p2pnet - rss feed: Mum sued for $2M over web site
p2p news / p2pnet: ” ‘My kids were at risk and nobody helped me, and I’m worried about other kids too, that’s the bottom line,’ she said in a telephone interview, breaking into tears. ‘Nobody protected me and now I’m getting sued’.”
The quotes are from a Canadian Press story on a 36-year-old mother of three young girls who built a web site to tell people about what she says are dangerous environmental problems in her neighbourhood.
She’s now facing a $2 million libel suit by developer Activa Holdings, of Waterloo, Ontario.
“Louisette Lanteigne of Waterloo, Ont., said she grew sick of what she saw during construction in her new subdivision and what appeared to be questionable building practices and labour-code violations,” states CP.
She was, “constantly keeping her kids and their friends out of trouble, as they would keep running into hazards around their neighbourhood. She petitioned city council and got help but new problems would appear as quickly as the old ones got fixed”.
Lanteigne fired up her site in April, “to document her complaints and as a means for the province’s Environment and Labour ministries to view the evidence she collected. She made about a dozen postings with photos and stories of sightings around her area.
“Obviously we can’t have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry,” CP has environment ministry spokesman John Steele saying. “They’re an important part of the ministry’s work.”
But on September 16, Lanteigne heard from Activa which claimed, “the malicious, high-handed and arrogant conduct of the Defendant warrants an award of punitive or exemplary damages to ensure that the Defendant is appropriately punished for her conduct and deterred from such conduct in the future.”
Reminiscent of Organized Music’s sue ‘em all campaigns, Activa was demanding $2 million and an order to have “allegedly libellous material” on Lanteigne’s web page taken offline. “The website contains numerous untrue statements and defamatory statements about Activa,” said the company’s lawyer Greg Murdoch.
But Lanteigne isn’t backing down and says the only way they could get me to remove the site was with an injunction, “and an injunction would mean they would have to bring this information in front of a judge”.
“I thought, ‘That’s excellent,’ because I need a judge to see what’s going on here,” she says in the story.
On November 3, on her site, “which I built to facilitate the reporting of environmental and labour law infringements,” Lanteigne saysGreg Murdoch of Sorbora Law office, “served me the papers last night saying that Activa wants to sue me for for $2,000,000 regarding defamation”.
They want $500,000 general damages, $500,000 General damages$500,000 special damages and $500,000 punitive damages with prejudgement and post-judgement interest on the aforesaid amounts.
They want an interlocutory injunction restraining me from further broadcasting regarding Activa
They want an Order directing me to remove the infringement website.
An order requiring me to preserve all documents and evidence related to the matter
Cost of this action on a substantial indemnity basis
Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just.
( J.Greg Murdoch of Sorbara Law Office)
I want very much to bring this issue infront of a judge and I was actually hoping that an injunction would facilitate that. I wasn’t counting on a $2,000,000 threat to go with that but if necessary, I will proceed with years of documentations and photos to back me up. If anybody wants to help or if anybody knows of a lawyer willing to help me counter sue, feel free to contact me.
Louisette Lanteigne,700 Star Flower Ave, Waterloo Ont. N2V 2L2
butterflybluelu@rogers.com
The Yahoo geocities site had “exceeded its allocated data transfer” when we checked at 6:09 Pacifric, but you can see it via a Google cache here.
(Thanks, Milly)
November 14th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
What ever happend to Free Speech?
So if this is right, they are suing her, for complaining about her local saftey… in what is no different than a blog?
They can’t sue her for just saying things like that… why aren’t there more strict rules about suing people… this is really getting out of hand!!!
November 14th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Its time for those EFF guys to do some good!
Get their butts on this case to save this mom’s and her kid’s lives!
Just cause some company isn’t happy that she see’s their mistakes and talks about it… DOESN’T MEAN THEY CAN SUE HER! >=O
November 14th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
time to start mirroring her site around the world…
November 14th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Free speech doesn’t give you carte blanche. They are suing her percisely because they claim she’s lying and that her lies have cost them business.
If the woman is telling the truth, the company will lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay all her court costs.
If the woman is fabricating her claims, or blaming one company when another is responsible, then she will be forced to compensate them for any loss in business they suffered as a result.
Given that this woman is an active member of a number of environmental groups trying to stop the developer from building new subdivisions, it’s likely she set up her site specifically to become a nuisance to the developer and not to ‘protect the children’.
November 14th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Its still free speech… because all she did was put things on a website… true or not… I can say whatever I dam well please on the web, and if anyone has a problem, tough shit.
If free speech lets people for animal rights protest outside of stores that sell furrs… and they dont get sued… why is this any different?
Free speech lets christain extreamests protest gay marriages, and they’re hurting thousands of same sex couples in the process…
So why is what one mother posts on her website, any worse than that?
