate here. Say they had contacted her first regarding false claims. She would probably post the letter or a transcript of the phone call on her web site as evidence that they are trying to threaten her. Of course, she did the same thing with the lawsuit, but at least they have a chance of correcting any perceived false claims this way.
;)
If you read her website, you see that most of her complaints are about small things like workers not wearing hardhats at all times while onsite. OK, engineers and scientists, raise your hands if you've ever taken your hardhat/safety goggles off in the lab. That's what I thought. And if you've ever worked with manual laborers, you know that there are always a few bad apples that will find creative and very dangerous ways to violate safety regulations. You should hear some of the stories that my professors told me from when they worked in industry.
Her environmental complaints are similarly small (again, just from what I read so far). Small spills of diesel fuel (probably less than a gallon). That much is probably spilled in a given week at a typical gas station. I couldn't see the pictures, so I don't know if the ground was really "saturated [with fuel]". She also complained about children playing in a dirty pond on one of the sites. Guess what, maybe former construction sites aren't the best playgrounds. Keep your damn kids out of there. She also makes a big fuss about pressure treated wood. This stuff is legal for them to use, and it doesn't present a big risk to the environment. Hey, lady, stop using fluorescent lights; they contain MERCURY!
In short, this woman looks for the tiniest infringements mostly of this one company without seeing the big picture. She complains about tiny spills, pressure treated wood (which she probably has in her own home), and minor safety violations. She frequently makes claims of "infringments" (just look at the title of the page), and "violations". If they are not shown to be infringements, then she may vary well be guilty of libel. Maybe a better approach for the company would have been to follow her around for a few weeks to see how many laws she breaks, how many traffic violations she commits, and how much she neglects her kids. Then create a page about her that completely blows these things out of proportion and paints her as a clear and present danger to society.
Let the flaming begin.
Didn't they change that recently? In the US, I mean.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
this is a _copy_ of a _copy_. the geocities site on which the copy
l ouisette.lanteigne.html
is hosted is overloaded. so i made a copy of the google cache, here:
http://hands.com/~lkcl/activa.holdings.report.by.
... you edit for Wikipedia, huh? ;-)
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Maybe if they did she would admit such mistakes. Now even if she _was_ lying she'll never admit it, and everyone's already seen the site - even if it turns out she was lying, no-one will believe that, because Everyone Knows (TM) it got taken down because of the big evil corporation.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
And it's really worth 2 million? Besides, even if she did, the damage is done and this will not be effective in "undoing" it. the right thing to do would be to make a press release refuting the claims. This will be seen as an attempt to sweep things under the rug. Even if the website comes down, Everyone Knows[tm] that's only because she couldn't afford to fight The Good Fight[tm] against The Evil Corporation[tm].
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Has that Umbrella Corporation got any tentacles involved in T virus research or cosmetics?
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Honestly speaking, my brother just returned from the Iraq war. However, his case was unusual.
However, you are also right that the US Government is changing its dates for soldiers to return; and those who were supposed to return are now being told to stay extra.
... search for activa holdings and the womans name --- but use teh cache of found links...
... being a mother and motivated to address her fear that she can't keep kids from being kids.. and getting into things they should not.
....... AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE PUBLIC RELATIONS MARKETING.
What little I read... and there is alot more to read such as city council meetings etc...
and having worked in a related field of cabinetry (one of the later things to install). It is not completely reasonabe to enforce some of her complaints as the environment of a construction site is going to be influenced by the construction. (I have no doubts that personnel at the construction site dislikes nails in the parking lot as mush as she dislikes nails elsewhere.
On the other hand and in recognition of this above fact, is she lying? The odds are she is telling the truth but perhaps expecting to much and as such
Should a construction company and sub contractors police (control teh level of hazards and garbage and etc..) the sites they work at? Yes, they should if only as a matter of public relations marketing. Otherwise it seems to me that there is a matter of private property where kids and anyone else at the construction site, that shouldn't be there, is trespassing.
When I pass by a construction site the way it is kept makes an impression on me as to the quality and attention to detail I can expect from the general contractor. Their expectations on the sub-contractors to maintain a reasonably clean appearance of the property. I get this from working on multi million dollar sites.
But I also recognize a trespassing issue.
Activa should not sue her, thats very bad PR. Instead they should require their subcontractors to maintain their trash and such, as well as post no tresspassing signs.
They should pay her any expense they have cost her in this legal mess and then do the right thing
You had all these problems with an award winning company? My advice would be to stay away from award-winning companies. When a company really messes up, and their customer, a contractor who was supposed to have had oversight, realizes this, he can't admit that he wasn't doing his job. So in turn, he awards a "quality" award to the company as a way of covering his butt, image-wise. Then the government agency that contracted the whole thing out looks at the mess, and decides that the political ramifications of dealing with this are too great, so they then issue a few awards as well, and next thing you know... ... you aren't going to buy from award-winning companies any more, are you?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Activa Holdings Inc., the construction company/home developer, has a website containing nothing but an "under construction" image.
What you say is true, but you have to ask yourself why has this company tried to sue her for $2 million!
