rigorousintuition.ca

Hey good people. I know this isn't the usual type of thing for this forum, but I've come to view you all as friends and would like your takes, if you would be so kind:

Short synopsis:

I work from home.
Road reconstruction project scheduled to finish up last September still going on this June.
Talked to a couple of neighbours off and on about it - they were not happy.
The dust and noise were unbearable.The site was left in dangerous driving / walking condition for long periods - lots of people's cars suffered damage.

I took a bunch of pictures over the course of the project. One time I went to talk to the Foreman of the sub-contracting company and he treated me like dirt in spite of the fact that I was holding my camera and said he was on camera.

In the second week of June I wrote a letter to my neighbours asking them to get in touch with me if they had had enough of the delays and urging us to 'band together' to put pressure on the City to get the job finished. At the end of the letter I
referred to the video I had made of the foreman. I did so because in the video he says that we had another year of construction left to endure.. the fact that he looked like an asshole in it was his own doing. In the letter I did say that the foreman had "not treated me very kindly."

So....

I get an email from a lawyer today threatening me with a lawsuit - defamation and slander. (slander isn't even what they should be accusing me of, it should be libel, but then it was all true so I have a proper defense anyway.) What they want is for me to remove the video and to write a letter retracting my 'scandalous' statements.

My letter makes no accusations against the company the lawyer is representing. ZERO. It is not even implied.
My video does not contravene any privacy laws.

I am and always have been scared shitless of old white guys in robes.
I do not want to go to court.

I have no issue with making the video private.

BUT.. I will write no such letter of retraction.

what say you all?

well, maybe one of your neighbors is also a lawyer and can send back a counter letter.

also, take the letter they sent you and verify that it's from a real lawyer, sometimes people like to send out fake "bigfoot" letters.

^ good advice drew, and I agree, don't answer it without legal advice, and best not to answer it period. Here's what I was about to post:

not a lawyer CW but I saw your vid and it looked completely legal unless there's a specific law against posting vids of construction workers, so you might as well Google that. Otherwise it sounds like a typical intimidation tactic so personally I'd leave the vid public and simply post the email under it in the little info dropdown and otherwise do nothing.

p.s. I'd advise against answering that or any subsequent email directly tho as anything you say can and will be used against you, you know how that works. So that would be asking for trouble. Also I'd look into local community legal services just in case they step it up which seems unlikely if they couldn't be bothered to send a real letter. Just my 02.

Well, in England and Wales libel writs are notorious for being used to intimidate people, as the only alternative against a determined litigant is to either issue a grovelling apology and retraction or to go through a lengthy and expensive court process, with no legal aid and a low likelihood of being awarded costs if you win. So I suggest you go and get a lawyer, then do whatever you're told to, if you're really that averse to long and expensive court battles, but still with a lawyer to make sure you don't give them any ammo. Or you could hope they're just trying to intimidate you without actually intending to go through with it and front it out.

Hey JD, lupercal & Morgan - thank you for your thoughts.

I already answered the letter (I know.. I went back and forth on it, too, wondering if it was fake) I decided to tell the guy that I'd make the vid private. I didn't even mention the retraction which I really can't imagine any court in the land would make me do. It's utterly ridiculous. If I were to ask for them to point to a line in the letter that they'd like me to retract they couldn't even do it. There's literally nothing there ...

I should have telephoned the lawyer to see if it really came from his office but I don't think I said anything in my four sentences that could be detrimental to me.

If this doesn't make it go away then I'm going to have to believe that it'll go pretty much the way you describe, Stephen. If he insists on pursuing it I intend to counter-sue... this has got to be vexatious litigation or misuse of process. He's got deeper pockets than I, for sure.

Honestly... grrr. I'd love to put the letter up as a comment on the You Tube vid, lup! That'd be classic. But I'm not going to push it. I do have a contact at the newpaper though - she's an editor for the community section. That might come in handy down the line.

Canadian_watcher wrote:I already answered the letter (I know.. I went back and forth on it, too, wondering if it was fake) I decided to tell the guy that I'd make the vid private. I didn't even mention the retraction which I really can't imagine any court in the land would make me do. It's utterly ridiculous. If I were to ask for them to point to a line in the letter that they'd like me to retract they couldn't even do it. There's literally nothing there ...

Courts don't normally make you retract, I don't think. Go in more for big financial payments and possible jail terms.

I should have telephoned the lawyer to see if it really came from his office but I don't think I said anything in my four sentences that could be detrimental to me.

Make sure you don't inadvertantly incriminate yourself with anything, or admit any kind of liability.

If this doesn't make it go away then I'm going to have to believe that it'll go pretty much the way you describe, Stephen. If he insists on pursuing it I intend to counter-sue... this has got to be vexatious litigation or misuse of process. He's got deeper pockets than I, for sure.

Canada used to have very good laws for that, I believe. Not so much now.

Honestly... grrr. I'd love to put the letter up as a comment on the You Tube vid, lup! That'd be classic. But I'm not going to push it. I do have a contact at the newpaper though - she's an editor for the community section. That might come in handy down the line.

Might be a bad idea to publish things you intend to embarrass them when they're thinking about sueing you for libel.