Its just a very simple protest by this mother on the web… Had this company even brought the suit up, my guess is this mother’s protest would have gone on in vain, and no one would have noticed.
And I highly doubt it cost the company anything, cept maybe their tempers.
For me, I am thinking about her kids… even if she isn’t right by what she says… I beleive it still stands under free speech… and if this company sues her for it, and wins, they will ruen her life, and her children’s lives… -_-
November 14th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
Just picked up activaholdingssucks.com Funtimes
November 14th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
obviously this malcontent is stirring up civil disobediance and encouraging terrorism. She is part of a conspiracy to enrich the lives of her children thru free speech and reporting first hand knowledge, and thus she should be sent to gitmo bay with her children and be tortured, sodomized, and humiliated to the full extent of the law.
wait? this is from Canada? dammit, I always thought canada was fair minded and respected it’s citizens. I’m disapointed in you, canada! There is What is Right, And There is What is Wrong, and laying the legal smackdown on some mom looking out for the welfare of her children is Just Plain Wrong. United States of Canada.
November 14th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
“Hurting thousands of same sex couples”….bull…Being gay is a choice not like race….
November 14th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Oh…always the companies are evil and the “little people” are always just poor innocent victims….try looking at the facts before making your judgement regardless of who’s right..
November 15th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Learn to spell, moron.
November 15th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
They want to play HARD BALL, let´s fight BACK!!!
November 15th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
On a web site I had, dedicataed to songwriting legal issues, there was a news analysis section. There I put a news story about a lawsuit where a songwriter sued a record company for $6,000,000 and at the last minute, during the trial, the lawsuit was withdrawn. I commented that the lawyers of the songwriter acted “sloppy, incompetent or wated the songwrites time”. For writing that opinion, one of the lawyers (a copyright lawyer) of the songwriter sued me for $2,000,000 here in Puerto Rico.
Then, after the mentioned lawsuit was filed, I had to talk to a television station that had been using music my family owns without our permission. I had a private conversation with the station’s in house lawyer. Then I get a second lawsuit from the copyright lawyer, again asking $2,000,000 in damages. He now claims that the station’s lawyer talked to him and told him that I had said something bad about him. The new $2,000,0000 lawsuit does not say what it is that I said about him.
The pattern is clear.
The Internet is becoming a threat to the old ways of operation of almost every conceivable profession and industry. In the old pre Internet days no one knw what was happening. Everything was in the dark. Now lawyers and businesses are working to have the Internet destroyed through lawsuits that will scare people into no using the internet for execerzinf their free speech rights or to share music and other information.
Free spech is free, and the word free has nothing to do with cost and free meaning that there is total liberty (freedom) to say whatever one wishes without fear that someone will do damage to you because of what was said or if what was said was disliked by others or was damaging to others.
All lawsuits that are meant to prevent people from saying anything shoulf be thrown out of court. Else free speech is just one more mockery.
Simple, the courts have become a tool to kill free spech while at the same time taking away the peace that people have, along with their material possesions and economic security.
Free speech has been made very expensive and damaging for the health and security of talkers, more so now that talkers have become writers.
Damn the lawyers that file these lawsuits. I guess I will be sued again for writing this, unless a wave of disgust stop the lawyers.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 15th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
‘Oh…always the companies are evil and the “little people” are always just poor innocent victims….’
In about 85% of cases, this is true. Bribing politicians, buying court rulings as well as other forms of graft is just a matter of routine business for most big companies. These companies are mostly the same ones that send workers jobs out of the country to places where slave labor is practiced, and yet they still want the people where their former workers live to continue to by their product. These are the same companies like Wal-Mart, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and many others who bilk retirees out of their pensions, manipulate markets and/or destroy fair competition.
These are companies that pushed independent family farmers to borrow in order invest in equipment to improve production and manipulate food prices so that these same farmers were put out of business. These are companies like Monsanto which want to lock farmers into buying their seedstock every year or risk not having any crops for the year. These big corporations are like Sony which decided to trick people into installing software that cripples their computer and spies or which bribes “movie critics” in order to defraud people into beleiving a particular movie is good. These are companies that are destroying the minds of you by pumping them full of mindless crap.
People like the poster to whom I am responding like to paint little people who complain about the practices of big companies as crybabies or village idiots. I consider myself a conservative who believe in traditional values. However, I cannot and do not vote for the Republican faction of the Democrat-Republican Party because this party seems to pay only lip service to making big companies responsible for their actions. Many of these “Republican” supporters like to gush about how many jobs are created by the multinational corporations, but they fail to point out that it is in fact small or medium size businesses that provide most employment within the U.S.
