Friendly, I just noticed this post on the other site that you might find some interest in.
It was written by Millright to Surething and brings up some of the things we have just been discussing.
"Surething,
Thanks for the congratulations to me and my fellow defendants on having this lawsuit behind us. I also thank those who expressed their disgust for the actions of Inspiration Mining, and their support when this lawsuit was announced. I would add that some of those who expressed these feeling through inbox messages were posters who were ISM supporters, and had differed with me on the forum in the past.
As you say, the action clearly fell under the definition of SLAPP, and the definition you provided. It was expected from the outset, that it would not be successful, if allowed to go through the full Court process. The plaintiffs likely feel they achieved the success they hoped for, by using (in my opinion, abusing) the legal system to deny certain individuals the right to express their opinion in public. In reality, there was no benefit realized by ISM, there was a cost. While three critics may have been silenced for a period of time, other individuals continued to provide criticism, and shed light on the same points on which the defendants had expressed their opinion. The cost to ISM was legal fees and administrative costs for another strategy that failed, plus the loss of reputation involved with the bullying tactics involved in a SLAPP.
As seems to be the case with many Inspiration Mining endeavours, execution was a bit of an amateurish farce. The lawsuit was initiated with a ludicrous public statement that four chatroom posters had caused a multi million dollar decline in market cap. It ended with the solicitor for ISM filing a Notice of Discontinuance, weeks after the Court had advised that the action would be discontinued, with costs, due to lack of action. In the interim, the activity that did take place confirmed that a more descriptive title for the action would be SLAPPstick. Those who were defendants to the action were provided with information that one of the defendants named in the lawsuit was actually an ISM shareholder whose intention, when authoring the post that landed him in a civil action, was to support Randy Miller. A three for four day at the plate is excellent in baseball, but in identifying defendants in a legal action, it is less than what is expected. I understand that in certain legal circles in Canada’s Centre of the Universe, the ISM legal action was the butt of some legal jokes.
There were other interesting aspects resulting from being involved in this SLAPP. I intend to include further information on these aspects in the future, as I feel it is important that the processes, motives and implications of such actions be discussed. For the time being, I will just note that the many of the points which the defendants to this action were making, have since proved to be valid criticism. There has been misinformation posted on Agoracom by tantallon, concerning William Randall’s involvement. At the time, he was classified by some amateur wannabee experts as being an unqualified critic. Now we know that he was certainly not unqualified, and the concerns he expressed have now been validated in the Micon Report. I think a point that should be considered is that those initiating the lawsuit against this man had access to geological expertise that would likely have supported what Mr. Randall stated. In that case, what was their reason for initiating a legal action against him? Could it have been the same reason for the delay in providing the NI43-101 Micon Report on the properties? And the same reason for not having arranged an independent economic report on the properties? I believe that the initiation of this lawsuit by Inspiration Mining and Randall Miller says much more about the plaintiffs than the defendants, for those who want to listen."
