• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

MattM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ninong":1ijlycpx said:
As long as you confine your reporting to the actual test results and do not offer your own conclusions or recommendations, I believe you will be OK

You are correct that truth is a valid defense against a claim of defamation. However, it does not prevent you from being sued. As I said before, there is no chance a lawsuit will be successful on it's merits, but one can incur thousands of dollars in defense costs before the merits ever come before a judge.

This is a classic example of a SLAPP case:

What are SLAPPs? (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)

Generally, a "SLAPP" is a (1) civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or organizations; (3) arising from their communications to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. SLAPP filers frequently use lawsuits based on ordinary civil claims such as defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance, interference with contract and/or economic advantage, as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.

Ultimately, most SLAPPs are not legally successful. Nevertheless, while most SLAPPs do not succeed in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect "chills" public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This chilling effect is not limited to the SLAPP defendants -- other people refrain from speaking out on issues of public concern because they fear being sued for what they say.

The filing of a SLAPP also impedes resolution of the public matter at issue, by removing the parties from the public decision-making forum, where both the cause and resolution of the dispute can be determined, and placing them before a court, where only the alleged "effects" of the public controversy may be determined. For example, imagine a company asks for a zoning variance to place an incinerator in a residential area. When local residents object to the city council, the company sues them for "interference with contract." The judge hearing the suit cannot decide the real issues -- the location of the incinerator -- but will have to spend considerable judicial resources to decide the side issues of the alleged "damages" or other consequences of the public debate on the real issues.

Every year, thousands of people are sued for participating in government or for speaking out on public issues. SLAPP targets have been sued for engaging in a wide variety of protected speech and protected expression activities, including:

Writing a letter to the editor
Circulating petitions
Calling a public official
Reporting police misconduct
Erecting a sign or displaying a banner on their property
Complaining to school officials about teacher misconduct or unsafe conditions in the school
Speaking at a public meeting
Reporting unlawful activities
Testifying before Congress or state legislatures
Speaking as an officer of an active public interest group
Filing a public interest lawsuit

SLAPPs all arise out of expressive activity which is directed to public concerns. Often, SLAPPs are "camouflaged" as ordinary civil lawsuits based on traditional theories of tort or personal injury law. Among the most often used legal theories are the following:

Defamation. Broadly defined, this is an alleged intentional false communication, which is either published in a written form (libel) or publicly spoken (slander), that injures one's reputation.

Invasion of Privacy. This refers to the unlawful use or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities.

Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process. A "malicious prosecution" is a criminal or civil lawsuit which is begun with knowledge that the case lacks merit, and which is brought for a reason (e.g., to harass or annoy) other than to seek a judicial determination of the claim. The use of the legal process to intimidate or to punish the person against whom the suit is brought is generally referred to as "abuse of process."

Conspiracy. A conspiracy is an alleged agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal, unlawful, or wrongful act.

Interference With Contract or Economic Advantage. This is based on the alleged commission of an act with the intent to interfere with or violate a contract between two people, or hinder a business relationship which exists between those persons.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This is based on an alleged commission of some outrageous act with the intent and knowledge that the act will result in severe mental or emotional anguish of another.

Nuisance. This includes everything that endangers, or may endanger, life or health, gives offense to the senses, violates the laws of decency, or obstructs, or may obstruct, the use and enjoyment of property.

Injunction. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order or an injunction against First Amendment activity

This list is not exhaustive. Neither the context nor the specific legal theory upon which a suit is based is important in determining whether a particular case is a SLAPP. If the activity which triggers the lawsuit is constitutionally protected speech or petition activity, then the suit is a SLAPP.
 

MattM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ninong -

I will not get into the details in a public forum, but I will go so far as to say that it doesn't matter whether a salt manufacturer is involved or not.

I can not proceed with publishing further test results while the threat of a lawsuit exists over previously published results. If some one would like to volunteer a limitless defense fund, things might be different. But as it is, I will not go forward until this is resolved.

By the way, after Inland Reef shut down, the plan was to re-host all of our product testing pages at Reefs.org. If that had occured on schedule, they would be on the receiving end of a potential suit and not me. I have chosen to challange this and have not removed the testing pages, but I am putting the publication of further results on hold. What if the pages had been moved and Reefs.org had been forced to pull them? Would they then refuse to publish the salt study for fear of further legal action?

The stifling effects of this kind of legal abuse are truly frightening, as well as disgusting.
 

melev

Experienced Reefer
Location
Ft Worth, Tx
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So the next option is to do what? Wait? I agree with the other poster, that the study should be cancelled (it has waited far too long) and refund the monies.

Or have these been spent, and if so, upon what?
 

npaden

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Is there any way that the now defunt Inland Reef could forward on the salt samples and lab ware and any remaining funds to someone that might actually complete the study within the next 10 years?
 

middletonmark

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It just reads `cop out' to me.

I mean come on! You've quit the aquaria business ... yet you're still going to do this?

Seems like there would have been enough time, already. Now there's this convenient excuse.

Enough already, just admit that you've taken the money and run ... else find someone who will do it.

I mean, you're obviously not going to challenge whatever mysterious lawsuit this is - so the money's gone. Unless you find someone else who will move on it - but all I read here are excuses, delays, and what to me sounds like B.S.

