Yeah, this may seem a little stupid. I'm being sued for slander and accused of participating in some "conspiracy" to bring down the Tangredi family, and I start a blog to talk about it? The very thing that started all this in the first place. Yes, I may be a little out of my mind, but more so I'm just stubborn. It's a tendency of mine when confronted with extreme ignorance to meet it with a giant middle finger.
That being said, however, my actual intentions for doing this are somewhat noble. Unfortunately, I have had to occupy more of my time than I would've liked in the last couple months dealing with this lawsuit and have dug up a number of things to aid in answering, defending, and even counter claiming if need be. I hope to use what I have found to aid anyone else that has been dragged into this mess and help them avoid wasting time themselves, or money on lawyers and what not. I'll also be giving little updates when I can regarding my personal experience in this circus, mostly because it's been friggin' hilarious!
Anyway, I leave you with this. Enjoy...
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. 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.
According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Despite this being a giant pain in the ass, this whole thing borders humorous.
ReplyDeleteI want to thank the Tangredi's for filing this lawsuit "pro se" (themselves). It has provided hours of laughs at the typos, misspelled words, and contradicting evidence. I'm not one to take the role of grammar police, seeing that I attended high school (which is not always the case with certain people), but my tipping point was the misspelling of their, or should I say "thier". Rookie mistake. I would guess that the computer program that you got this lawsuit format from would have a spell check.
Alright kids. Say it with me. T-H-E-I-R.
Not thier. I understand this is a typo, but when you are filing a major lawsuit, it is wise to proofread.
Which brings me to my next grammar faux pas, referring to men as "her". This happens with Mr. Feltner on one occasion and refers to Mr. Fawkes as a her on numerous occasions. "Mr." and "her" don't usually go together. I understand that the identity of Guy Fawkes is unknown, but pick a sex and stick with it. I like consistency.
As far as the contradicting exhibits, I'll give the Tangredi's some credit, matching up pages upon pages upon pages (upon pages) of useless exhibits with the complaint would be pretty difficult.
Now Tangredi's, what about this is considered libel? I'm sure you'll find something. BRING ON THE EXHIBITS! But please, pick the correct postage. If you go to the front desk of the post office, you'll find the clerks very helpful.
Thier will be more later.