kdag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact, how can Landmark possibly justify suing
> anybody for anything, when they
> preach over and over again that there are no
> victims???
>
> Isn't the bringer of a lawsuit claiming to have
> been a victim of someone or something?
I've been reading up on SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Every single legal claim initiated by LW (and probably $cn and the rest of the cults) likely fits that definition. Some jurisdictions have laws against SLAPP suits but of course proving that a claim is vexatious is very difficult.
I've also read somewhere that legitimate organisations seldom resort to action for defamation if they are criticised (fair enough if someone is making a specific allegation of criminal activity that can be shown to be false) but are more likely to engage in advertising campaigns to counter any negative press and promote the poitive aspects of ther products and services.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In fact, how can Landmark possibly justify suing
> anybody for anything, when they
> preach over and over again that there are no
> victims???
>
> Isn't the bringer of a lawsuit claiming to have
> been a victim of someone or something?
I've been reading up on SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Every single legal claim initiated by LW (and probably $cn and the rest of the cults) likely fits that definition. Some jurisdictions have laws against SLAPP suits but of course proving that a claim is vexatious is very difficult.
I've also read somewhere that legitimate organisations seldom resort to action for defamation if they are criticised (fair enough if someone is making a specific allegation of criminal activity that can be shown to be false) but are more likely to engage in advertising campaigns to counter any negative press and promote the poitive aspects of ther products and services.