Is what she is doing really wrong?
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Cdn law is different from US law in a number of important instiutional details. The judge can and will award costs. Even if the company is technically correct, it could still wind up paying the defense costs. Automagically if the defendant pays a nominal sum "into court" and the award is less than this.
This dimwit is fighting for her "right" to tell neighborhood kids where to play:
They stored their building materials on an empty lot right beside the only completed park in the subdivision. Kids used to play with the huge piles of loose bricks and particle boards to make forts. I was constantly trying to keep kids out of ther
Oh the horror, children were playing with particle board! Wah, wah, wah.
As a former neighborhood kid who loved to play on construction sites and had a few too many busy-body neighbors literally interpreting building, environmental, and safety codes, I say "Thanks Activa!" Bankrupt her nosy ass. Let's see what "safety code violations" the dimbulb can find in a public-housing ghetto.
Is what she is doing really wrong?
;) I'd have to see the pictures, or better yet, observe the actual occurrances myself to know what's really going on here. Hopefully the justice system will work as it's supposed to here.
The answer to that is a definate "maybe".
Believe it or not, most companies actually do want to comply with environmental and safety regulations. However, they don't want to be singled out and be painted as an evil polluter and worker abuser while their competitors are not.
I suppose the best outcome of this would be that the charges are dropped, and she keeps doing what she is doing, while educating herself on the issues, seeing the bigger picture, and not singling out a particular company because they happen to operate a few blocks from her house.
my other post is +5 insightful
And all this woman is doing is using the power of the state to reign-in a bunch of neighborhood kids who want to have a fun time playing on a construction site. Read her goof-ball rants through google cache and ask yourself if you'd want to live anywhere near this nutball.
Which is more dangerous, pressure-treated wood* or a know-it-all control freak that wants to clamp-down on every child in the neighborhood?
* Containing "dangerous" amounts of arsenic, according to this loon.
Let this be a lesson. In the days of cheap digital cameras, if you're going to take on a task like this woman did, you might as well photograph every last thing and notate when the pictures were taken, and under what circumstances.
If that became a common practice, it's easy to imagine the bigger engineering companies collaborating with our elected officials to create laws and ordinances against "photographing at a construction site" or some shit. Something unconstitutional but meant to up the ante a litle bit for anyone who wants to take this task on.
In the mean time, give 'em hell.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Too bad it takes an AC post to even get a look at "the other side." I'm not saying that "the other side" is right, but they certainly deserve fair consideration...and, as the parent points out, the issue may not be as simple as it first seems. I sure I wish I had mod points right now.
for the images
It strikes me that they tried to sue her into closing the site and they have failed, maybe instead they should have thanked her for pointing out where these violantions where taking place and tried to stop them.
Most of the "infringments" seem minor at best, this kiind of bad publicty can't seem worth it now!
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
All sites have roofers without harnesses violating labor laws and unsecured and unsupervised propane tanks are littered throughout the subdivisions, some tilting in the mud.
Oh my god, no! The horror! Unsupervised tilting propane tanks, why they might, uh, dispense propane at an unregulated angle! Think of the Children!
http://images.google.com/images?q=http://ca.geocit ies.com/infringements%40rogers.com&svnum=10&hl=sv& lr=&start=0&sa=N&filter=0
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
MSM reporters today are idiots, who don't actually want to step out of the offices to report on anything and just move words around in AP reports?
It's easy to come up with a lot of bullshit when all you do it sit all day in your own inwardly focused monoculture.
In Gitmo, if your chicken salad sandwich is bit on the chewy side our media cries "torture"!
If she is telling the truth she has NO problems, if she is lying then she SHOULD be sued. The law is a TOOL in business. If their aim is to bankrupt her that is one thing but she should win if she has written something accurate.
n Laurel Creek Village and in both cases, I have photographed and reported leaks of diesel and oil and have reported numerous labour and environmental law infringements.
"covering up any traces" of an oil spill is non-trivial, and a major issue, and that's just for starters, as Activa seems to not know what they are doing. But if they do manage to do it, then she's achieved her goal, which is for Activa to clean up their act. Either way, seems like these twits hired some brilliant minds from the SCO Legal Dept.
"Activa realizes it's risking negative PR but the company thinks the lawsuit is the only way to defend its reputation." - What do you honestly think of them now?
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
From the article (quoting an Activa spokesman):
"Ultimately, they're confident it will be resolved in their favour," Murdoch said. "They're confident the right public perception will come about."
The right public perception, or the one they want?
The right public perception is coming out, and it sure isn't what they want.
It's not much consolation, but Canadian courts almost never award punitive damages. Even if the developer wins, the court is likely to simply try and work out a value for whatever damage to the complainant's reputation that the statements resulted in.
http://www.sorbaralaw.com// j__greg_murdoch.htmlt ml
http://www.sorbaralaw.com/Lawyers/J__Greg_Murdoch
http://www.sorbaralaw.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.h
firm@sorbaralaw.com
Probably
greg.murdoch@sorbaralaw.com
or
gmurdoch@sorbaralaw.com
or
greg@sorbaralaw.com
or
murdoch@sorbaralaw.com
would be good guesses.
