Abusive Frivolous Defamation Lawsuits on the Rise
April 30, 2018
Abusive Frivolous Defamation Lawsuits on the Rise
A frivolous lawsuit is any lawsuit that is filed with the intention of harassing, annoying, or disturbing the opposite party. It may also be defined as any lawsuit in which the plaintiff knows that there is little or no chance of the lawsuit succeeding if pursued in court. Legal Match
The Sociopathic Business Model™ maintains that abusive companies, where executives are often professional victims, lack self-awareness and manipulate facts without shame, remorse or guilt while shifting blame. They pathologically feel entitled to forgiveness despite the lack of accountability. Professional victims will resort to illegal behavior to prevent the company’s own negative truthful information from being exposed. This includes anonymous online threats, intimidation and harassment of victims who expose facts; and, now includes even abusively filing frivolous defamation lawsuits.
Negative truthful information is not defamation.
Defamation occurs when one person makes a false statement about another person and the statement harms that person’s reputation in some way. When the false statement is spoken, it’s known as slander; when the statement is written, it’s known as libel. The term “defamation” covers both slander and libel.
- A plaintiff trying to prove defamation must prove the following:
- The defendant made a statement (spoken or written);
- The statement was false;
- The defendant published the statement to a third person; and
The publication of the false statement injured the plaintiff’s reputation, making the plaintiff entitled to damages. Rotlaw.com
This prevents people from just filing a defamation lawsuit because they didn’t like what you said online. If it’s true, it’s not defamation.
Illegal suppression of facts online.
Frivolous lawsuits are often abusively filed by companies not only to harass the victim but where the company is looking to unethically and illegally suppress negative and truthful information from appearing online. This even includes illegally Google-deindexing SEO, making it impossible for consumers to find real information about a company. Consumers looking to do their due diligence online often only find glowing reviews on the company owned site. A deeper dive may only turn up more glowing reviews in pay for play business journals pr fall victim to native advertising (ads made to look like real business articles). Real people, with negative truthful experiences, aren’t able to leave real online reviews because PR firms & self-proclaimed defamation attorneys are helping their clients to mitigate negative truthful online reviews by removing them. Often unethically and illegally.
This allows the cycle of consumer fraud to escalate causing more harm to more people. All fraud eventually ends up costing not only the victim money but the taxpayers as well.
The insurgence of the unregulated online marketing & money coaching market is an area that can and does easily exploit the lack of regulation. Facebook, understandably under fire for sharing personal data without user consent to a third party, weren’t exposed by Congress or Senate for their fraud-factory private business Facebook pages. These pages allow people to comment & front as real consumers but are actually paid by the company, all for the purpose of enticing unsuspecting consumer who eventually fall victims.
Collusion is secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Unethical attorneys are now knowingly & willingly filing frivolous defamation lawsuits colluding with their unethical clients where both are engaging in illegal activity. People who commit fraud tend to have deep pockets because people who commit fraud achieved financial success through ill-gotten gains. Parasitic unethical attorneys will attach themselves to these clients for the never-ending the buck but don’t give a fuck about the actual law.
Their goal is unethically and illegal abuse the court system with motions and filings which are expensive to defend for the average person. In short, the hope is those exposing fraud run out of money before they do, or before they eventually get found out. The Sociopathic Business Model™ also points out that all accomplices eventually become victims, meaning parasites will turn on each other, even though they at one point colluded.
Steps to protect online consumers:
- If online reviews are only found on company owned websites, it’s a #RedFlag. This usually implies the manipulation of facts while not recognizing the rights of consumers.
- If online reviews are all positive and glowing, (no negative found online) it’s a #RedFlag. It’s likely that the company pays a PR firm or defamation attorney to remove negative truthful information from the internet.
- Ask any company, in writing, if they’ve ever removed negative reviews online or paid a PR firm or defamation law firm to remove any information form the internet. If they have, it’s a #RedFlag
- If a company operates under the guise of tightly controlled Facebook group, it’s a potential #RedFlag. The absence of information is a manipulation.
What can you do if you think you’re a victim of an abusive frivolous lawsuit?
- Hire a reputable law firm and file counterclaims.
- Expose the negative truthful information publicly.
- Report unethical & illegal corporate & legal behavior to the federal and state government (SEC, FCC, DOJ, IRS, State Bar, etc). If you have a complaint, it’s likely you’re not alone. The more information you can provide to an investigation, the better. And the sooner the better.
- Reach out to your state’s Attorney General & Governor.
We no longer have the luxury of hoping someone else reports unethical and or illegal behavior. Don’t wish for positive change, be a part of it.
Frauds fear two things:
- The truth &
- The feds, lead them to both. #TheMMpiHerMethod