Anyone else been S.L.A.P.P.'ed by F.E.C.A.L. Lawyer Julie Stewart?

[SoylentGreen]

Anyone else been S.L.A.P.P.ed by F.E.C.A.L. Lawyer Julie Stewart?

S.L.A.P.P.: Strategic lawsuit against public participation...

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]"
 
"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Many jurisdictions have legislation in place to deal with "S.L.A.P.P.'s" in an expeditious manner.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

This is a great find and absolutely accurate with what ELI has been through. There is actually a legal term/acronym for such actions.  Good job as always. I continue to be amazed with the insights, discoveries, and commentary being shared and contributed.

ELI will not every tolerate being "SLAPP"ed down. Attempts to do so will be met with equal or greater retaliatory measures.

Anyone else been S.L.A.P.P.ed by F.E.C.A.L. Lawyer Julie Stewart?

S.L.A.P.P.: Strategic lawsuit against public participation...

"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]"
 
"The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Many jurisdictions have legislation in place to deal with "S.L.A.P.P.'s" in an expeditious manner.

S.G.

[Extortion-Victim-No Longer]

Yes!!! 

[Matthew Chan]

There is some good information in how ELI might combat SLAPPs in the future.

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/