What a bunch of crooks.
Tell em what you think!
J. Greg Murdoch
Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP.
(519) 576-0460
alternate telephone number: (519) 836-1510
Don't harass the man, but don't be afraid to exercise your constitutional right to free speech either.
Infringement can be a tort AND a criminal case, depending on the nature and scope of the infringement. Some of the P2P stuff could very probably be called a tort (Unlike what the *AA orgs and their ilk would have you believe...) and the bigtime ones would definitely be criminal- but they're also guilty of a tort at the same time.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is all happening in my city... here is some contact information which is publicly available CHBA, the Canadian Home Builders' Association
Activa Holdings Inc.
(519) 886-9400 Ext.104
Other contact information for the company interesting enough located a couple km away from RIM
Activa Holdings Inc.
Peter Armbruster
735 Bridge St. W
Waterloo, ON
N2V 2H1
(519) 886-9400
www.activagroup.ca
The web site appears to be inactive. The WHOIS contact is Werner Brummund, kyantz@gto.net and fax number is 5198868955
It would also be interesting to know which firms invest in Activa Holdings, as I'm sure investors would like to know how their capital is being used to bully residents in Kitchener/Waterloo Ontario.
if Activa is a mob-run corporation. Sounds like a tactic that they would use. In any event, if the Ministry of Environment lauds this woman's efforts so much, I would hope they would help her out in her defense. In other words, put their money where their collective mouth is.
Both the US and canada and probably most other governments, too.. The "strong central government" scam con game is to pass so many laws that it is near impossible to live your life without being in violation of something or other. In business in particular.
This is very lucrative for government, plus it gives it control over their serfs. Remember, it is "us versus them" there is no collective "we" when it comes to "government".
Being /.ed will bring this story a LOT of public attention. Waterloo has to have the highest per-capita slashdot readership of any Canadian city- the suburb in which this woman lives has to be crawling with RIM geeks, and everybody knows that /. is required reading for RIM geeks.
Activa will really have to make sure they're model environmental citizens- because now they're going to be watched constantly by geeks with digicams and the ability to google the law from anywhere. Not such a bright move on their part.
Currently, corporations are blessed with many of the benefits of citizenship, and few of the limitations.
What we need are reforms to greatly limit the impact that corpotations can have on individual citizens.
To start, a corporation suing an individual citizen must cover that citizens legal fees, up to a certain percentage of their own legal cost, for instance 25%.
The money will be paid up front on a monthly basis, and does not need to be returned under any circumstances.
Any taxes for the legal fee reimbursement will be paid by the corporation, such that the citizen recieves, after all applicable taxes, the required amount.
The legal fee reimbursement will not be considered income for purposes of welfare, disability, unemployment, etc, and can be used for any purpose with no limitations.
Obviously the first things corporations will do is claim that their legal costs are next to nothing, because all of their lawyers are on retainer, and thus 'free'
Good job at finding the loophole, Mr. Suit, that simply means that the assumed legal cost will be the monthly salary of each lawyer who touches the case, times the number of years that the case. Alternate compensation would also need to be considered, including stock options, company cars and houses, so forth and so on.
Under current market and legal conditions, often it is such that citizens have little to no recourse when corporations violate laws in a way harmful to said citizens.
And yet, the same corporations that are effectively immune to citizen retaliation can effortlessly bankrupt numerous citizens via legal entanglements.
Corporations should not be able to force citizens into disfavorable settlements that entail large fines and the sacrifice of the citizens rights and future liability by threatening a never-ending legal battle that will cost the citizen large amounts of money even to enlist a single lawyer for the duration of their defense.
Corporations may exist solely to turn a profit for the shareholders, but they are allowed to exist solely to benefit the economy and thus the country. Suing private citizens rarely has any kind of benefit beyond establishing corporate dominance over the citizen, which is certainly bad for the country, as the country is, in fact, said citizen.
Of course, I am in no way qualified for legal or economic analysis, so obviously all of this will no doubt cause an economic recession as the rights of the pitiful corporations are simply trampled upon by an uncaring, unfeeling mass of citizens, who the corporations have no means of stopping. Which would be rather similar to the current situation, except with the trampling being the other way around.
Activa claims the website has caused damage to its reputation and launched the lawsuit only after Lanteigne refused to apologize and take down the site. Oh, I see. So they're suing a mother of 3 trying to keep her neighbourhood & kids safe, to protect their reputation. Wait.. isn't that a little counterproductive? They could have fessed up & fixed all of the problems mentioned and kept their reputation, but now I'm sure everyone hates them. Whether they win or not, they're still screwing themselves over in my opinion.
What I don't understand about the yard thing is why if anyone had a two-by-four with rusty nails in it in the middle of the yard - why they just wouldn't take it out themselves! If you have a kid it's just stupid to leave it there, so the report sounds really wierd.
