Prepping for a guest lecture, coming up on the 2 year anniversary, and with events out in Burnaby I wanted to repost this. This got little play when I put it up, but it is still a pretty solid inside look at how the SLAPP/injunction process plays out. May you be up on all of it this information before your name gets called. Because defendants do not have the ability to level this playing field, the plaintiff will begin to extract concessions by the sheer amount of threats being made. In the case of Marineland, threats of escalation have been the norm over the last year (and even prior) – with each legal threat having to be weighed with not is this legal or right, but,”do we have the resources to defend against this?” For the plaintiff, whatever they do act on will get to be seen in isolation. Another point where the legal system favours them. Marineland Canada for example, or any entity engaging in this behaviour, can make endless threats, many or all of them known by themselves to be frivolous, and hope for capitulation just on the basis of the resources/capacity of a defendant. If and when they do act on something, there is no mechanism currently, without anti-SLAPP legislation, to show the full picture of the intent and motivations of the plaintiffs. This adds on to the already massive resource deficit created by SLAPP suits in that one side has all of the resources and legal leverage and gets to control the threats being made, while also getting to control what is or is not seen by a Judge. This means they can make 100 threats, act on two of them, and present themselves before a Judge as the victim in a legal case instead of as the aggressor. dylanxpowell/2013/11/14/how-ridiculous-is-a-marineland-slapp-suit/
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:12:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015