>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]