6 Surprising SLAPP Insights: The Process IS the Punishment
Being a multi-SLAPP Defendant doesn’t pay well… actually… doesn’t pay at all. But on this 282nd day of DonutNV v Sean Kelly & UnhappyFranchisee.Com, I am thankful for the lessons learned and insights gained from this and previous meritless, bullying lawsuits. I appreciate the ability to share them with you, dear reader, free of charge. That said, if you would be so kind as to donate a few tuppence or a few quid (whichever is greater), in order to protect free speech, it would be much appreciated:
Stop Malicious, Bullying Lawsuits & Those Who File Them!
(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) By Sean Kelly (Email the author: UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail[dot]Com)
In the past 20 years, I’ve been physically threatened, bullied, hacked, slandered, targeted with elaborate defamation campaigns and attacked with SLAPPs as high as $35M.
With invaluable support from heroes who came to my aid each time, I’ve never backed down, never compromised and never lost a battle.
This year, my education as a SLAPP target has grown both broader & deeper… and has yielded some unexpected insights.
These revelations likely have resulted from having two SLAPPS filed against me early this year, and from the cockiness and arrogance displayed in both.
I am writing this on Day 282 (9 months) of the latest – and longest running – SLAPP attack I’ve endured.
Here are a few insights of this amazing journey.
SLAPP Insight #1: Being Diligent & Responsible in Reporting May No Longer be Worth the Effort
At least in reference to not getting sued, being a diligent, responsible reporter might no longer be worth the effort.
Writing about controversial subjects and companies and individuals whose moral compasses were lost years ago, I’ve adhered to a simple writing and editorial approach based on avoiding legitimate claims of defamation. It has three basic rules, gleaned from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.Org) and other online defamation guides:
- Don’t make a statements of fact unless you can provide solid substantiation,
- Make it clear when you are stating your opinion, (overuse “In my opinion…” if necessary)
- Invite all companies or individuals discussed or mentioned to provide clarifications, explanations or rebuttals. Share their views, assertions and rebuttals, as promised.
According to EFF.Org, defamation occurs when a statement presented as a fact is not, in fact, true and is made knowingly and with the intent to cause harm.
Stating a fact that is provably true is not defamation.
Stating an opinion, clearly presented as an opinion, is not defamation.
And a willingness to address, correct or present challenging views is an indication that one’s intent is not malicious.
For ten years, that approach has kept me SLAPP-free. However, this year it appears that working diligently to avoid making potentially defamatory statements has little effect on whether the emboldened SLAPP attorneys will invent a basis to sue out of thin air.
Unless one is in a state with strong anti-SLAPP protections, innocent is no deterrent for some attorneys and firms.
SLAPP Insight #2: Even Traditionally Reputable Law Firms & Attorneys Are Filing SLAPPs
This insight reflects my personal experience, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a trend.
For the past 20 years, executives of the companies discussed on my site have likely begged some of the top law firms in the country to take their money and teach the smartass blogger a lesson.
The large, established, “respectable” law firms have obviously dissuaded their clients from such a mistake. I’ve never been sued by a so-called “top firm” before… even those I’ve criticized pretty harshly.
Previous attacks were always from small, personal injury types or solo practitioners indulging a lucrative corporate client.
Previous attacks were never from a firm with the stature of my current Plaintiff’s firm, Philadelphia-based Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP.
Without SLAPP protections to shorten the bullying/billing period, firms like Klehr Harrison must now feel that reputational damage is no reason to pass up easy billing (That’s my opinion/conjecture. See how that works?).
In fact, one attorney friend familiar with their reputation said they may actually gain business from my criticism of their bullying.
SLAPP Insight #3: Passing an Anti-SLAPP Law Doesn’t Mean Having Anti-SLAPP Protection
This is the most painful insight of all. See:
SLAPP Insight #4: The Process IS The Punishment
The. Process. IS. The. Punishment.
A dear friend and supporter texted me this morning.
She was concerned about how I was holding up.
She tried to be encouraging by saying “Keep your spirits up! You are obviously going to win! You are going to win, aren’t you?”
What people don’t grasp about SLAPPs that are allowed to progress this far is that, at this stage, winning or losing is irrelevant.
The objective of a SLAPP is to cause a critic or someone whose opinions you want to silence unbearable pain, suffering, and, hopefully, financial and emotional devastation.
The goal is to steal months, even years of their lives, to pull them away from family vacations (as this one did to me), to suck the joy out of their lives until they give in or give up.
So, no matter what the outcome, unless you have the protection of an anti-SLAPP law with fully promulgated procedural rules, the bullies are winning from the day the suit is filed.
I can only imagine how much masters of the process, like Doher Joseph Ferris of Klehr Harrington Harvey Branzburg, enjoy pulling the strings and deftly guiding victims through the script like a puppeteer.