The pictures are pretty compelling though. I think she has a good case for a counter-suit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And for those of you in the K-W area, here is the contact info for the company doing the suing:
Name: Werner Brummund
Job Title: President / CEO
Postal Address: Activa Group 735 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V 2H1 Canada
Phone: 5198869400
Fax: 5198868955
Email: kyantz@gto.net
(Info above from linked article.)
I'm planning to drop by their office tomorrow and let them know what I think.
-Sylvan (also a UW student)
IANAL but this would appear to fall under Fair Comment in the Libel and Slander Act. which states:
24. Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, a defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 24.
meaning(by my training of no law training what so ever) that she can have that website that says I saw and I think all she wants, no matter how wrong she is. There is no need for anything more. This sounds like it was just to shut her up, and it looks like it should fail, and as a Canadian, I hope it does.
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Have you seen her site? It rambles on and on she complains about a diesel fuel being spilled or kids making a fort out of plywood or a building who looks like he might have heat stroke????? It is seriously weird read. Like I said before seems like she is way concerned with other peoples biz and affairs in my opinion. Just a nut with too much time on her hands, thats what I think.
Apparently you have never lived next door to a busy body like this (IMHO). Maybe you should try that sometime.
companies not being able to sue individuals over their speech, even if damaging.
Even though this is from Canada, this reminds me (again) that it's high time to protect our freedom of speech, not only from government encroachment, but also from corporate interference.
It matters nothing to me that any company is damaged from the speech of individuals. Such speech must be protected in these days of de facto corporate rule.
If a company cannot shield itself from one individual's speech, perhaps they should decide to fold their tents rather than harassing this good lady? It seems to me this must be a company that has worn out its privilege to exist.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
You are either dead wrong, or I have been wasting money giving to environmentalist not-for-profit organizations. She doesn't need a billion dollars. She needs a couple of lawyers. She is maybe a dozen phone calls away from getting one. I bet that there is more then one environmental non-prof that would jump a the chance to send her a lawyer or three, especially when she has pictures and the case is so cut and dry.
Is this an attempt to silence her? Sure. I imagine they slapped her with the suit in gamble that she would drop the whole thing. According to her website, they gambled wrong. If you are really worried, I would suggest writing a letter to whatever non-prof environmental organization you regularly donate to and inform them of the situation. Lawyers are not exactly cheap, but most non-profs that deal with environmental law tend to have more then a few handy.
The good news for all is that (from what I remember), under the Canadian court system, if the woman wins then the company will foot the bill for the court charges. Not only that, but I do know that there are times when a judge might reassess damages back to the plaintiff. In this case, they'd better have a good case... as sueing a mom for $2,000,000 might be just the thing to have a judge slap them with a rather large amount in retaliation.
Look at his home page (http://www.insurancegenius.com/) he works the insurance company he recommended, just trying to use us webmasters to make him monopoly...
Modders PLEASE do research simple research on who you mod up, like look at their user name, email, home page and prevous comments.
Also, it can't be defamation if the person has no good name to lose. In addition to those two, I believe that the defense of "truth" also holds up if there is any other reasonable grounds for believing that the claims are indeed true.
Having said all of that, Britain has no "right" of free speech (and I'm not sure that that's all that bad) and therefore freedom of speech can NOT be used as part of any kind of defense. Unless you're on Speaker's Corner, then you can say what you like - that corner is totally protected from any and all laws governing speech in England.
Canadian laws are, in many ways, very similar to Britain, so I'd assume the libel/slander laws would be based on the same governing principle - reasonableness and truth first, protection of the individual second, all other rights and obligations third.
The biggest difference I see is that the Americas have nothing comparable to the EU's Court of Human Rights, which can overturn national legal decisions or even national laws, when the EU has compelling evidence that such decisions or laws violate EU or international mandates on human rights, or when they have compelling evidence that the decision/law was in conflict with the broader needs of society.
(Britain has fallen foul of the EU's Court of Human Rights on many occasions. It is by no means a perfect country, it is flawed in many respects - as, indeed, is the EU itself. Frankly, though, I can think of little in the Americas which would lead me to believe they're any better and a lot that convinces me they're infinitely worse in many areas.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
go to sorbaralaw.com
click lawyers
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Some win!
rgds
In my country, this would never have happened. The minister would be too busy kissing the polluters asses to aknowledge the existence of the website. The media wouldn't give a shit, and the woman could go on happily making her website and being ignored.
The story says she could be forced into bankruptcy.... no she can't. She's a stay-at-home mom. That generally means that she has no income. A court cannot force someone into paying a lawsuit with say... her husbands money or even money she already has. The only thing a court can do is garnish her wages. WHAT WAGES?!? Hahahaha. I say she defends herself in court, lets them win for 20 bagillion dollars and then just ignore requests for payment ad infinitim. OJ Simpson is doing it, so why can't you?
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Of never letting Slashdot post any articles not based in the U.S. say Aye.
Or Eh!
In this case, the compelling story is that a mother-of-three is doing this to protect her children against a faceless, insensitive and obnoxious corporation. It plays to our desires to root for the underdog. We can all see ourselves in that situation: a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for solace.
In this case, our libel laws are not very forgiving. The burden of proof is set pretty high. Not impossibly so, but perhaps more difficult than an individual could accomodate without becoming some sort of crucading private investigator.