Most big companies are the ones responsible for destroying the protections of our rights as well as decimating our economy. This is one reason why I support alternative political parties such as the Libertarian ( http://www.lp.org ) and Constitution ( http://www.constitutionparty.com ) parties. I also support organizations such as the Fully Informer Jurors Association ( http://www.fija.org ) which are trying to reign in the power of corrupt judges. The corrupt government-cartel alliances are working feverishly to figure out how to put their stranglehold on computer networks such as the Internet due to the fact that they are afraid that the people of the world migh get together and put a stop to their misdeeds.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
If the Internet is silenced by lawyers, court, etc, then guns should start doing the talking. Enough is enough.
November 16th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Most courts and laws feel that free speach only applies when its the truth that’s being stated. Otherwise you’d have a lot of con-artists and frauds trying to get off the hook by invoking free speach as a justification.
Libel laws do apply to the web.
When PETA claims that KFC is mistreating animals, they’re not sued for libel because they can back their claims. If PETA claimed that Col. Sanders sexually abused each chicken before it gets rolled in the 11 herbs and spices … they could have the ba-jeebus sued out of them. And that’s how it should be.
Maybe she should be thinking about her kids. She’s had every opportunity to back down. I’m sure all it would take for the company to back down at this point would be the issuance of a public apology. If the company wins the lawsuit it’s because her website is a pack of lies. In that case this isn’t a case of a business bullying a mom. It’s a liar who tried to harass a local business and got caught by her own lies.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
“Otherwise you’d have a lot of con-artists and frauds trying to get off the hook by invoking free speach as a justification.”
You got this totally wrong. “con-artists and frauds”, when acused for crimes are guilty if a CRIME were committed or innocent if a CRIME was not committed. For example, “con-artists and frauds”, as you call them are usually after money (or something through extortion). Again, for example , if the money is taken by the con-artist after offering a product that is never delivered as promosed, then two facts, and only two facts are importan: The money was taken and the product was not delivered. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the case.
Yes, in the above example, freedom of speech allowed the con-artist to make the sales pitch, but criminal law prohibited the intentional non delivery of the paid for product. Yes, criminals also have freedom of speech but may not comit fraud.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I know Greg Nurdoch and I know him to be a ruthles-sadistic-pschotic liar. Yet he has an L.L.B.behind his name which gives him status and influence. He bluffed Louisette into making an apology for doing nothing wrong other than acting in good faith something that the malicious puke Greg Murdoch is incapable of doing.This rogue lawyer helped my sister to fabricate a totally false affidavit or alternatively did nothing to verify her false affidavit. He then submitted a 19 point factum based on the false affidavit and thus the embezzlement scheme his client Paula Martin of 120 shuh St Kitchener has remained covered-up to this day. Mr Murdoch is as deceitful as he is smart which makes him a doubly tough force for evil.The malicious prosection he initiated against Louisette is typical of this slithery shyster and no one knows the harm this hired gun can accomplish better than I.This wretch even went so far as to contact the police and claimed that I broke into his lawfirms computer system.He did this so that the computer i was using to expose him would be seized and his need to silence me would succeed.As a former Federal Prosecutor he has much influence and is believed without having to provide any proof.He knows who I am and if anyone wants to forward this to him i have no objections. Mike Carroll
May 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I know Greg Nurdoch and I know him to be a ruthless-sadistic-pschotic liar. Yet he has an L.L.B.behind his name which gives him status and influence. He bluffed Louisette into making an apology for doing nothing wrong other than acting in good faith something that the malicious puke Greg Murdoch is incapable of doing.This rogue lawyer helped my sister to fabricate a totally false affidavit or alternatively did nothing to verify her false affidavit. He then submitted a 19 point factum based on the false affidavit and thus the embezzlement scheme his client Paula Martin of 120 shuh St Kitchener has remained covered-up to this day. Mr Murdoch is as deceitful as he is smart which makes him a doubly tough force for evil.The malicious prosection he initiated against Louisette is typical of this slithery shyster and no one knows the harm this hired gun can accomplish better than I.This wretch even went so far as to contact the police and claimed that I broke into his lawfirms computer system.He did this so that the computer i was using to expose him would be seized and his need to silence me would succeed.As a former Federal Prosecutor he has much influence and is believed without having to provide any proof.He knows who I am and if anyone wants to forward this to him i have no objections. Mike Carroll
May 23rd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I see that Louisette was bluffed into making an apology by Greg Murdoch.I know Mr Murdoch and know him to be a ruthless psychotic liar and I have the court documents to prove it.He knows how to deceive and slither around the truth as well as anyone I have ever known. The malicious prosecution he initiated against Louisette is typical.He had no expectation of recovering the 2 million dollars he sued for but knew that it would intimidate her as it did. Mike carroll
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I see that Louisette was bluffed into making an apology by Greg Murdoch.I know Mr Murdoch and know him to be a ruthless psychotic liar and I have the court documents to prove it.He knows how to deceive and slither around the truth as well as anyone I have ever known. The malicious prosecution he initiated against Louisette is typical.He had no expectation of recovering the 2 million dollars he sued for but knew that it would intimidate her as it did. Mike carroll