Anti-SLAPP Victory In Oregon: Anti-Telemarketing Blog Wins Big With Pro Bono Help

Print This Post

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Matthew Cline says:

    The main basis of the judge's order is that the blog's comments of Accuardi were statements of opinion based on disclosed and linked facts about the companies [emphasis added]

    A tangential hypothetical: lets say I write "The sky is blue. Whales are mammals. Therefore, John Doe is a murderer". Despite my "disclosed facts", that's not going to magically make what I said legally a matter of opinion, and if I claim otherwise then it's pretty obvious that I'm trying to use legal semantics to make my statement defamation proof. However, what if there's a case where the defendant uses blatantly illogical arguments to tie the "disclosed facts" to the conclusion, but there's some chance the defendant might actually believe their horrible logic? In such a case, does whether it legally counts as an opinion depend on whether or not the defendant actually believes what they say (as opposed to pretending to in an effort to make their statements defamation proof)?

  2. EH says:

    Matthew: Based on disclosed and linked facts.

  3. Matthew Cline says:

    From the motion:

    Oregon has adopted the false light theory of invasion of privacy found in the Restatement (Second) Torts. Dean v. Guard Pub. Co., Inc., 73 Or. App. 656, 659–60 (1985). The Restatement says that a plaintiff must prove: (a) the false light in which the plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the defendant has knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. Restatement 2d § 652E:3. False light requires falsity, a highly offensive association, and actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the truth. Id. Accuardi cannot prove falsity and actual knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth.

    Fredericks explicitly and openly cited source documents for his opinions. As discussed above, those documents were produced by state investigative agencies, attorneys general, public records

    Lets say that the plaintiff argues "the government is so incompetent that relying on anything they say is a reckless disregard for the truth". Are there any contexts or hypothetical situations where that argument would have any chance of prevailing?

  4. En Passant says:

    Ken wrote:

    This is a tremendous victory for the blog, and for Troy Sexton and his firm. Sexton has a motion for fees pending; though he stepped in pro bono, I hope that he winds up collecting at his full rate from Accuardi.

    Congratulations and deepest gratitude to Troy Sexton. He has legally prevailed against Rachel from Cardholder Services, the slimiest and most labyrinthine criminal operation on the planet outside of the NSA.

    Inside of the NSA it's so slimy they don't have to show you no stinking laws. Badabing!

    And utmost gratitude to Ken for alerting Troy with the Popehat signal.

    For those who don't know just how large and complex the web of corporate entities and their illegal schemes are, Ken's link to Telecom Compliance News Press above is an excellent introduction. As described there, the operation is so big that they buy large blocks of unused phone numbers from legitimate telecom companies to use for their caller ID numbers.

    An earlier description of the operation, from Oregon to Florida (naturally) to Belize to India, and many of the legal actions against it, can also be found at this Complaintwire post and the comments following.

    The operation is huge with worldwide tentacles. Troy has prevailed against its epicenter.

  5. Dion Starfire says:

    A win FOR Free Speech and AGAINST marketeers. You must be positively ecstatic, Ken. The only way it could be better is if the marketeers were ponies.

  6. I was Anonymous says:

    @

    The only way it could be better is if the marketeers were ponies.

    Dion, you mean they aren't? If they aren't, then surely they are part of the Pony Conspiracy(tm)

  7. Warren Vita says:

    Great job Troy! And Ken, you have once again done a fantastic job of using your superpowers for good. Keep the Popehat signal burning bright!

  8. markm says:

    Matthew: "Lets say that the plaintiff argues "the government is so incompetent that relying on anything they say is a reckless disregard for the truth". Are there any contexts or hypothetical situations where that argument would have any chance of prevailing?"

    That would sort of destroy criminal law, wouldn't it? Imagine requiring actual evidence for search warrants, rather than vague allegations that some unnamed informant told a cop something. Or actual evidence for indictments. How would Angela Corey have gotten an indictment against George Zimmerman if she had had to play the tape in court and reveal that the first paragraph of her allegations contained a lie?

  9. c andrew says:

    All Hail the mighty PopeHat Signal! May all purveyors of frivolous anti-speech lawsuits grovel in despair.

    IOW, good work Troy, Ken.

  10. Joe Pullen says:

    And now everything has come full circle. It was a spam telemarketing call Popehat Signal that first brought me to this blog long ago. The author of the blog in question and I shared information about who was behind the company – or rather shells of companies running the telemarketing scam. He did an impressive job on his blog gathering and sharing intel.

    I'm glad to see he got the assistance he needed. Unfortunately the "Card Services" calls continue to this day but in what appears to be a diminished capacity.

  1. April 14, 2014

    […] Anti-SLAPP Victory in Oregon: Anti-Telemarketing Blog Wins Big with Pro Bono Help […]