Now, let's take another scenario. An unrelated, fictional woman has an axe to grind over a local construction company based on some imagined slight (say, she thinks they go to work too early in the morning and mess up her sleep). She then engages in a campaign of deliberate misinformation using plausable but falsified events. In this case, the libel laws are quite GOOD, because it puts the burden of proof on the potential libeler to back up their words with proof, and god only knows what kind of damage could be done by one disgruntled and motivated nutcase.
Personally, I think that libel laws SHOULD put the burden on the person making the statements, but there should be increased protection of the little guy 'whistleblower' from being intimidated away from speaking out in protest when its due. An anti-SLAPP style law would go a long way to resolve that weakness.
Either way, it's premature to judge Canada's (really, british common law's) approach as 'inferior' because of one anecdote where the law isn't supportive of the little guy over big business. After all, the same protection extends to the woman in the event this company tried to railroad HER.
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
This is one area where the laws in Canada suck badly compared to the USA and other countries. SLAPPs are much easier to initiate here in Canada in order to protect the rich - as well the courts are totally set up to protect the rich when it comes to basic justice issues - like "freedom of speech".
Took forever for the courts in Canada to decide that a woman was a person - because the rich didn't want any woman to be a judge, politician or to hold any kind of official government office!
So it is easy to end up behind the 8 ball. So one has to proceed with caution and video tape everything in situations similar to the one described here. However, any corporation can easily force anyone into the courts - and force bankruptcy by extended legal battles. An easy way to clean anyone out financially in court is the use of so-called expert witnesses. These "experts" do not have to produce scientific documented evident to back up any claim - they simply have to make a statement - and judges accept that as fact. Naturally the rich can bring in as many puppets (experts) as they wish - since the defendant will have to pay for them later!
Nice parrot. Any other tricks you do? Or haven't you moved beyond that in the thrid grade?
This isn't a free speech issue. Nothing has happened that has limited this person's freedom to speak or write what she pleases. Free speech does not include the right to slander or libel. You have a right to say what you wish, and I have an equal right to sue you if I believe you've slandered or libeled me. One right has nothing to do with the other.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
man, i envy you for your language.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
With the laywer(s) salary, the company could probably hire a cleanup crew for a week and really put a positive spin on this story.
"Look, we REALLY care about the environment". "We listen to people"... but noooo, let's release the hounds, show that we are just faceless corportaion that doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line. And our laywers have to look busy, or they will lose their $160.000 jobs and company cars...
This is completley typical of big businesses, they think they have so much power they can just sweep people who stand against them out of the way. I just hope she can find some resolve.
-- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, And those who don't.
Actually, if you don't commit slander and libel, you're pretty safe against accusations of slander and libel.
I'm an attorney living in Sunnyvale, and I thought the most effective way to show how wrong you are is to file a frivolous libel case against David Johnson of Mountain View, CA.
When you receive the summons, even though it is a joke and will eventually be thrown out, I highly suggest you hire an attorney to receive advice. I also suggest you show up to court because otherwise a default judgement will be thrown against you and I will collect on it.
... to all hackers out there to pay a little visit to Activa Holdings Inc's website and make a few changes
y'know what I mean (wink wink, nudge nudge)
(a wink is as good as a nudge to a blind bat)
Courtesy of Dictionary.com:
(emphasis mine)
libel Audio pronunciation of "libel" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbl)
n.
1.
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
One key point that they need to be able to prove in order to win a libel suit, is that the statement(s) have to be FALSE. Its absolutely not libelous if the statements are true. Unmodified pictures seem to show these kinds of cases very well, although we hope the court has enough sense to do the right thing.
And they said zombies weren't real!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Their megabuck legal team convinced the judge to throw out the case before it could come to trial (by refusing to admit expert testimony). I'm appealing, but meanwhile they are suing me to make me pay more than $300,000 in legal fees to their lawyers
Sony and Random House assert in their legal filings that my blogging about the Da Vinci Code case, my posting of legal documents, expert witness analysis and a discussion of my own books as the originals in the genre constitutes evidence of "improper motivation" which they say justifies me being forced to pay .
Why didn't I sue them first?
As already mentioned on this thread, it's all about megabucks. Random House/Bertelsmann is the world's largest, multibillion-dollar publishing company.
Outclassed in the "all the justice you can pay for" category, I first wrote them a non-threatening letter intending to ask that they give me credit. I had no lawyer, no intention to sue then -- as now -- never any demand for settlement money.
Despite my private and non-threatening approach, Random House launched a thermonuclear "fuck off" fax at me threatening me with financial ruin should I pursue the issue. Their fax was so extreme that it was a big clue that some sort infringement may have happened and that they knew it.
Random House slammed the door on private and civil discussion. But, lacking the megabucks to buy the same measure of justice available to large global corporations, I turned to public disclosure and what better way than blogs, one of which was The Da Vinci Crock
I did this because a couple of years ago, before blogs were so common, I created an online forum called PatheticBell.Com (http://www.patheticbell.com/) concerning the misleading ads and promises of Pacific Bell (now SBC) DSL service. That forum collected enough information from angry users to support several class action lawsuits that brought fines and better service.