After a certain period ... it just becomes obvious that either something will happen ... or nothing. I would say that time period passed a while ago ...

No offense intended, but that's how I see it. Just admit nothing's going to happen ... that everyone who contributed should just write their dollars off. This just seems like a cop-out [again] ... I just don't see anything happening, and now there's another story to circulate. As stated above, there's plenty of legal folks in the hobby ... but yet no attempts to really do squat are visible.

And it sure seems pretty obvious, if the suit is who I think it is - that it would be no issue here. They don't make salt. So someone threatened to sue once? I lost a fish once, that doesn't mean I never got another.

My apologies if speaking my mind is speaking too frankly.
 

npaden

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Any ideas on getting this rolling somehow?

MattM - If we could line up a respected member of the reefing community to volunteer to take the ball and run with it would you forward on the salt samples that have been purchased so far and the lab ware and any remaining funds to that individual to actually do the testing? That would take any possible legal problems out of the picture.

It has been over 2 years since this was first proposed and I think it would be good to give someone else a shot at getting something done on it.

FWIW, Nathan
 

MattM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
npaden":3shi5uqx said:
MattM - If we could line up a respected member of the reefing community to volunteer to take the ball and run with it would you forward on the salt samples that have been purchased so far and the lab ware and any remaining funds to that individual to actually do the testing? That would take any possible legal problems out of the picture.

Nathan -

I appreciate the offer, but in reality, the testing is about 3/4 or more completed. When I referred to putting this "on hold" pending the outcome of the threatened lawsuit, I was primarilly referring to the publication of results.

npaden":3shi5uqx said:
It has been over 2 years since this was first proposed...

Just to keep the record straight, I first proposed the the study on 12 March 2003. That is about 15 months, not more than 2 years.
 

npaden

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Heh, time flies when you are having fun I guess. I just remember thinking the results would be ready for the Louisville Macna and now they probably won't be ready for the Boston Macna.

Good to hear that there is actually something being done though. Any idea how long before the samples are sent off to the lab? A brief timeline would be very helpful.

Thanks, Nathan
 

Bone

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Matt,

Many of us in the reefing community would like to know exactly where you are with this study and when it will be completed, there is absolutely no risk of legal action against you in giving us this information. Please provide a concise explanation.

Regards,
Mark (aka Bone, aka 3_high_low)
 

Ben1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Or if the results are in, maybe you could just say if I were you I would use xxx salt, for now. The give us the results once this lawsuit is gone.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm thinking this threatened lawsuit has something to do with taking apart a product that uses magnets and nothing to do with the salt testing. I'm I right Matt?
Mitch
 

cdeakle

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I for one applaud matt and company for trying there best to get this done. They are only trying to help everyone in this hobby.

The current legal situation is unfortunate but unavoidable and I for one wish I knew who was spearheading this so we can boycott there sorry asses. If this legal situation is public knowledge can someone contact me privately via pm so I can learn more?

I think everyone should relax and give this a little time. I'm hoping eventually the testing will move forward at the right time or if this study is going nowhere I'm sure without a doubt that the proper actions will be taken.

So please give this some time guys/gals. I would rather wait longer to have the possibility of this study going forward then to see everyone get refunds and the study cancelled entirely.
 

DaisyPolyp

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I would post the results on an offshore webserver... U.S. libel and slander laws have no jurisdiction on an internationaly hosted site.
 

npaden

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I appreciate the offer, but in reality, the testing is about 3/4 or more completed. When I referred to putting this "on hold" pending the outcome of the threatened lawsuit, I was primarilly referring to the publication of results.

Any updates? You never expanded on what 3/4 or more completed meant. Have you sent the samples off to the lab? Have you got the samples back? Any kind of a timeline?

There have been several offers to publish the results for you if you are worried about litigation so that shouldn't be an issue. I'm sure there are several people who would be willing to take the raw data and get it to publishable form for you.

Waiting on pins and needles.......

Nathan
 

Apophis924

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I wish some one would give us details about this so called legal action. As in, acutal charges and actions taken so far. without these details, It smells of a cop out. How come whenever someone runs test on their salt and publish the resuls in the forum They are not threatened with legal action I use to use IO salt, ca tested at 380mg/l and and alk was around 3.0 meq/l and mg was around 900 mg/l. i now use Oceanic cuz my ca test 450 and above and Mg reads 1300. though i did notice the alk and ph of oceanic salt ran low in my case. If i can say this without fear of a law suit why cant YOU do the same with like a brand a week or leave out the brand that is taking this so called legal action??
I think you owe these people that have donated in good faith for this study a lot more than vague explanations, with no details. Or turn what results you have over to someone with the stones to report the facts. You can always put a disclainmer at the end of whatever you publish to cover your tail.
 

wasabi

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
removing the brand that is causing the legal hassle from the test, would make any legal problems non existent. or is there more to it than that? maybe all the salt brands are waiting to get in on the action. maybe its the chemical companies who supply the salt ingredients. maybe the miners of the raw materials have an agenda also. this has turned from happy to sad to comical.this rollercoaster ride has to have the moderators and owners of this site scratching their heads.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top