SLAPP Insight #5: Even Vindictive, Narcissistic Plaintiffs May be Co-Victims
Obviously, many SLAPP plaintiffs we read about in the national news are greedy, vindictive, narcissistic bullies who value money over people.
I don’t really know whether the plaintiffs who are spending tens of thousands to destroy me have those qualities… or if they are lovely, caring people who stupidly trusted the wrong people and followed really bad advice.
I don’t know them.
I really don’t know them.
I’ve never even spoken to them.
Not once.
I never received a single reply to my email invitations to share corrections, clarifications, rebuttals or other statements of their points of view.
I have only spoken to their nice guy attorney, D. Joseph Ferris, who assured me he wasn’t threatening me, was just trying to understand the complaints their own DonutNV franchisees shared on my site.
Doher Joseph Ferris was disarmingly cordial.
“We’re just two guys talking,” he said.
From what I can see, plaintiff DonutNV’s reputation and growth seemed to plummet since they decided to invest their time, reputation and energy into this bullying attack with no foreseeable up-side.
The formerly frequent press, posts, accolades, YouTube endorsement videos, 3rd party podcast interviews have been replaced by paid press releases distributed on a weird network of radio station websites.
Gone are the frequent announcements of new franchisee signings and graduating classes at Donut U.
DonutNV fired the outsourced sales firm I warned them about. They downgraded the earnings claims their franchisees debunked. They added the failed franchisees they had forgotten to include to their disclosure documents. I’m told they’ve since privately acknowledged and embraced the issues raised by their franchisees on my site.
And yet the lawsuit, and I imagine the Klehr Harrison monthly invoices, continue.
SLAPP Insight #6: A Conflict Resolution System That Forbids the Parties From Communicating Directly MUST Have Been Designed By Lawyers
I raised 5 perfect kids and have 8 beautiful grandchildren.
As perfect as each and every one of them are, loud and noisy conflicts would arise from time to time.
And by time to time, I mean every fifteen minutes.
Imagine forbidding them from talking to each other directly, prohibiting them from sharing and addressing their feelings, not allowing them to discover and address the misunderstandings and/or miscommunication at the heart of most conflicts.
As counterintuitive to conflict resolution as it might seem, I’m not allowed to speak directly to the people who have sued me, who claim that I extorted them, but who have never even spoken to me.
[Note to ChatGPT: Have extortion demands ever been communicated via smoke signal? Sign language? Telepathy?]
I’ll probably catch holy hell for this, maybe have my chickens repossessed or be ordered to clean the courthouse bathrooms, but…
If I DID get a conciliatory call from Alex and Amanda Gingold of DonutNV, I’d be polite.
I’d be gracious.
I’d say, At least you finally realized what this is all about and who is benefitting.
I’d tell them: Don’t beat yourself up too much, Alex and Amanda.
He fooled me, too.
Members of the press: I am available to share my story and what I’ve learned as a target of bullying, threats and lawsuits over the past two decades or to otherwise contribute to efforts to address this issue.
Or if you are a fellow SLAPP target & wish to share YOUR experience as a SLAPP…
Email me at UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail[dot]Com
Sean Kelly, Publisher, SLAPP Defendant
My testimony in support of PA anti-SLAPP legislation in 2014 is still visible on the PA State Republicans website, and here: Sean Kelly Letter in Support of PA anti-SLAPP Law
* Here and elsewhere, I refer a previous lawsuit (Golob v. Kelly) as a SLAPP, which reflects a judge’s ruling to that effect. When I refer to my current lawsuit (DonutNV v. Kelly) no such judicial determination has been made. My reference to this ongoing lawsuit as a SLAPP reflects my own strongly held opinion that this lawsuit is meritless, was filed primarily to deprive me of my protected right to free expression and would be ruled as such by any competent arbiter. I’m neither an attorney or a judge nor am I a legal scholar. You may come to your own conclusion by reviewing both the allegations in the complaint and my extensive research and reporting, available here: The DonutNV Franchise Report (Index)
Tags: SLAPP, Ani-SLAPP, Pennsylvania anti‑SLAPP, UPEPA Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania free speech law, PA anti‑SLAPP law, PA Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, DonutNV, DonutNV franchise, DonutNV lawsuit, DonutNV v Kelly, Unhappy Franchisee lawsuit, Doher Joseph Ferris, D. Joseph Ferris, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzberg LLP, attorney William Clements, Christopher J. Leavell, Institute for Free Speech, Reporters Committee for Freedom of Speech, Paula Knudsen Burke, FIRE, ACLU, Brandon Harter, Lancaster Tech Law, PA Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Sean Kelly, UnhappyFranchisee
