Fake Jintropins verified by IGF-1 bloods

[Boosting]

So why was maccaz's post edited too. Seems like a total cop out. It's quite common for individuals/companies to threaten legal action with no intention of pursuing it in court

[Riccardo]

.

[Pseudonym]

I didn't really have pressure put on me... I wouldn't kowtow to a bit of pressure from scum like the person involved

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that. Let me rephrase then - "indirectly, there was pressure being applied for Leeroid to remove the thread."

 

Legal threats? What a joke. Whoever is involved is more than welcome to demonstrate how it would meet the threshold for defamation (eg prove its not true) in court. I highly doubt they will go for that !

Problem is, that's not how the law works. The burden of proof is on the author and/or publisher - it's up to them to prove what they are saying is true. If they can't, the statement is deemed defamatory. (And dressing it up as personal opinion is not a defence, either.)

 

Of course I realise people make legal threats with no intention of following through. I've received quite a few of them over the years. But I'm not going to gamble this website on whether or not they're bluffing. The ONLY question I consider is whether there's a risk for us if it did go to court.

 

There's also the fact that naming suppliers is against the forum rules - but this could be waived, IF:

- the statement has absolutely no legal risk for us, and if

- it was in the overwhelming interests of public safety.

 

In this particular situation, I'm not satisfied that naming the supplier would be completely risk-free. I think we'd likely have a damn good argument based on his prior history, but without the concrete evidence that would make a judge dismiss the case instantly, it's not 100%.

 

If anyone would like to get a proper legal opinion on this which says we'll be fine, I'll reconsider. I've kept Maccaz' unedited post on file, so it can be restored.

[Boosting]

You should tell us who specifically made the legal threats or if it was a lawyer who the lawyer was representing lol. Im sure thats not defamation or in any way illegal especially if you received the legal threat in writing=proof which id put money on that you did.

[Pseudonym]

Im sure thats not defamation or in any way illegal especially if you received the legal threat in writing=proof

Um, wut?

[maccaz]

Um, wut?

hes saying, you could publish the letter from the lawyers/person in question with the statement "*name* threatened legal action about us speaking about this topic" with that statement not being defamation as proof of the threat is the letter from the lawyer.

 

say I sent you a letter threatening legal action. you could post said letter with the statement "maccaz has threatened us with legal action, shown in this letter"

 

splitting hairs though. stupid argument

 

doubt anyones keen to go to court to complain that people are accusing them of doing something illegal, something that they had already admitted in court they do.

[HarryB]

So there's been complaints against this guy for at least a couple of years, he's been to court and rolled over on people who are now doing time and yet somehow still has his shop and seems to be doing quite well for himself. The mind boggles that anyone would even deal with the guy. Clearly he's as hot as hell and probably allowed to keep doing business cos happy to tell tales to keep himself out of trouble. 

 

Oh and that Chinese gh is shit :) pretty sure that's most of what anyone in nz is getting now same as over here. 

[Wookie]

Well, the guy in jail gets out at the end of 2017 at the latest so... 

[Realtalk]

Gpc politics ITT

[HarryB]

34 minutes ago, Realtalk said:

Gpc politics ITT

 

If you're going to be allowed to continue with this unfounded bullying and making stuff up... I'm going to take my ball and go home!!! Oh wait... where are my balls?