>From:    Anne Ryan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: ADV & The US Constitution
>In reponse to the person asking about whether ferrets will be exposed to
>ADV for research.
 
It would be rather likely that Aleutians research would involve exposure of
test animals to the virus.  It would be impossible to know know the mode of
transmission without testing for transmission.  It would be impossible to
know the incubation period and other progressive states without being able
to observe the entire process.  But without the sacrifices of the few, many
more will die.
 
>A major factor in distributing a grant will be the researchers desire
>to work with previously infected animals rather than infecting new ones.
 
Is this politics?  Or science?  Unfortuantely to be terribly meaningful
science has to over ride politics.
 
>I have noticed that there are a great many shows coming up in the next few
>months.  I am BEGGING you all to SPECIFICALLY ask what sanitation methods
>will be used.
 
In this case it looks like politics.  You are apparently trying to do the
same blame games that have always been done with shows done by rival groups.
 
>I have been to waaaayyyy too many shows with lackluster sanitary
>procedures.  IMHO, after breeding, poor sanitation at shows is the next
>most likely way of your ferret becoming infected.
 
Breeding is the most likely way for a ferret to become infected?  Followed
by poor sanitation at shows?  You are missing an awful lot of locations of
transmission.  Especially given that there is no known case of transmission
of Aleutians at any ferret show in the United States unless that
information has been kept secret.  Shelters have long been understood to
be very risky in that they are very noted for being likely the most common
disease vectors.  Shelters are very important but there needs to be an
understanding of the risks involved.
 
You run a mail list that was a witchhunt against anyone that the "in"
powers decided was guilty.  None was about known transmission at shows.
Much was harassment of a shelter for possible transmissions though all
tests have shown none.  The record of the notes posted to
news:alt.pets.ferrets clearly showed the nature of the ADV witchhunt.
 
>BUT he also suggested scanning the letter the attorney sent and posting
>that on the web site, thus the attorney reveals his clients name, not
>Kim <beg>.
 
That is not a good idea.  In some states including Maryland, revealing
private mail is considered the same as illegal taping of a phone
conversation.  What was sent seems to be private mail NOT a court document.
If Kim were to post that letter she and not the attorney would be revealing
the name as the attory did not post it in public.
 
Most of what you claim your lawyer friend says contradicts much of what
several other attorneys have told us.  This is a dangerous topic to be
exaggerating claims.  There are basically three requirements for
defamation:
 
1. The statement in question must be false.  This is where Kim can
   most control things.  Just be absolutely honest.  If something is
   a judgement call then state things as an opinion or not at all.
2. The intent must be malicious meaning intending harm in any form -
   since Kim intends to prevent the "shelter" (used with disdain) from
   doing business.
3. The plaintiff MUST show damages.  This is incredibly difficult.  The
   "shelter" (with more disdain) must show a specific instance of a loss
   of reputation AND business.  Someone must be found that would have
   given money or goods to that "shelter" (cringe) and after reading
   what Kim wrote they changed their mind.  That would be specific
   damages.  Punitive damages for merely damaging reputation are not
   terribly likely if not compensatory damages can be proven.
 
Those are the legal requirements.  But there is something else.  A suit
would not be filed by a sane person if there is no chance of actually
collecting any awarded compensation.  This alone has prevented many winable
suits in the ferret world.  If the cost of filing is more than and possible
winnings, then it just isn't worth it.  The LIFE organization has gotten
away with some defamatory remarks for this reason for example.  Marshall
Farms seems to be using that reasoning in why they are not filing suit
against their bashers from what a few of their employees have said.
 
BTW... The constitution has little to do with defamation suits.  Tort law
regarding slander and libel is common law.  The ACLU is very very unlikely
to get involved in Kim's issue.  It is not a first ammendment issue.  Do
not consider our post legal advice.  Consider it more a warning that free
legal "advice" posted on internet forums by non-lawyers can be only seen
as ideas.  Since what we post is directly contradictory of what Anne posted
it would be prudent to actually talk to an attorney instead of trusting
any of us.
 
bill and diane killian
[Posted in FML issue 3187]