Because I had successfully used the Web to bring issues to the public's attention then, I saw no reason not to do so again. The public scrutiny obviously generated more heat than Random House could take, so they filed suit against me in New York where the judges are more friendly toward publishers than here in California.
The judge in question refused to allow my expert witnesses to submit their testimony then ruled in favor of Random House's request to deny a trial on the issues. I am appealing.
BIG APOLOGY: I am sorry for all the badly produced .pdf documents above!
The court filings are only available as CRAPPY .pdfs are scanned from printed pages.
Lawyers do this (instead of creating normal, CPU-sucking Acrobat documents) to make it impossible to text search their filings or to cut and paste from them despite the fact that they are public domain documents.
This
Kinda the whole point is that the U.S. government isn't doing that whole "competent tribunal" part, even when doubt exists.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Well, if you RTFA, they DID ask first.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Actually - you did invade and lost. We counter attacked and burned many public buildings in Washington :-)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%2 81775%29
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Canada_%2 81812%29
All ancient history.
http://infringements.blogspot.com/
You are both wrong. We need both old growth forest and new growth. Both encourage different types of wildlife. Deer love new growth forest because their food (young trees) is close to the ground and common. Woodpeckers need old trees because they have more bugs under the surface to eat.
Except for rain forests, the natural order of things is a forest fire every so often (often year). Since people don't like a forest fire, (it tends to harm houses, plus there is the whole Bambi scare) we have logger go in and clean up the forests.
Most logging companies own land. They want to make sure there is more trees - it is a cash crop like anything else. They are re-planting for the future.
They did change the laws, and I don't fully understand how. However even before you could not declare bankruptcy to get out of judgments against you. The lawyers always get paid.
Bankruptcy was never intended as a way to get you out of debt - it was a way to get help paying bills. They will normally dismiss some lesser bills, but that isn't a requirement.
The order of bill dismissal is well defined. Last to go is court and lawyer fees from the bankruptcy costs. Second to last is court judgments from previous actions. Then things like your house (but in most states they cannot take anything you need to live, so your house is probably protected)
I am not a lawyer. I'm giving you my best understanding of the law, If you need legal advice get a lawyer.
This reminds me of a story that occurred in Miami [ http://www.local10.com/news/4053892/detail.html ] When a little girl was told to stop selling lemonade and cookies because she didn't have a license to sell food/beverage. What else are they going to do? NoMorePoints.com
Why bother with a lawsuit to get someone to take a website down. Just post a story to slashdot. Poof it's gone.
"Oh, indeed. The USA has much better freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world. Why, here in Soviet Britain, you don't know where you're allowed to speak your mind and where it's forbidden -- I really wish we had designated "free speech zones" like you Americans!"
If I would reply like that I would get modded down to Troll and would have gotten Bad Karma. Why don;t you mod everybody the same way? Bah!
> I own stores, they're my property. If I don't want a communist shirt on my property, it's my right.
Nice thought, but since your store is purportedly for public access, you have to comply with a variety of laws that don't apply to private property like a house. For example, there's no law that requires you to have fire exits marked in your house. By the same token, you're not allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws in your store, where they don't apply to your house.
> If I'm a landlord and I don't like a tenant, I shouldn't be forced to accept them. It is my property.
Again, because you're presumably offering the rental property to the general public, you give up the right to discriminate in violation of the law. If you want the protection of contract law and right of separation (you're not criminally liable for crimes committed by your tenant on the rental property, for example), then you need to abide by the whole landlord-tenant paradigm, which includes not being allowed to say "no communists".
> Yes, some racist white guy may say no to a black family. What stops another landlord from saying no problem? Competition opens doors shut by others.
I'd say that (shown by history) other people in the community could apply the pressure that stop the other landlord. It's appallingly naive to say that competition will fix a problem like this. The reason laws like this exist is specifically because competition didn't fix problems like this.
Virg
> There is a difference between public venue and private property. In my house, I should be able to say whatever I want; in public, I should have to mind my manners. If I am publically lying about a person in public, then that should be actionable.
That's a good metric, until you find the grey areas in "public". Is a restaurant public or private? Sure, it's owned by a private entity, but it's open to the public. If I walk into a restaurant and start talking trash about someone, and the other patrons are listening, am I talking privately or publicly? It's the "private protperty for public use" that gets you into hot water, and these are the venues for which anti-discrimination laws were originally scripted.
> You should be able to hire whomever you please without fear of a discrimination suit, and you should be able to fire people the same way. You should be able to refuse to serve Austrians in your restaurant, require everyone to where a green shirt, etc.
