- Sunday, 29 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
IA32 has a different can of worms - Bob Colwell, former chief architect at Intel
Odd news site slaps back at lawsuit
IN OUR QUEST for IT news to interest you, our readers, we often trawl some of the more obscure nooks and crannies of the web, so you don't have to do so.
One of the websites we visit because it's a veritable magnet for odd technology news is Signs of the Times, so we couldn't help but notice when it was sued for Internet defamation. The INQUIRER takes a rather keen interest when other news sites are sued for libel, for reasons that might be obvious to our readers.
In February, Eric Pepin of Beaverton, Oregon and his company, Higher Balance Institute, filed an Internet defamation lawsuit against the California non-profit organisation Quantum Future Group, which operates the Signs of the Times news and analysis website, and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who resides in France and is the chief webmistress of Signs of the Times.
Pepin's complaint (pdf) alleged that comments that appeared on the Signs of the Times reader forum were libelous, and it sought damages of $4.47 million.
Signs of the Times has only a relatively small readership, but it's a loyal group. When the website was sued it appealed for donations to cover its legal defence costs. Within just a few weeks its readers donated £65,000 (about $128,000).
On Saturday, Signs of the Times announced through its attorneys that on April 25 it filed motions challenging Pepin's lawsuit in US District Court in Portland, Oregon. In a statement, defendant Quantum Future Group (QFG) said it asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit and further asked to recover its attorneys fees.
In its legal briefs, QFG cited Oregon's anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") statute to claim that its statements about New-Age "guru" Pepin and Higher Balance Institute (HBI) are constitutionally protected speech.
Under the anti-SLAPP law, QFG argues, if the plaintiffs cannot show that they will probably prevail on the merits, the lawsuit must be dismissed before QFG and other defendants have to incur high attorneys fees to defend themselves.
QFG contends that Pepin and HBI can't show they will probably prevail on the merits because, "Without exception, the statements are all constitutionally protected expressions of opinion rather than verifiable assertions of fact."
Since the statements to which Pepin and HBI object are opinions, QFG argues, "HBI cannot meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statements are false, let alone that Defendants knew that they were false or had serious doubts as to their truth."
Signs of the Times reader forum comments that Pepin and HBI alleged were defamatory included some posts questioning Pepin's meditative techniques and commenting on Pepin's 2007 trial on multiple alleged sexual offences involving his behaviour with a 17-year old follower.
"These are exactly the sort of statements that the First Amendment and recent statutes protect as free speech," said QFG attorney Stephen Kaus. "People are entitled to believe in gurus such as Pepin and buy their books and courses for hundreds of dollars or more, but people are also entitled to point out their view that the techniques of telepathy and development of a sixth eye promoted by Pepin are nonsense."
QFG maintains that the forum comments were opinions in reaction to matters of fact reported by mainstream news sources, including The Oregonian, a daily newspaper published in Portland, Oregon, and the Associated Press, and are therefore protected by both the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution.
An article in The Oregonian reported on Pepin's 2007 court trial on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor. Pepin was acquitted because the judge did not believe that the state's allegations had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Washington County Circuit Court Judge Steven L. Price reportedly said it was "'probable that the conduct alleged in all counts occurred,' but [that] he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." According to The Oregonian, Judge Price "called the leader of a metaphysical Internet sales company manipulative and controlling and his testimony unbelievable, even as he acquitted him... of charges that he had sex with an underage boy."
Signs of the Times readers pointed out on its forum that being found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as being found " innocent of all charges."
QFG's motion also argues that, under the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, Signs of the Times, as the operator of an Internet forum, is not liable for third-party comments posted on its website. It also questions the Oregon based federal court's jurisdiction over QFG, a California non-profit organisation with its primary place of business in France.
QFG attorney Walter Hansell stated in an earlier press release, "HBI's lawsuit is a frontal assault on free speech, and on the free global flow of information and opinion on the Internet. It is a blunt force attack on the discussion of sincere opinions among people sharing common interests."
Following QFG's April 25th motions filing, Hansell said, "The intent of this suit by HBI is to stifle free speech, but luckily the anti-SLAPP statute allows us to nip the matter in the bud before the cost is out of hand."
Hopefully the court will order Pepin to pay the attorneys fees incurred by QFG and Signs of the Times to defend themselves as well. µ
L'Inq
Signs
of the Times
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Guru Eric Pepin sues an entire forum for stating their negative opinions about his teachings and practice of having sex with followers who may be underage or maybe not. How dumb is that? What where his lawyers thinking? Hint: getting a big paycheck for filing such nonsense. Pepin should sue his lawyers, not an odd news site. 

From what I've read, Pepin is behaving like an egotistical idiot who can't take any criticism. Maybe his crystal ball tells him free speech is really on the outs. Totally bizarre.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message115499/pg149


It seems to me that Laura is once again confusing issues regarding
protection of free speech. She has done this in the past and apparently
did not learn from her experiences. Not surprising, for those who know her.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the **right** to free speech. It does *not* protect one from any and all possible consequences which may result from speaking freely.

As such, it would seem to me that her motion to dismiss is beside the point. This is a civil action, not a criminal action. The issue at hand is not whether or not Laura Knight-Jadczyk has the right to free speech. The issue is whether or not the results of her speaking freely about someone else has resulted in financial and/or other damages occurring to that person and/or his enterprise. And further, whether or not the plaintiff has the right to demand compensation as overseen by the Court for these alleged damages.

I would think that Pepin's lawyers would be competent enough to be able to make that distinction before the Court in their counter argument. Likewise, I am a bit surprised that Laura's counsel would try to take this tack, considering that protection of free speech is not the issue here.

