OpEdNews Op Eds

SLAPP Lawsuits: First Amendment Threats

By       Message Gloria Grening Wolk     Permalink
      (Page 3 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

News 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


Author 51491
Become a Fan
  (5 fans)
- Advertisement -

In 2001 Forbes published "Death Wish," which later was used as evidence in a viatical lawsuit filed by the state of New York against another viatical company. But Life Partners took umbrage at how LPI was characterized. In a letter sent to Forbes and signed by R. Scott Peden, general counsel, LPI stated it was "incensed at the lack of journalistic integrity displayed by your reporter, Carrie Coolidge, in the above-referenced article." Among the demands made by LPI: "An immediate and prominent statement that disavows any reliance upon or incorporation of any statements published by Gloria Wolk."

Although I detest the expression, "needless to say," it is appropriate here. Forbes did not capitulate to any of LPI's demands.

At this writing, LPI has finally met their match. Battered by a combination of the SEC, civil filings, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and the web site www.seekingalpha.com, it is apparent that nothing I ever published about Life Partners or Pardo was defamatory.

The Need for a Federal Anti-SLAPP Statute

SLAPP suits threaten the First Amendment rights of defendants, are expensive to defend, and may deprive the public of essential information. Equally important: SLAPP suits drain resources from our courts. Neither state nor federal courts can afford the time and expense of litigating lawsuits that have no merit.

Life Partner's SLAPP began in January 1999 and was dismissed June 30, 2000. By then I was defending another SLAPP, this one filed by Accelerated Benefits Corporation in state court in Broward County, Florida. At the same ABC filed a similar SLAPP suit against Kiplinger's Personal Finance, based on an article about viatical settlements in which they referred to my books and website as "a one-stop resource."

The following year, 2000, when ABC's principals, Jess and Keith LaMonda, realized they were losing these lawsuits, they filed new defamation lawsuits: one against Kiplinger's and another against me. This time they filed in Orange County, Florida. They knew I had a Florida attorney--hired because of their first lawsuit. They did not contact him, they did not serve him with the new complaint, and they filed for a default.

Their attorney wrote up the order for the judge to sign. Obviously, it was submitted for signature on a day when the judge rushed through dozens of seemingly simple orders and did not read the text. The text prohibited me from selling my first book anywhere in the world, including through the internet. The LaMonda brothers sent the order to my web host and told him to shut down the web site. He did--until days later, July 4, 2000, when the state of Florida issued orders against ABC, alleging fraud.

- Advertisement -

My Broward County attorney drove four hours to Orange County and informed the judge about the situation. The judge was furious. Even if he agreed that my books should not be sold, he had no jurisdiction outside of Florida. It was clear the LaMondas and their attorney had tricked him. The judge quickly dismissed that lawsuit.

Five years later, in 2005, the Department of Justice indicted the LaMonda brothers. They were found guilty in 2007 and sentenced to twenty years (C. Keith LaMonda) and thirteen years (Jesse LaMonda). In 2006 the SEC sued their companies and placed them in receivership.

Then there is the infamous Mutual Benefits Corporation. When I wrote about this company I used their name, sometimes abbreviating it as MBC.  Their SLAPP suit was filed in federal court in south Florida in May 2003. They charged me with trademark infringement--even though their trademark was not registered with Florida nor with the federal government, even though they claimed their name and initials were their trademarks. How can anyone warn about a company without using their name? This seemed too silly to file, but it was filed and it was litigated.

Again, I hired an attorney. One year later MBC dismissed their suit. The following year the SEC shut down MBC. Then the Department of Justice indicted the principals and an array of others, including attorneys. Other than the principals, all who were indicted are now in prison. The principals continue to battle the criminal lawsuit.

In 2001 Scott Wilbanks, a viatical broker, filed a SLAPP suit against me in state court in San Francisco--and included as co-defendant my web host service. It echoed Life Partner's complaint, stating nothing more than "defamation," and making no effort to establish jurisdiction.

- Advertisement -

This time I hired bottom-of-the-barrel lawyers, believing their false claim of familiarity with California's anti-SLAPP statute. They did not try to learn; they never contacted any First Amendment organization for advice; they blew it. That SLAPP dragged on for four years before it settled. Today, Wilbanks no longer is in the viatical industry by his choice.

Every government action against these companies was too late to benefit me. Because I am stubborn, because no on else takes the risk of exposing unindicted con artists, and because I am proud of our First Amendment I will not be silenced.

But until we have a federal anti-SLAPP statute, these meritless lawsuits will continue to consume court resources at an alarming rate. Nothing else will deter SLAPPers. Their deep pockets allow them to drag out litigation in order to run up costs to the defendant--and they write off their own legal costs as a business expense.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


News 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Federal Anti-SLAPP Statute Needed

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Consumer advocate and author of books that exposed fraud in the viatical & life settlements industry, Wolk's primary interest now is preventing wrongful convictions (see www.AccidentalFelon.net/Michaels-story ).

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Life Insurance: The Media Gets It Wrong - AGAIN

SLAPP Lawsuits: First Amendment Threats

Innocent But Convicted

Why Hudgens Should Not Be GA's New Insurance Commissioner