The basis of anti-discrimination laws has always been exclusionary. For example, it's not actually a violation of anti-discrimination laws to require that everyone in your restaurant wear green, because that's not exclusionary. It is, however, not legal to open a restaurant to the public and then disallow certain people on the basis of stuff that's not disruptive to your business, like being Austrian. The reason is that while it seems on the surface to be a matter of private property, history has shown that such discrimination can persevere in the face of financial loss, because some people will value the prejudice above monetary gain and if they carry enough financial or civil weight, can enforce that desire on their communities. Moreover, in cases where discrimination shows a profit (building access to your business for the handicapped costs a lot, for example) you can develop a class of people that never get redress against discrimination, and this was deemed a long time ago to be detrimental to society at large. Keep in mind that none of this applies to private property (for example, you can hire and fire a nanny for any or no reason with little legal difficulty and you don't need ramps in your house), when your business is a public entity you must play by the rules of society.
> A person using public property can't be allowed to abuse it to put forth mistruths; they have their own property for that.
In the fifties, white superiority wasn't considered a mistruth. There are still people who don't consider it a mistruth now. Again, some people place a very high value on their prejudice. If someone who does that ends up in a very high position or on a position of monopoly, it's reasonable to assume that society at large will suffer unless that person's prejudice cannot be used in public (and quasi-public) settings. If the only grocery in a town with thirty black people decides not to serve them, they have no real recourse to competition since nobody can profitably run a grocery for that small a clientele.
> In the US, having our freedoms restored from the poor wording of the Civil Rights Act would do a great deal to rid ourselves of discrimination. Instead of it being illegal to do all those things I mentioned, make it illegal for the government to do them. That is as it should be. That would rid us of horrible things like affirmative action, the so called "equal opportunity" laws, race based college financial aid, etc.
It would do no such thing. These things exist specifically because of discriminatory practice that made minorities into second-class citizens. Competition didn't eliminate or even significantly ameliorate these problems in the forties and fifties, so I have no idea why you think that it'll magically work now. As I said before, your view of discrimination requires that people value monetary gain more than their prejudice, and that's a very naive view of the world. The United Negro College Fund exists because when it was created, it
THis isn't anywhere near as bad as the Elsebeth Baumgartner caseg artner-arrested/
http://hammeroftruth.com/2005/11/14/elsebeth-baum
No, YOU suck!
go to sorbaralaw.com, or to lawyers directly (both of which would show up as coming from slashdot in their referrer log).
I've been speaking to Lorraine via email, and she has now set up a legal defense fund.
/. reader would like to make a donation towards the fight, you can make a donation here:
e rs.com/rel=url2html-24165http://ca.geocities.com/b utterflybluelu@rogers.com/>
If any generous
ahref=http://ca.geocities.com/butterflybluelu@rog
Personally I see her cause as worthy - lets face it, if we don't stand up dirty business people like that will just continue to bully the little guy.
(I'd appreciate this being modded up, or maybe added as an update to the original article?)
A weak argument that sounds strong because of the way one chooses his words can be countered by "parroting" their argument and exposing this weakness. Apparently, you were not able to appreciate the effectiveness of this, instead attacking and insulting me by calling me a parrot and an elementary school student. Thank you for that.
And by the way, insulting someone to counter their argument is something third graders do as well.
Since you were not able to grasp the concept of my counter-argument, I shall explain it for you. America's lawsuit-happy attitude is exactly what supresses free speech these days. People are afraid to speak out because they don't want a lawsuit thrown at them. It's very effective in stopping free speech since the government can't simply repel the first amendment. It's sickening to see all the lawsuits and threats of same being thrown about to limit freedoms we should enjoy.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
Parroting is a common technique seen on Slahdot. It is childish because it is often used by children to rebut the arguments of their parents and other adults who might actually know what they're talking about. It almost always fails because simple word replacement doesn't construct a logical argument.
The point is this: There is no relationship between free speech and litigation. We have always been a litigious society, even in the colonial era. Suing someone because they slander or libel you does not restrict their speech. Free speech does not include the right to engage in libel or slander.
The other poit is this: Anyone who publishs on the internet is playing by the same rules as people publishing in older media. The technology used to publish does not, and should not, change the law. Someone who posts their stories to a blog has no more, or less, protection that someone whose stories appear in a newspaper.
No one, including you, who posts here linking litigation to free speech restriction -- usually in cases involving a business and an allegedly helpless individual -- ever proposes a reasonable alternaive to the current situation or, in fact, demonstrates a cause-and-effect relationship between the suit and that individual's free speech. Allusions to corporate "armies of lawyers" are beside the point, If someone can convincingly demonstrate they did not engage in slander or libel, they will have no trouble finding lawyers to defend them, who will expect to draw their fees from the proceeds of a successful countersuit.
People lie. There's no reason to believe that bloggers don't engage in libel or slander as much as the rest of us.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"The current situation" is so ridiculously stupid that I (and many others, apparently) do not feel it necessary to provide a "reasonable alternative". How can someone who has created a website that "led to letters and kudos from various government officials for reporting alleged violations" (from TFA) -- and specifically from the (then-)environment minister -- suddenly get sued for millions from the offending company? Obviously this wasn't "slander or libel", as you keep repeating (I have found that a person that wishes to plant a half-truth or lie in the minds of someone will continually repeat that lie until it becomes truth -- see also President Bush and the words "weapons of mass destruction"), but a genuine complaint. Even if it was a bit slanderous, just because something has gone on for years doesn't make it right (re: your claim that this has gone on since "the colonial era").
