amazing article, eye opening and disturbing
http://www.tripzine.com/articles.asp?id=corporate_metabolism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is only the beginning. In time, you will see more and more corporations hiring their own "security services" (SS??) to to investigate and harrass any person or organization they see as a threat to the order of things. I know this sounds paranoid, folks, and I can't even believe that I'm writing this but, trust me, it's on the table.

Thank God for Molly Ivins.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other side to the issue of corporations impeding the supposedly free speech of actual human citizens is the corporations legal acceptance as a personage, an uber-person if you will, that has the right to express itself not only in its capacity to do business such as in advertising, but also to participate in the political process, and not just by publishing or voicing an opinion or preference, but by exerting its will through corrupting, antidemocratic cash contributions to legislators.

It is not only absurd that these abstract fictions should participate in the political process, but that they be aloud to do it with infinitely more force than a human citizen. Casting ballots, which corporations cannot do, is for chumps anyway. The way to influence policy and law is with dollars, and the more dollars, the more influence. In this arena, it is not one-man one-vote, but rather, one-dollar one-vote, and flesh and blood citizens cannot compete at this game.

And how dare they call influence peddling with legal bribes self-expression or speech. Can I express myself the same way to a cop writing me a ticket with a twenty-dollar bill or to a judge adjudicating a courtroom case in which I am a litigant with a weekend junket for the judge and his family?

If this were an honest country whose government was trying to do the right thing to promote the welfare of its actual citizens, both SLAPP suits and corporate campaign contributions would be considered illegal in an effort to limit undue and pernicious corporate influence against the proper citizens' interests. But this is America, and if you are not a large wealthy corporation, you truly are a second-class citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you consider your relationship to the two things that can run over you like a truckload of chickens in our good ole US of A, you must have at least a modicum of faith in your understanding of a third.

Being run over by a truckload of chickens is in Texas perhaps similar to stepping in front of a bus at 56th and Park; your mother instilled in you the one thing necessary to save face at the hospital, namely a clean set of drawers. In rural Texas as I would venture a guess at being predominant in any rural environment, being run over by a truck load of anything living that creates a certain amount pungent aromas is bad enough, but sometimes these things let lose a whole litany of squawking, squealing, or mooing participants.

Big business in this country most resembles a truck load of chickens. Our fine government used to be like a bus, it now more closely resembles what some have called a rolling pig pen, hog wagon, or bacon bus. The results of a pedestrian/bus encounter allowed those involved some amount of containment and closure as just an unfortunate event – after all you were wearing clean drawers right? When you’ve been run over by a bacon wagon, the chances are fair to midland that you’ll be highly aromatic, traumatized, and in need of not only new drawers but everything else, as well.

So what should you understand about faith in a third item? That one involves the presence of a party that will help you achieve redress for your sullied drawers, and/or the vapors that could have been avoided had someone made sure the bus or the chicken truck had brakes to begin with. In an ideal world it is just a bus mechanic that “Gits er done.” In Smiley, Texas, it is perhaps Billy Ray over at the Diary Queen, always bitching about how George won’t ever check the brakes on his chicken trucks, and how one day “there’s going to be an awful mess out on 87, when one of them rolling chicken coops runs right over some little convertible…” Billy Ray is one of those guys that’s always bitching about something. No one is going to listen to some nut until the feathers are flying. In an Ideal world his name might be Carl Bernstein or Bob Woodward.

KNickell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget that this is a capitalist society. Royalty has been abolished in favor of equal opportunity for all to become influential. The system works on money. With enough of it you can:

* Write the regulations that govern your industry
* Buy your way out of almost any trouble
* Ruin anyone that exposes your true nature
* Have the cops call your lawyer and request an appointment when investigating you for murder
* Have your congressman include you in the federal budget
* Buy your way into public office

Anyone who doesn't like it is free to raise a billion dollars and correct the system from within. If you don't care enough about this country to go out and whip up a fortune and be influential, you can just shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think we are the most long-lived, sucessful capitalistic socitety in history. I'm thinking that capitalism has evolved to a point where the most ruthless are now running the show, and indeed, money buys favor. Since the corporations control most of the money, and super strong lobbying activity, they get the most favor.
Unfortunately corporate welfare is inimical to the best interests of the citizens of the United States. We see execs with hugely inflated compensation packages while the lower echelons of the same company either have lost their jobs to outsourcing or have wages and/or benefits cut. Cost cutting rather than product improvement and employee training are the short cut to quarterly profits...It stinks and is getting worse.
When was the last time you talked to a CEO who would talk about benefitting anything but the stockholders and his board? Most of them can't accurately describe their product suite or their market strategy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On Monday, a judge in LA decided to slap back at a law firm for filing a junk SLAPP lawsuit: Law Firm Fined for Frivolous SLAPP Suit

