>From:    Glenn Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Same MAR crap all over again
>If ANYTHING in the Marshall Animal Research, Inc.  report was untrue, a
>simple threat of a libel suit would have been sufficient to force a
>retraction, an apology and possibly monetary damages.
 
No.  The author is not well off.  A lawsuit is about money - if the object
of your lawsuit has none - it doesn't matter if you win.  It would cost
Marshall at least tens of thousands of dollars to sue the author.  The
expected monetary return from a winning suit is essentially nil.  The author
rightly or wrongly can make a name for himself as a David vs.  Goliath and
impress his friends even more.  It would be a complete loss for Marshall
even if they won.
 
This same gentleman and his wife escaped a defamation suit from us for the
most of same reasons.  Only the David vs Goliath concept would not apply.
 
The threat of a lawsuit would actually work better against someone who has
something to lose.  Whether in the right or wrong.  If you have no money a
lawsuit costs nothing.  If you have money defending yourself is extremely
expensive.
 
We have discussed this with folks at Marshall directly and indirectly.
 
The author's wife was already threatened with a lawsuit for slander from
another ferret product company she bashes for personal political reasons.
The then president of that local ferret club was forced to do the retraction
for her because the libelous text was published in the club's newsletter.
 
There is quite a history here.  This is the aspect of the whole situation
we are the most positive about.
 
>If you have the slightest shred of concrete proof that the report is untrue,
>you could settle the matter once and for all by simply producing it.
>Obviously you do not.
 
Its harder to produce a document that says something didn't happen than to
produce a document that says it did.  Obviously a document that amounts to a
passing inpection exists but doesn't satisfy you.  What non-smoking non-gun
would you want?
 
>The USDA is mandated (and budgeted) to enforce the Animal Welfare Act and
>to also protect the public from filthy diseased meat and poultry.
 
The USDA covers ALL aspects of agriculture.  They are the ones responsible
for vaccines for your pets which has nothing to do with diseased meat and
poultry.  They cover plant crops as well as livestock.
 
>They are notorious for "looking the other way" in both instances.
 
Well then the negatives in their inspection report are as suspect as the
positives.  Can't have it both ways.
 
bill and diane killian
zen and the art of ferrets
http://www.zenferret.com/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 2329]