Angry Conspiracy nuts
I run an Australian forum. I do it as a hobby and have been doing it since the year 2000.

A few months ago a conspiracy nutter came to my site to pimp his book which claimed that nuclear bombs where used to destroy the twin towers and were also used in the Bali Bombings. These were special nukes. Ones that made no blast wave or left any radiation.
Now my site is full of geeks. Heavy on the science and very vocal on their opinions. Of course they all offered their opinions on this theory and a flame war started.

Being a busy site and me being a lazy boy I didn't notice it was going on until the conspiracy nutters posted a threat of legal action in the thread. Of course this just ramped up the flamewar. Eventually a moderator brought it to my attention and the thread was closed and the nutters banned from the site. I honestly through they where trolls considering none used the contact links to report any problems or send their legal threats.

Big mistake.

Seems this just made them madder. A few days later I got a letter from a lawyer demanding the thread be removed. Which I did. But regardless, now they are suing me for $42.5 million. No, I'm not joking. $42.5 million freaking dollars. We've had two court appearances so far, they tried to have the site closed by court order even though the material is removed and they've even put in a trademark application on my sites name to force it to close.

The reason they are suing me is because they had a mysterious Russian man funding a documentary they were going to make about the book. And according to them, a comment on my site caused the mysterious backer to pull out. Mind you, the same comment was also posted on two other forums and on their own blog (which still remains) by a person they’d pissed off.

So basically. If you do come across one of these nutters. Be careful, if you need further proof that this isn’t bullshit then go www.zgeek.com/index.php?page=legal I promise you I’m not making this up!
(ZGeek, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 3:54, 35 replies)

thats a special kinda bomb
No radiation, no blast wave etc. So it was a nuclear bomb without the nuclear bit...
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 3:57, closed)

No
it was a nuclear bomb, without the nuclear bomb bit.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 8:38, closed)

so
when this is all thrown out of court, are you counter sueing for compensation?
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 4:00, closed)

I'm definately looking to recoup my costs.
So far it's cost around $4k AUD.

If their is ever a topic on "Worse day ever" I'll have to resubmit this story. Because they day I got the notice of the action, I also got a parking ticket and then crashed my car on the way home (not serious).
(ZGeek, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 4:05, closed)

but what about the ones that sued?
I went through all your stuff. i just dont see how they can get away with all this. ANd the trademark thing is just stupid. You can probably do something about that as well, thats an obvious attempt to shut you down. twats.

Im in sydney, im thinking about finding him now..
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 4:40, closed)

EFA
The EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia) have actually hooked me up with a lawyer pro-bono to fight the trademark. I actually got all my readers to send a polite email to the trademarks office about it and explaining the situation. They are now investigating it as a malicious application so it's probably going to be denied.
(ZGeek, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 4:45, closed)

but all that happens then
is he gets told its denied. he is deliberatly going out of his way to harrass you, surely there is something the lawyers can do there? just being told no you cant slap a trademark infringement notice on you wont stop him..
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 4:52, closed)

Yup
What can I say? The guy really doesn't like me. There is no way to stop him applying for the trademark.
(ZGeek, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 5:01, closed)

murder
is always an option...
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 5:20, closed)

i would like to point out
that was a general statement and in no way meant as a defamatory comment that may or may not result in me being sued for the net worth of a particular persons life value..approx. $17.25, and a bag of twisties...
(danglesmurf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 5:21, closed)

Bloody hell!
Good luck with it all.

These accusers sound a right couple of wankers
( LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 8:37, closed)

crikey fella
best of luck to you in sorting that out!
Reading through the site, it sounds like hell on earth for you. :(
( The Great Architect is still waiting for his account to be deleted on, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:03, closed)

Deserves a click from me.
I didn't think an idle comment on an internet forum could be considered libelious, as it is simply a statement of opinion. If I made an idle comment such as 'Barrack Obama rapes goats', is that really libel?

They'll lose, and then you'll be able to counter-sue the bastards.
(Flap Burger hasn't really got a burger made of flaps, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:21, closed)

the problem is
that countersuing/ getting a costs order when he wins will be an empty judgment as these guys probably don't have any real assets and he'll be chasing his tail through the courts trying to get his money back for the next decade or so... which sucks.
(MostlySunny, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 12:12, closed)

Isn't that
how you make sheeple in the first place? :)
(Ellinikos contains a source of phenylalanine, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 15:47, closed)

Bloody hell...
I will never flippantly say "Internets, SERIOUS STUFF!" or "Calm down dear, it's just the internet" again.