(sorry for having mistakenly posted this in a reply thread initially)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You could use George Lakoff's theory of Strict Father morality against the "conservatives" themselves by stressing the need for the other tort reform. A populist Democrat would wisely make the case that if individuals cannot sue, the same restrictions must be applied against big business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does anyone remember how President Bush was talking about tort reform in reference to persons suing doctors (the so-called frivolous lawsuits that are costing doctors so much, never mind that they may have done something that warrants such a lawsuit)?

How much do you want to bet it doesn't include suits such as Molly reported on that are being brought against ordinary people without the resources to defend themselves.

I mean just the thought that I could be sued for thousands of dollars that I don't have is enough to scare me, never mind it actually happening.

Class warfare rears it's ugly head. Not only do you have to accept corporate dominance of just about every facet of your life, but you can't even complain about it.

The Future, courtesy of President Bush and The DLC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The degree of corporate greed and arrogance in the US is staggering, but not surprising considering their backers who control the government. The same corporations who go running to court to file SLAPP lawsuits protest that there is a "litigation crisis" whenever those injured, maimed, or left widowed or orphaned because of defective products or corporate recklessness ask for fair compensation. Will it soon be that even the courts are only open to the rich and powerful?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wait -not just W. NY. We can smell it all the way over in Seattle!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Increasingly we have allowed our government to govern for the advantages realized by major corporations instead of for the advantages realized by the citizens. After all, who are the major contributors to our elected officials reelection campaigns - the Joe Lunchbuckets of the world or the global operational scale corporations?

Why should we be surprised when the Right to Free Speech is eroded by the ability of powerful corporations to lean heavily on their critics in our Courts of Law?

It is becoming increasingly difficult between the politicians in DC and the powerful corporations operating with impunity to the benefit of their bottom lines to be proud of America. To me, it feels like our country is sick due to a lack of strong leadership in the area of doing what is right.

Thanks, Molly, for your thoughts in this regard. I'm glad you haven't given up the Good Fight for feeling like a voice crying in the wilderness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another outstanding column written by Molly Ivins. America under this president is sinking fast, but at least we have tremendous writers such as Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Greg Palast, & Maureen Dowd to let us know about all of the unscrupulous crooks stealing our democracy.
As citizens, we need to fight back harder than ever, before we lose it all.
Thank you, Mrs. Ivins. You are a great American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In criminal cases, when a defendant cannot afford defense attorneys, the state realizes that it must provide public defenders. It appears that the proper solution to the problem Molly Ivins discribes is passage of law to provide a level playing field. Corporations, when sueing individuals, must be required to pay the defendant's legal fees an amount equal to the corporations cost of prosecuting the suit.
A real solution would be to stop treating corporations as persons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monsanto is very guilty of using lawsuits to control it's empire. I was very upset when I first learned that many states have gag laws regarding the food we eat - to protect company sales and profits.

This should be declared unconstitutional!

Watch your mouth! New laws could gag critics of unsafe food 12/2002

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real problem is that our government is controlled by unelected "special" interests. We need to put our elected officials back in charge.

Though we the people have the clout,
To vote the politicians out,
We'd still be ruled by sleazy "smarties",
Who pay money to both parties,
Here's the truth without a doubt,
No one can vote those rascals out !

It's no good to rant and holler,
Can't outvote that mighty dollar,
People that our votes elected,
Work for dollars they've collected,
Citizens can take the reins,
If we finance all campaigns !!

The candidates are not to blame,
The system is a losing game,
They need both cash and votes to win,
They can't do good unless they're in,
Our horse sense points to just one course,
Votes and money from one source !!!

Visit my website, comments and suggestions are invited.
http://www.lincolninititative.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, yes, Monsanto. Could we have more commentary on this wretched outfit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In any response to a wronful legal action, file a Jury Demand. Nothing frightens the Gangster Bankster bunch more than the thought that they may have to reveal their pain and hurt feelings to a jury.

