Cheryl Merrill thinks she has an ace in the hole. She thinks because she was standing in line with an attorney who told her that "Courts rarely award Attorney's fees" that she can sue and sue and not have to pay the other parties' fees. How wrong she is. Apparently, she is not aware of California's Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, dealing with SLAPP suits (like hers). What's a SLAPP suit? A lawsuit filed which has a chilling, intimidating effect on Free Speech.
The law allows a judge to decide at the outset of the suit whether a SLAPP suit has a "probability" of winning. If the judge finds that it does not, the SLAPP must be dismissed, and the SLAPP target wins his or her legal defense costs and attorneys' fees. Get that, Chery baby? Not contract law. Civil law. SLAPP law. Look it up.
The expressive activity which is protected under the new California law is broad. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 states that activity which is protected under the law includes any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest. Making the truth be know about Merrill's stalking, threatening, and litigious behavior is in the public interest.
Often, SLAPPs (such as Merrill's suit against Wollmann) are "camouflaged" as ordinary civil lawsuits based on traditional theories of tort or personal injury law. Among the most often used legal theories are the following:
*Defamation. Broadly defined, this is an alleged intentional false communication, which is either published in a written form (libel) or publicly spoken (slander), that injures one's reputation.
...but Wollmann did not defame Merrill. Merrill *thought* he did, and with the most minimal amount of research and evidence, went off and acted like he did. Dumb move, Jazz Failure!
*Invasion of Privacy. This legal theory refers to the unlawful use or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities.
...Ah, yes, the Cyberstalking Merrill did of Wollmann, contacting his ex-wife, contacting his boss, etc. Quite the Invasion of Privacy.
*Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process. A "malicious prosecution" is a criminal or civil lawsuit which is begun with knowledge that the case lacks merit, and which is brought for a reason (e.g., to harass or annoy) other than to seek a judicial determination of the claim. The use of the legal process to intimidate or to punish the person against whom the suit is brought is generally referred to as "abuse of process."
Merrill's problem, in choosing, beyond all reason or legitimate evidence, to sue Edmond Wollmann, has resulted in *Merrill* Defaming Wollmann, in *Merrill* invading Wollmann's Privacy, and in *Merrill* bringing Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process to the Court against Wollmann.
Merrill thinks the Judge likes Settlement Agreements. Not when the Sued party (Wollmann) has suffered for two years at the shrieking, claws-out, impossible-to-reason-with She-Devil and all of the attacks she has made against him.
No. What Judges like to see is arrogant, deceitful, litigious, oh-look-I'm-a-poor-victim lying jerks like Merrill get SLAPPED down.
By the way, another Legal Document Merrill might want to think about that will annihilate her "Arsenal" is the Amicus Curiae Brief.
What's that, Cheryl?
Oh, it's just a a document which is filed in a court by someone who is not directly related to the case under consideration. The additional information which is found in such a document can be useful for the judge evaluating the case, and it becomes part of the official case record.
The tradition of accepting amicus briefs comes from a larger concept, the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” A friend of the court may be interested in a case for various reasons, although he or she is not directly involved. For example, a court might be preparing to try a case related to online stalking or defamation, an issue of great concern to many people. An amicus brief might be filed to discuss the larger ramifications of potential case outcomes, since these ramifications might not be brought up by the prosecution or defense during the course of a trial.
An Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the Court for the Merrill vs Wollmann lawsuit would have statements from many of Merrill's past victims, speaking the very credible truth of how Merrill has treated, attacked, defamed, stalked, and threatened them.
The cost to file such a brief would be minimal, in fact, some Attorneys, such as those who work at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, live for this type of filing and do so Pro Bono.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment