Aaron’s team of bloggers in Atlanta sent up a flare [1] earlier today. Their influential [2] [3] Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter is under attack by a SLAPP suit. Doom is looking at this situation closely because, to be frank, Twist and I would likely be even easier for a well funded litigant to squash in such a suit as the Georgians.
Housing Doom has followed Implode-O-Meter from its first or second day of operation, back in early January. They have since documented some 93 subprime lenders that have exited the sector, plus followed many other housing related stories. Often cited in the MSM and with well over 1,000,000 hits in just over half a year of operation, this bubble blog is widely held to be an important resource for understanding the ongoing crisis in US subprime mortgage finance. They would be sorely missed.
Meanwhile, over at Calculated Risk, Tanta has posted [4] an update on a similar case. Happily, the blogger there seems to be making headway against his SLAPP.
Doomers, we appreciate and count on your support both moral and otherwise. Indeed Twist’s quote from yesterday’s post is just as relevant on the 5th as it was on the 4th: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thanks for that one, Tom, and thank you again Doomers for wanting Twist and me, Aaron, Tanta and all the rest to carry on doing what we feel we have to do.
________________________
Notes and References
[1]: "Loan Center of California Sues Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter; Motion to Strike Filed", Implode-O-Meter press release, July 5, 2007.
On May 9th, 2007, we received (from the Fulton County, GA Court System) the initial complaint of a lawsuit filed by Loan Center of California ("LCC"), of Suisun, CA (Solano Co.).
…It seems clear to us that the intent here is to injure the Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter—perhaps even to "shut us down". We believe we are without blame and at no fault in this incident. Fundamentally, the complaint involves business between third parties of which we had no specific knowledge, as our interest in running the web site is general. We are accordingly responding to LCC’s allegations with a motion to strike the suit under California’s "Anti-SLAPP" statute.
[2]: "Mining the Mortgage Mayhem", by David Gaffen, Wall Street Journal reporter’s blog, April 10, 2007.
[3]: "Lenders Crack Down After Subprime Collapse", by Alison Go, U.S. News & World Report, June 7, 2007.
[4]: "Mortgage Fraud Watch List Wins Round 1", by Tanta, Calculated Risk, July 5, 2007.
The Implode-O-Meter site is presently off-line. Aaron is working to restore service as soon as possible.
Having been the target of a SLAPP suit (by an unethical CA Realtor that I reported to the Dept. of Real Estate no less), I feel Aaron’s pain. Fortunately, I won and recovered all my attorneys’ fees, but it was stressfull.
Twist, one thing you ought to know is that SLAPP statutes are NOT available in every state and NOT the law in Arizona. So Arizona is not the place you want to get sued for defamation, etc., because you cannot recover your fees.
What you should consider doing is incorporating in CA and putting this website into the corporation. I would also amend the terms of use to require any litigation be brought in a CA court (which is more protective of your rights to free speech than Arizona). Although this is not bullet-proof, it is one way you can buy yourself a little piece of mind for not alot of $$$.
FWIW, I am an attorney in both CA and AZ.
Twist and John,
I hope you don’t let some other frivilous lawsuits scare you away from providing this very valuable blog/service.
Why are realtors and anybody associated with realty allowed to perpetually say very stupid things like, “Prices are never coming down; they’re not making any more land!”, while we are to believe that we’re not allowed to have logical, opposing opinions?
Twist, from my experience you always provide a strong background of facts (graphs and quotes) with your editorial commentary and insight, and also allow us visitors to discuss our opinions with you. What is wrong with that? Are we not free?
MikeC-
I had an English teacher in college that emphasized the importance of giving proper credit to your sources, and he gave two reasons. One was that you didn’t want to steal the work of others, the other was so that you didn’t want to take the blame when they are wrong! I try very hard to carefully cite sources for both of those reasons. [And try to cite credible sources]
One of the disturbing trends we’re seeing is a “shoot the messenger” mentality in the REIC. The folks that pushed the whole “Always safe, always goes up” baloney find it easier to say that “negative press has shaken buyer confidence”- rather than admit their part in the fiasco.
It would be nice if sticking to the truth kept you from being sued- sadly, we know that’s not always the case. I doubt this is the last we’ll here of blogs being sued. If I worried about lawsuits too much though, it would be hard to for me to even get out of bed in the morning.
We’ll keep doing our best to accurately tell the story- and keep our fingers crossed!
If one has been reasonable and basically
accurate in the information published, and
malice cannot be shown, then ‘counterclaims’
can survive dismissal of a frivolous suit,
with the defendant now being the
counterclaimant.
Damages far beyond legal costs can be
awarded if you can prove that the plaintiff
filed without real foundation; particularly
if you can show intent and malice.
— do not rely on these comments.
Those who oppose this kind of anti-free-speech action might want to contact the plaintiff’s attorneys to share their views.
DENNIS M. COTA, Bar No. 127992
SCOTT E. HUBER, Bar No. 227 196
COTA DUNCAN & COLE
226 1 Lava Ridge Court
Roseville, California 95661
Telephone: (916) 780-9009
Facsimile: (916) 780-9050
ebrowne:
>>Damages far beyond legal costs can be
>>awarded if you can prove that the plaintiff
>>filed without real foundation;
What if the defendant is a company that will have to file for bankruptcy if the otherwise mostly unknown details of their finances is relayed to the general public via the internet? In that case, what does this company have to lose if they start a frivolous lawsuit? How will the counterclaimant ever see any money if the company were to shut down?
Please note that with this example I am speaking generally, and NOT meaning to refer to the specific company that is suing the Blog-o-meter.