Also file a countersuit seeking damages for wrongful and malicious prosecution, and a violation of your civil rights to exercise your right to free speech, and let the Jury hear both sides. It will only take 1 multi-million dollar award to bring their gangster bankster tactics into line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In case you haven't realized this. It's all part of a great plan the neo-cons have set out for us. The slow choking of freedom of speech and other individual freedom is an effective move that will eventually gives the neo-cons (in the form of a corporate-sponsors government) total control of our dignity, our liberty, our freedom, and our life.

The tactics used are the neo-cons own signature. These tactics have already been played out in the Iraq war. First, scare the hell out of the people, blame on some make-up enemies, deceive people (WMD), rob them (200 billion-dollar-plus war), strip them from security and healthcare (killin social security and out-of-control health insurance cost), lure the children into becoming the fighting machines (No Child Left Behind), and ultimately empower the corporations full control of all aspects of YOUR life: heath (HMO), education, religion (Religous polarity and fanatism), freedom of moving around (TSA is an early from of these tyrannic bastards), freedom of speech (Patriot Acts), and many other attributes of liberty and freedom that would become things of the past, if we let the neo-cons succeed their agenda.

Do something while we still can. We must eradicate and exterminate these neo-con insects before they destroy what we have been working so hard to build up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a power niche by any name. Capitalism is the same as feudalism (as popularly defined rather than as argued by historians). And the same as so many despotic regimes over the centuries. Our once bold experiment is fading back into primordial thuggery.

A tiny number at the top with all the wealth and the ability to live anywhere controlling the vast remainder who are skewered with overwhelming obligations to a tiny bit of land they do not own.

It took centuries of peasant revolts, revolutions, labor movements and more to get to the freedoms we seem to lose now so easily and with so little appreciation.

And don't forget the 14th amendment (to assure the status of freed slaves as persons) cynically hijacked in 1886 from which personhood was self-confirmed by corporations and a corporation-oriented supreme court when it chose not to consider a lower-court decision. Personhood has to be removed from these monsters.

Class warfare is always a tool of the upper classes. We need a few good guillotines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So I ask all of you, when are we going to call the CONservatives' bluff on this horse hockey of "strict construction" and constitutional originalism that Scalia, and that horrid Federalist Society are spewing? Why not point out that corporations made out big time by the judicial activism of the 1886 supreme court decision: Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations are people too! Shouldn't the conservatives be consistent I ask? We on the Left leave them so many holes to drive a truck through that it really is getting disgusting. Why not raise hell about it now with that robber baron Roberts up for his lifetime appointment? Anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's the terror of terrorists, there's the terror of lawsuits, there's the terror of being arrested if you speak out. We are all scared of what Big Brother has in store. However, there are more of us than there are of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The issues, in a general way, are as old as democracy itself -- as evident from written records. It's why Plato was not friendly to democracy, based on his firsthand experience in Athens. The rhetoricians (lawyers, public speakers, politicians) were satisfied to win friends and influence people. Plato had a vision of eternal truths.

But Plato and his student Aristotle had no doubts about the importance -- for Plato's the Good and Aristotle's virtue -- of the political climate. Aristotle offered the golden mean, nothing to excess, for guidance. Plato taught that a good man, especially as a ruler, was nothing less than a blessing from the gods.

I can only hope that this dark night of the soul where progressive people have been driven to the lowest point in my long lifetime will awaken the spirit of goodwill that has now slept too long.

As Saul Alinsky told us, organize, organize, organize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it is not just big corporations---

I have been following another very painful SLAPP where the owner of petswarehouse, Inc., sued a group of aquarists who post on the Aquatic Plants Digest (APD). The owner, Robert Novak, sued for fifteen million dollars because the defendents had made uncomplementary comments on the APD about the service from Petswarehouse, a mail-order pet supply company. None of the defendents lived in New York state where Mr. Novak runs his business, and so they had to make expensive trips to attend hearings. The suit was filed in 2001, and has not yet come to trial. Most of the defendents had to settle out of court because they could not afford to defend themselves over this protracted time. One of the defendents has spent more than my annual income in his own defense. The bitterness and rage among the defendents is enormous. Mr. Novak filed a second suit against some of the same defendents and some others who had banners on their web sites asking for contributions to a defense fund. Novak claimed that, since the banners had the name, Petswarehouse, on their banners, they were using his trademark illegally to get money. This suit was filed in 2002, and has dragged on for three years. It was just recently dismissed. The first suit is still in progress, although nothing much has happened over the last year. The judiciary appears content to let these suits drag on indefinitely. The costs to Mr. Novak are only a few hundred bucks because he acts as his own attorney. Novak has filed several other Lawsuits, and one was filed in Texas against him. For all the painful details, go to

http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html

Mr. Novak has crowed about his victories and what damage he has done to the defendents on the APD several times.