And that brings the issue back to just what the First Amendment provides for one with regard to free speech. It appears that Laura, as in the past, honestly believes that she and QFG are to be allowed to say whatever they want to, anytime they want to and about anyone, anywhere and in any way that they could possibly conceive, without suffering any sort of consequences for this in any form or fashion or from any direction or entity whatsoever.

But again, this is a civil action. The State has not stepped into the fray, demanding punishment for criminal malfeasance. A private individual has sought financial damages in a civil court, relating strictly to civil matters. 

Libel is normally pursued as a civil action and no division of government manages its conveyance. It is only when someone requests a hearing in a civil proceeding that the issue is debated and only then does the court pronounce a verdict.

It will be interesting to see how the Court in Oregon responds to this motion to dismiss.


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message115499/pg154
Methinks I just spied the six-eyed scouse in the lobby. Shorely, there is an infinite number of monkeys outside, who wants to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they have worked out; but I don't want to go to heaven with a headache! So whose to buy me one Scotch, one Bourbon, and one Bitter?
SOT, indeed!
Hey godlike dude! You obviously didn't read the responses filed by the sott.net attorneys! The matter isn't exactly the way you put it. But then, you seem to have a personal ax to grind. (Is your name Eric, by the way?)

For those interested in the real issues, the sott people have published links to all the motions (pdfs) here:
http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=62572#p62572

Very entertaining reading. 



(that's how the comment is signed) would prefer people not to speak out or warn others if they know something about a product or service that may be fraudulent or harmful. To me, that would be letting the charlatans and rip-off artists of the world have their way with us. And to suggest *disallowing* such discussion sounds like the poster wants it that way!
Type Higher Balance Institute in youtube.com and see for yourself what a self-absorbed and self-centered this Eric Pepin is.

He has probably repeated so many times that he is oh so developed that he must have actually believed it himself.

Luckily, if he wanted to prosecute every person expressing their opinion about his HBI, he would quickly run out of cash for lawyers...

Free Speech rocks!
I sure hope that Mr. Pepin's lawsuit is dismissed. Because, to even entertain a possibility of someone possibly shutting down an independent news website based on a forum discussion is indeed a threat to free speech internet-wide. 

I regularly read a "science-freaks" community on Livejournal.com. There, members bring to everyone's attention some of the unsubstantiated, sensationalist or downright dangerous claims that many such "gurus" or "clandestine scientists (i.e., impostors with no education or research experiences)" are making. The aim is to share information and spread awareness, and most importantly, encourage people to think and find out more before blindly believing someone. 

Pepin's lawsuit would be a dangerous precedent to that and other such communities. It's the same thing people do with a group of friends over a cup of coffee -- they simply TALK about stuff -- you mean what, WE CAN'T TALK? -- that's downright ridiculous. 

Thank you for a nice summary of what happened -- I'll certainly be keeping an eye on any further developments.
Wow, this lawsuit is wrong on so many levels. Anyone interested in free-speech issues (especially for online forums) should pay attention to this case. The first amendment should pretty much cover things of this nature but in addition, here's the relevant section in Oregon's anti-SLAP law:

ORS § 31.150 (2) A special motion to strike may be made under this section against any claim in a civil action that arises out of:
(c) any oral statement made, or written statement or other document presented, in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest;

If customers found HBI's products or services misrepresented or fraudulent, it's clearly in the public interest for these individuals to share this with others in a public forum. It is their right.

Further, if the comments were truly libelous, why would HBI sue the owners of the online forum and not the individuals that made the comments? If I said something libelous about you in front of a crowd in Central Park, would you sue me or New York City? The latter would be ridiculous, right? So it seems to me that HBI is looking for a quick buck because I can't see any other logic in their actions.
How can you sue an internet forum for discussing a story that was already published in a newspaper?! Sue the Paper then Pepin! Then sue the Judge?!

Sheesh....
"The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the **right** to free speech. It does *not* protect one from any and all possible consequences which may result from speaking freely. "

I don't know who you or Laura are , but your comments are little bit more than a surprise for many reasons. If you are watching the last 7 years of neo con holocaust, it is clear they will do what ever they want under what ever pretext they want. Only thing that allowed to withstand this gravity of black hole of horrors is this free speech on the internet and fire of the count less conscious, brave whistle blowers and individual kept on the burning the forests of the illusion of the masses to allow us to stay in the fray.
This is not a freedom of speech of one individual ( which we like it or not ), it is of a ONLY tool that allowed us ( 6 Billion still here ) to survive during the horrorsof last 7 days. It is little more than troubling to see you allowed your personnel hatred towards Her blind you this fact and ready to sacrifice the entire world to maintain that blindness.
I'm glad odd news is fighting back, it seems that if every guru or oddball on the net didn't like criticism of their product they could sue and have it removed! That's not open, or fair and I'm certainly glad people investigate products and discuss their findings with others. If they find a fault with a product of the manufacturer then I would certainly like to know!
Laura Knight Jadczyk has been defaming innocent people on her site for years. She deserves this and it has nothing to do with free speech. She has called me a psychopath, a cointelpro agent and a plagiarist all without proving one thing. That she is fighting for free speech is a joke. She channels aliens from cassiopaea through a ouiji board, her husband worked for the Pentagon and she and he stole $250,000 in a fake house raffle in 2002 and escaped to France. She hates America and everything it stands for so it is a little disingenuous for her to be relying on free speech when she is the last person who deserves constitutional freedoms. She has said that Eric Pepin works for the government as a cointelpro agent, in other words she is saying that Pepin is a secret agent for the government. Fine. But you have to prove it. If you don't prove it then you are defaming him.

Simple. 

Laura Knight Jadczyk is a crook, a thief and a liar. She deserves this like no one on earth.