Dear Mark,
We are writing to request that "SLANDER and DEFAMATION"
material be removed from the www.fins.actwin.com discussions web pages
about our product, the ECO-Aqualizer.
Defined: "Slander and Defamation - are the utterance of false charges or
misrepresentations meant to defame and damage another persons reputation.
It is illegal."
After meeting we are our attorney, Trey Henderson, it has been
decided for the best interest of all parties involved, to cordially
attempt and request that the following post be removed.
April 28, 2003 from Rex Grigg
April 23, 2003 from Jerry B
We request that these two post be removed immediately. Such remarks as
"SNAKE OIL" is considered slander, especially when the author, publisher,
printer, or party involved has willingly confessed that he or she has not
tried, purchased, tested, or validated such defamatory remarks. But
chooses to post remarks.
True we live in a society of f reedom of speech. But when such a
defamatory remark is posted to the world via the internet and the
business' sales ratio drops by a dramatic amount greater than proceeding
months of sales, one must review the recorded statistics to determine the
loss potential dated from this April 23rd and forward.
Since sales are generated solely by internet transactions, it is only
obvious that search engine results are the main driver of this business.
In the event of the above posts which appear on the front page of GOOGLE
search engine , items 3 and 4, have been a significant main source of such
defamatory issues and thereof.
In all civil actions for slander and libel the falsity of the
injurious statements is an essential element, so that the defendant is
always entitled to justify his statements by their truth; but when the
statements are in themselves defamatory, their falsity is presumed, and
the burden of proving their truth is laid upon the defendant. The gen eral
theory of law with regard to these cases is this. It is assumed that in
every case of defamation intention is a
necessary element; but in the ordinary case, when a statement is false and
defamatory, the law presumes that it has been made or published with an
evil intent, and will not allow this presumption to be rebutted by
evidence or submitted as matter of fact to a jury. But there are certain
circumstances in which the natural presumption is quite the other way.
There are certain natural and proper occasions on which statements may be
made which are in themselves defamatory,
and which may be false, but which naturally suggest that the
statements may have been made from a perfectly proper motive. In the cases
of this kind which are recognized by law, the presumption is reversed. It
lies with the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by what is
called express malice, by an intention to do harm and in this case the
question is not one of legal in ference for the court, but a matter of
fact to be decided by the jury. Although however, the theory of the law
seems to rest entirely upon natura
presumption of intention, it is pretty clear that in determining the
limits of privilege the courts have been almost wholly guided by
considerations of public or general expediency.
Papers published under the authority of parliament are protected by a
special act, 3 & 4 Vict c. 9, 1840, which was passed after a decree of the
law court adverse to the privilege claimed. The general rule now is that
all reports of parliamentary or judicial proceedings are privileged in so
far as they are honest. Even ex parte proceedings,in so far as they take
place in public, now fall within the same rule. But if the report is
garbled, the party who is injured in
consequence is entitled to maintain an action, and to have the
question of malice submitted to a jury.
As a cordial request, I ask that the po st be removed within 5 days. After
speaking with the Editor, Mark Rosenstein, he has indicated that he would
remove the post if contacted by the parties to do so. Otherwise, FINS will
take no responsiblility due to the fact that these post are in the
"mailing list archives". And authors of such post will be solely responsible.
If not removed, our attorney will have no other remedy but to see that
justice is upheld and that such Slander and Defamation is valued in a
court of law. If and when this takes place, we will sought after all
parties involved, whether author, writer, publisher, and or moderators to
be held fully liable for the valuation accessed by the courts.
I will add that the statements made by Rex Griggs, have not only been
damaging to ECO-Aqualizer Corp., but also may have cost many deaths within
the fish aquarium community. I strongly suggest that all parties should
find out more about ECO-Aqualizer and our intent of saving fishes lives.
Our product may be the biggest impact in this industry in saving marine
fish with the introduction into captivity. As a fellow hobbyist, one must
ask themselves, do I care about the fish? Or do I NOT care about their
well-being?
Please see APPMA statistical results about the percentage of fish deaths
within the marine hobby. The numbers are mind-boggling. The intent of
ECO-Aqualizer is to significantly decrease those numbers.
Mark Rosenstein has given ECO-Aqualizer these email addresses as a
correspondence of contact. Please RESPOND back to avoid further
complications. Please respond to Mark Rosenstein, Editor of FINS, as well
to update and remove such unvalidated remarks.
Sincerely,
Carl Denzer , President
In Heaven We were formed...
In Hell We were trained..
On Earth We were released...
United States Marine Corps
Semper Fi