And "cause and effect"? Well, this person wrote a website, you see, and it caused the company mentioned in the website to file a suit to shut her up, their desired effect. Simple, no? Or did you mean something else?
And sure, some people will be willing to defend their freedom of speech, but many others are now afraid of the "army of lawyers" corporations have, and will simply fold. And what if not everything this person said was true? Would that be enough to not prove "convincingly" that this person was not involved in your "libel and slander", even if there were still a lot of truth in what the person said? And would this be enough to shut this person up?
Perhaps you do not see the terrible abuse of power large corporations have at their disposal in today's world. Perhaps you don't see their avarice slowly eroding personal liberties, like the media companies all but eliminating personal fair use. The rose-tinted glasses of patriotism for countries being crushed under a mountain of greed has made people actually fight against their own freedom and unknowingly work for their oppressors. Maybe it has been going on since colonial days, but it's time to end it. Realizing "that's the way it's always been" is a poor argument is the first step to positive change.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
Louisette "Lulu" Lanteigne has setup a website where you can donate to the defence fund:
m /
http://ca.geocities.com/butterflybluelu@rogers.co
I don't know if the wonen commited libel or slander. I don't care. it isn't important to me. i do know that no amount of praise or awards is a guarantee that she did not. I don't now what she wrote that is at issue. If she wrote something innocuous, then she should have not trouble finding lawyers to represent her in a countersuit.
Nor am I concerned about whether or not what she did is "right". What is right and what is wrong is a matter of individual judgement. If you believe you are right and the law says you are wrong, then you ought to be willing to deal with the consequences.
What I am concerned about is people who assume that the technology used to publish should, somehow, reduce or eliminate the publisher's legal responsibility for what they say. It shouldn't. People who publish on the web cannot escape the consequences of libeling or slandering people.
As for the rest of your hyperbolic rhetoric, it is irrelevant to the specific topic under discussion. I could agree with everything you say, and it would not change my opinion, first, that people who publish on the web cannot and should not avoid legal responsibility for their words, and, second, that there is no rational reason to assume that this woman did or did not engage in libel or slander without seeing the specific text at issue. Someone can publish a million unexeceptoinal words a day for decades, but still libel or slander someone in a few short sentences.All those decades of innocuous words would be irrelevant.
If you want to "change" things, let's hear how you would ban corporations from suing while protecting the right of the rest of us to protect ourselves from libel and slander. Or, is it that you don't think that's important, either?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If you wrote that "DoktorSeven is a fat smelly idiot that murders babies and eats them during his satanic rituals while listening to music he downloaded from the Internet illegally," or some other (much more sane, likely) slanderous thing...
I'd ignore you. As I should. Even if these hypothetical lies got public attention, I would not be truly harmed; they are only words, and false ones at that. The only way I would be harmed by them is if criminal charges were brought forth by the force of your words, and there would have to be proof before that could happen.
So where's the harm? Why would I need to protect myself from simple words, unless I was extremely thin-skinned person with absolutely no maturity. That's how I view people who sue others for insults.
Someone harassing someone else go far enough where it goes past simple slander and becomes criminal; I do believe (going back to the topic at hand) if this person launched a prolonged baseless campaign against the company in question and had no actual facts to back it up, and, *despite repeated findings that the person has no facts behind her* (important), continues to campaign against the company just because the person has a personal grudge against them, this person should be dealt with accordingly. But given that 1) the person apparently had truth on her side 2) from what I read it did not seem like a prolonged baseless campaign, just a simple website, this specific case did not seem like it was enough to make this woman into a criminal.
And yes, I disagree with the laws. If I believe a law is wrong, especially if it has been used against me, I'm not going to sit back and "deal with the consequences." There have been unjust laws throughout history, you know; allowing governments to suppress freedom with unjust laws isn't good.
This'll be my last reply on this; I'm sorry you disagree, but I am sure you mean well. I just feel that people should have more freedom than most people do.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
If you have no assets to protect, then it is rather easy to claim that you'd ignore "simple words". But, of your livelihood, or the reputatioin of members of your family, were at stake, you might think differently. If you ran, for example, a restaurant, and a blogger posted a story alleging that he found dead roaches in your food, would you remain so unconcerned while your business withered away? If some adolescent blogger published defamatory comments about your child which provoked physical attacks on her, would your still walk away?
I don't disagree that people should have more freedom. But, taking away freedoms, like the freedom to prote t ourselves from the consequences of liel and slander, isn't the right way. You'd only be taking away the freedoms of people with whom you disagree, not increasing your own freedoms. As I've said, the right to free speech does not include the right to libel and slander.
And good luck with dealing with the consequences of violating laws you don't support. It usually involves jail time.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Activa announced that they approached an "esteemed member of society" to mediate. What they did not mention is that the vice president of Activa and Louisette, go to the same church. What may have happened is someone witnessed Louisette speaking with the priest after mass and thought to exploit this in some way. How would you feel having someone you confess to, mediate in a business matter?