This is a textbook case of the enormous damage that an overly litigious person can do even though not a single case has come to trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be careful who you SLAPP is the best book I know of on the subject of these illegal lawsuits. I've read the book and heartily recommend it especially if you frequent message boards or chat rooms. I know the book is available from amazon because that is where I got it and there is this web site @ http://www.mobeta.com which you might find helpful too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, you are all to be named as defendants in a libel suit for defaming the most holy United States of America, our glorious Leader, and the Party of God.

And if you don't like that, we will sic Pat Robertson on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's another doozie for you: In California, a USC student was falsely accused of "stalking" by a sociopathic faculty member in retaliation for blowing the whistle on her conduct. And she went as far as to perjure herself in court to fraudulently obtain a court order. An attorney who reviewed his documents told me he was clearly being silenced.
Now this is a university that receives federal funding for a variety of sources, and that student took documents to the FBI and the Justice Department, but they are too scared to touch this.

Any comments on this?
Such SLAPP suits under the guise of "stalking" complaints can be used against investigative reporters and whistle-blowers because the wording on these laws are so vague and and open to abuse by the legal profession.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as I could tell from a quick scan, no one mentioned that a number of states have enacted anti-SLAPP suit laws. Generally, these laws allow the "SLAPPed" person to move for dismissal of an unmeritorious case at an early stage. Depending on the state, the victim may also be able to collect costs and attorney's fees. And there's always the possibility of a countersuit. A person found to have violated someone's First Amendment right to petition, for example, could be liable for damages and attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Act.

So, the situation is not entirely bleak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As if our own home-grown, power-hungry, and greedy corporations are not enough, think of what it means for our freedom when those corporations are owned by foreign interests. Do you think it will affect the lives of the average American citizen? Very definitely. And we have people in power at the state level can't wait to allow those corporations to steamroll over us. Our last governor was a friend of big business. He even campaigned (while in office) for a friend who was running for a judgeship. In one ad, he stated that this man would make a good judge because he was a friend to business. (Was that a cash register I heard?) This same governor, with the help of the state legislature, punished the law students at one public university for assisting the residents of one very poor community who were fighting to keep yet one more chemical plant from locating in their community and increasing the already high level of pollution. The corporation was a Japanese company. The governor was incensed. The legislature changed the law that allowed residents get such otherwise unaffordable assistance by changing the level of poverty one must endure before getting help.
In our city a certain giant corporation (no name because I can't afford a SLAPP) pushed through the building of another one of it places of business with the help of the City powers-that-be--some of whom profited privately from the deal. This was over the protests of a very vocal community opposition. The business was built where a housing project had stood.
I wish this was an isolated occurence, but the truth is that across the country more and more people are discovering that they do not matter in Washington, in the state capital or even to the local city council or school board. This week I read that squatters in India and Zimbawe are being left homeless as these governments destroy their homes in the interest of economic development. We may not be squatters where we live, but business-owned government doesn't care. It's their way or the highway. And if those companies are owned by foreign interests, then it affects the way in which they go about altering the kind of justice and government we receive. This may sound like a great leap, but it's important to remember that every journey begins with small steps. If you've heard the instructions for boiling a frog, then you will realize what I am talking about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If people have the facts to back up their statements then they shouldn't worry about the lawsuits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have little pity for magazines or newspapers. Most of them have given glowing reviews of crap in order to get more ad revenue. You will never find an honest evaluation of a boat, car, motorcycle...etc, due to the need to keep manufacturers happy.

As far as Consumer Reports, the knowledge, experience and educational level of most of their "evaluators" is suspect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This ties in to the importance of free speech, the role of a free and independent media, the duty of citizens to participate in monitoring the government, and the right of the person over that of the corporation. A troublesome brew.

In the essay "Holding America to her Principles", we touched on the importance of free speech:

The principles of free speech, and the importance of a free and independent media, constitute an additional set of checks and balances outside of those expressly outlined within the Constitution as part of the government’s function. They lay squarely upon the People to enforce. Our Founding Fathers included them as part of the First Amendment, to ensure the preservation of both freedom of speech and of the Press. Freedom of the press is not only another form of free speech, but it is extended to include members of news-gathering organizations and the processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. Former President Teddy Roosevelt once said:

"Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free."

[...snip...]