C_w, is it normal (or even legal!) in Canada for a lawyer to initiate legal proceeedings by email? Strikes me as very strange.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Courts don't normally make you retract, I don't think. Go in more for big financial payments and possible jail terms.

yes, this is true. but they could just issue an injunction.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Canada used to have very good laws for that, I believe. Not so much now.

I think they just recently made an even better one, actually: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... ss_act.asp

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Honestly... grrr. I'd love to put the letter up as a comment on the You Tube vid, lup! That'd be classic. But I'm not going to push it. I do have a contact at the newpaper though - she's an editor for the community section. That might come in handy down the line.

Might be a bad idea to publish things you intend to embarrass them when they're thinking about sueing you for libel.

Only if I have to.

MacCruiskeen wrote:C_w, is it normal (or even legal!) in Canada for a lawyer to initiate legal proceeedings by email? Strikes me as very strange.

I can't find much concrete info on that, actually. The letter was 'without prejudice' so probably email is okay for that - if this were an initiation of an action I'd have to be personally served.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

Stephen Morgan wrote:Courts don't normally make you retract, I don't think. Go in more for big financial payments and possible jail terms.

yes, this is true. but they could just issue an injunction.

Which, if you break it, will land you in clink.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Canada used to have very good laws for that, I believe. Not so much now.

I think they just recently made an even better one, actually: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... ss_act.asp

I've been remiss in my knowledge of Canadian law.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Honestly... grrr. I'd love to put the letter up as a comment on the You Tube vid, lup! That'd be classic. But I'm not going to push it. I do have a contact at the newpaper though - she's an editor for the community section. That might come in handy down the line.

Might be a bad idea to publish things you intend to embarrass them when they're thinking about sueing you for libel.

Only if I have to.

Well, you're a bit unpredictable, couldn't be sure.

Stephen Morgan wrote:I've been remiss in my knowledge of Canadian law.

do try and keep up, would you?

Stephen Morgan wrote:Well, you're a bit unpredictable, couldn't be sure.

moi? I don't know where you'd get that opinion.

I'd say get a bit of legal advice, but am doubtful that a company would take you to court on such a flimsy case. For one thing, court cases are expensive. Costs can be awarded if you win (they might not), but the person sued has to have enough assets to cover the costs at least to make it worthwhile, and the case could well backfire as very bad publicity for the construction company. The delays, rudeness, inconvenience, would all be aired publicly, attract possible press interest, and they'd look like bullies taking an individual with a justifiable complaint to court over something which could be settled by a little polite diplomacy. Wouldn't that lose them a lot of business?

I've been threatened once by solicitor's letter - just ignored it and it went away. Solicitor's letters are cheap, full on legal action isn't.

add on edit. Just because their solicitor has sent a letter doesn't mean he thinks they have a case. He could be fishing
too.

Thank you for the reassurance, blanc. It's nice to know that others have been so threatened and just ignored it.

I agree with your take on the whole matter - the man is a bully and obviously very embarrassed by the way he came off on the video. It was never my intention for that to happen. He did that by himself.

I'm really surprised at the depths some lawyers sink to for their clients, though. I would not be able to do it. The only type of law I was ever interested in was contract law, because it's kind of a wild west area of law. Anyway once I started actual work in law firms I decided pretty early on that it wasn't for me. Yuck. Actually, my time at a legal aid clinic was all right.

This whole bit with this bully I'm dealing with is typical for me (except the law suit part.) I've always been a thorn, even though I swear I don't mean to be. I spent a lot of time in the corner at school. Psychologically I'm getting very used to standing up for myself - it's the mechanics I struggle with at times.

thanks again.

blanc wrote:I'd say get a bit of legal advice, but am doubtful that a company would take you to court on such a flimsy case. For one thing, court cases are expensive. Costs can be awarded if you win (they might not), but the person sued has to have enough assets to cover the costs at least to make it worthwhile, and the case could well backfire as very bad publicity for the construction company. The delays, rudeness, inconvenience, would all be aired publicly, attract possible press interest, and they'd look like bullies taking an individual with a justifiable complaint to court over something which could be settled by a little polite diplomacy. Wouldn't that lose them a lot of business?

Remember the McLibel case. MacDonalds, the global giant, spent a decade and millions of pounds hounding a couple of members of a Greenpeace splinter group with a combined net worth approximating zero for handing out leaflets containing "libelous" claims, and won. Although they were so embarrassed by it all that they forewent their compensation, which was a few grand. They had also been sued themselves, having accused the McLibel Two of lying, which was deemed to also be a potentially libelous statement.

It's a threat and it seems like they got what they wanted. It doesn't sit right that you were made to sit down -- making it private -- by a possibly empty threat. Are there sympathetic city council members or representatives in your district (whatever they call all that in Canuckistan)? You might want to involve them. Do you have a BBB? You could alert the BBB as to this company's conduct as well. Is there a "Labor and Industries" board where you live? You could also alert that agency. By making it private, you could utilize the social web now and make it go viral.

You could write a letter to Boingboing, sometimes they love going after these jackasses that write these type of sketchy, frivolously legal letters and embarrassing them.

Just for kicks, this is in today's Seattle Times about a woman with a cause much like yours -- in fact, a cause probably 85% of Seattleites are behind. Maybe you can glean something out of this.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ll05m.html