I didnt realise things could get so out of hand on the information super highway. Good luck, i'm sure it'll all be thrown out of court as a complete waste of time.
( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:27, closed)

Jesus-cunting-Christ !!!
You get a click from me for this... 42.5 M, you say? Isn't that the going rate on the black market for one of these phony nuclear bombs which don't include the nuclear bit? Is the correspondence you receive from these lunatics signed Lex Luthor, by any chance?
( SpankyHanky, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:35, closed)

CRIPES MAN!
good luck
( kingsuperspecial is in an audience, wanking furiously, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:37, closed)

how awful : (
Hope it all works out well : )
(jellyfish wish, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:44, closed)

Bloody hell!
Not just a nutter, but a nutter with lawyers!
Hope it all works out for you (I'm sure it will). *click*
( VandenPlas can't think of anything clever - no change there!, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:47, closed)

You'll be asking your boss for a raise, I imagine
Best of luck dealing with these fucken lunatics
(Accounts Dracula, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:50, closed)

thats terrible
but in a strange sort of way I feel better about that unpaid gas bill I have now
(Jelly God, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:52, closed)

have read through a bunch of links from this stuff
seems like the guy has been nice and defamatory right back at you calling you a sociopath and such.

it's difficult to believe that someone could credit, and argue, such ridiculous ideas anyway, and then to get the courts involved...boggles the mind.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 9:57, closed)

Fucking hell.
Good luck with all this, mate, is all I can say really.
( Prequal This is serious business. Very serious., Wed 2 Sep 2009, 10:30, closed)

Australia's libel laws
suck ass.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 10:39, closed)

I
had a similar thing happen to me at the turn of the year.

Eventually it was dropped - but not before costs and reputation was lost.

The problem with libel law is that no-one wins. Everyone loses apart from the lawyers.
(dchurch bah, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 12:06, closed)

Let me get this straight
In Australia, if you suffer from mental illness and believe a series of ridiculous, unprovable theories that may as well be fairy tales, but someone else disagrees with you ONLINE, then you can ruin the FORUM OWNER'S life and/or business on a whim? So you can simply open a baseless, obviously malicious lawsuit then sit back and watch as the unfortunate victim of your pernicious legal action deals with the hurdles enforced and protected by statute?

That is truly absurd. It reduces the concept of 'burden of proof' to nothing and makes Australia's legal system look like a school playground, where the bully can make anyone's life a misery if he so wishes.

Can't you just ignore these clowns until it reaches court, then let the judge throw it out? No sane judge would rule in favour of this moron, especially after his subsequent deliberate trademark poaching. It's a dictionary definition example of harassment. Did your legal team find out what case law precedents have been set already, assuming this isn't the first mockery of this particular law?
( chart cat has an itch, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 12:42, closed)

Sadly,
it's not just Australia - their laws (including defamation and libel) are based in English law.

It's prevelent here in the UK, and happens a LOT!

The only difference is that to even defend a case here would cost around 40-50k with very little chance of getting your costs awarded if it were even thrown out.

If you have a lot of money and want to destroy someone with less, it's very easy to do this way.
(dchurch bah, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 13:55, closed)

Yes, and it's very easy to destroy someone
This is because in UK law the burden of proof in defamation cases is on the defendant - the defendant has to prove they didn't defame, rather than the other way around.

The Simon Singh V the Chiropractic Association is a recent famous (ongoing) example of this.
( rofl harris, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 14:15, closed)

What if the case is clearly ridiculous
as this one is? What would happen if you just ignored the legal threats and let them take you to court, wasting their own time and money? I suppose there's a risk you might lose, but honestly, what judge would rule in favour of these idiots?
( chart cat has an itch, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 14:46, closed)

"what judge would rule..."
Well, depends on how good their legal representation was, and in this case - on the Judge's understanding of the Internet.
( rofl harris, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 15:35, closed)

That's
the problem. The law is outdated and favours the rich - possible the reason libel laws was passed in the first place.

I had a similar thing. When they realised that my company could possibly afford to defend the action, they reissued and sued me personally - again, despite me not having said anything.

Also, if what has been said is the truth...this is no defence against defamation. If the truth could damage the person, then they still have grounding for a defamation case.
(dchurch bah, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 16:21, closed)

That's why they call them conspiracy nuts
The 'nuts' bit is very appropriate. All the best with that one, mate.

And in a Stig-like twist...

Some say that the 'Greg-type' bloke has a bottom full of Bees, and that when he walks he makes a pathetic little wet slapping noise. All we know is he's called a moron*.

_{* Note this is satire, and free from prosecution. Perhaps.}
(BombayMick Dogs are better than cats, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 14:02, closed)

Does Australia know what the internet is?
I mean no offemce but, from what I have been reading recently about Australian internet laws the government there is worse than the unelected morons we're suffering under in the UK.
I'd considered Aus as a place to escape the current crop of nannys we have in the UK, but it seems we're better off.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 19:12, closed)

It gets worse
The only thing worse than proposed internet censorship law is Australian libel laws, in some states even if you can be prove what you said and was claimed to be libel, was in fact the truth, you can still lose the case and pay damages.
(danthegpi, Thu 3 Sep 2009, 9:52, closed)