The Press has an inherent responsibility to provide accurate, timely, and unbiased information to the People so that they may make informed decisions, and to shed the light of day on the actions of our public servants.

Our next essay, due out soon, reflects the importance of the person over that of the corporation. It explains what we defined as the sixth "Characteristic of A True US Patriot":

A True US Patriot believes that human rights are inherent to the human condition and should not be given to non-living entities; the rights of corporations should not equal or exceed the rights of any individual, and the right to fair and equal trade as well as fair and equal pay are a vital part of those expectations.

If possible, check us out at http://USPatriotsUnited.blogspot.com - we'd appreciate any thoughts you may have on our essays, particularly "Ten Characteristics of A True US Patriot".

Keep up the good work - we'll keep reading. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I dont have that kind of money.......a law suit of that magnitude would destroy me.

the right wingers seem to think that they have a monoploy on violence.......they need to remember that not every liberal wears beads, smokes dope and drives a 'Bug'. some of us own guns, clank weights all day at the firehouse and were raised by dysfunctional fathers.......I dont think Id take that kind of lawsuit lying down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it interesting that the great bush and his men of action are quick to attack the rights of average americans to sue on behalf of the common good calling such lawsuits frivolous, while at the same time sueing these same americans for speaking their minds on critical issues? Now I truly understand his position on the matter..."don't sue us, we'll sue you."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.neighborhoodlink.com/org/historicglasgow
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PLEASE:

COURT PERMITS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER TO INSPECT COMPUTERS OF OPPONENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN POSSIBLE TEST OF ANTI-SLAPP LAW

In what may prove to be the first test of Delaware’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, a judge of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on Saturday that a real estate developer may search the hard drives of computers belonging to two opponents of his plans for building a housing and shopping center on Glasgow farmland.

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect people who are actively petitioning the government from intimidation through lawsuits. There are 24 other states with similar anti-SLAPP laws.

In early 2005, Developer Stephen J. Nichols purchased a 236 acre parcel of farmland located in Glasgow, Delaware, called “La Grange.” The owner was Anne M. Barczewski, but after Mrs. Barczewski lapsed into dementia, her grown children assumed control of the farm and sold it to Mr. Nichols.

In November, 2005, Mr. Nichols sued Mrs. Barczewski (then terminally ill) and her children, claiming that they were breaching the contract of sale by opposing his development plans at county hearings. Mrs. Barczewski passed away in January, 2006.

When Mrs. Barczewski’s granddaughter, Susan L. Arday and her husband David began appearing at land use hearings objecting to the development, Mr. Nichols added them to his lawsuit, claiming that the Ardays were acting as agents of one of the sellers. The Ardays are longstanding members of the Friends of Historic Glasgow.

The Ardays have asked the court to dismiss the case against them, on the ground that they have a right under the First Amendment to attend government meetings and protest against proposed permits. They claim that Nichols’ suit against them is an unlawful SLAPP suit, and are asking the court to make Mr. Nichols pay their attorneys’ fees.

Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. said that before he would rule on the Ardays’ motion, Mr. Nichols was entitled to gather evidence. Mr. Nichols has taken depositions of the Ardays and they have had to produce hundreds of pages of e-mails relating to the dispute. Mr. Nichols has now demanded that the Ardays turn over their computers for further inspection.

“This is very traumatic and a gross invasion of privacy,” says Susan L. Arday. “I feel personally violated. The lawsuit is based on a false premise, that I acted as the agent of my mother. In fact, my mother has nothing to do with my actions, and Mr. Nichols knows it. I have protested his proposed development because the land is an important historical site, and to honor the wishes of my late grandmother, who always said that she wanted the land to be preserved, not developed.”

The Ardays’ lawyer, David L. Finger, said the ruling permitting access to the Ardays’ computers was unusual. “There has been no showing that there are likely to be any additional relevant ‘hidden’ e-mails on those computers. Mr. Nichols is merely fishing.”

Said David Arday: “This whole thing makes a mockery of Delaware’s anti-SLAPP law. The law is supposed to resolve these types of cases quickly at minimal expense. All this is doing is costing us time and money, in an attempt to bully us to stop opposing Mr. Nichols’ plans. But we will not stop exercising our rights.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE ARDAYS’ LAWYER:

David L. Finger
Finger & Slanina, LLC
One Commerce Center
1201 Orange Street, Suite 725
Wilmington, DE 19801-1155
(302) 884-6766
dfinger@delawgroup.com
www.delawgroup.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]