Friday, January 10, 2014

Let's Adopt Global Defamation Lawsuit Update

Some months ago I wrote about the lawsuit initiated by Let's Adopt! Global, an organization with no small number of detractors. I promised I would provide an update as the case progressed.

Today I spoke to the Worcester Superior Court clerk's office. As it presently stands the case has been "frozen" until May. The judge presiding has given Let's Adopt Global additional time to attempt to prove jurisdiction in Massachusetts. Keep in mind this ruling only pertains to those defendants who have been properly and legally served, less than one third the number of individuals named in this case.

As for the rest of us? It appears that not one person named in the lawsuit who lives outside the United States has been served. Let's Adopt! Global maintains that we are cowardly hiding from the law. For whatever reason, Let's Adopt! Global was given a three month extension after the first three months elapsed. They were then given another three month extension. To my knowledge in the past nine months no one else outside the United States has been served, and it is unlikely they even tried to serve others. According to the court clerk, no further extension has been granted.

Should the organization wish to continue to persist that is their legal right. I can speak for no other individual named in this lawsuit but I can say I find it incredibly unsettling that the organization would attempt to continue with the case and again plea to its donors to fund any such action, when they have publicly stated not only did they need to use donor funds to pay for the case, Let's Adopt! Global also stated they did not have enough funds to pay for the animals in their care. Though again that is their right, as it is the right of any individual to donate to what I can only assume to be an ever increasing legal fund.

In the meantime Let's Adopt Global representatives have continued to attempt to sway public opinion by stating they have uncovered "criminal" pasts of the defendants, and claim they have records they intend to release.. This comes as no surprise to any of us. After all, this is the organization that publicly published our names and home addresses. I can not imagine why they would do such a thing. They even sent out a personal message to me with some very kind words :





OK so the words weren't that kind. Obviously the video merits no response. So there it is folks, it turns out the only thing that may be "pecedent setting" about this lawsuit is the fact that so few people named in the suit have actually been served. Should I ever find myself named in any other court case initiated by Let's Adopt! Global I will do exactly what I did this time. I will pay it little heed and as always, will stick to donating to my local no-kill shelters. Spending any funds, donated or otherwise for this kind of legal action may serve ego, revenge, or an attempt to silence others, but does not serve the animals. After all, isn't that what this should be about?


Tags : Viktor Larkhill, Ivan Jiminez Chacon Valencia Spain, Raciel Fernandez Southbridge Massachusetts, Gina Vodegal Dark Side

7 comments:

  1. What a great article. Lets Adopt Global actually DID have my name and full postal address written down correctly but the founder publicily stated they couldnt find me regardless of that fact lol.
    Also, I am not one of the 'defendants' with a 'criminal record' but I do have a lawyer and she and I are both looking forward with eager anticipation to seeing the records they are claiming they have, posted on Facebook no doubt.
    I shall share this article on my pages. Thank you for setting the record straight

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes they seem to have had trouble serving everybody outside the U.S. Maybe their lawyer informed them that seeking any such judgement from, say Germany or Scotland, might be somewhat jurisdictionally difficult. Makes one wonder why they would serve so many foreigners.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Still waiting for summons. Nor do I have a criminal past.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What kind of charity posts a video like that? They just look for whatever they can pick on someone for, anything to pull the attention away from what the real issues are with their organization. Their posts about finding criminal histories on people reminds me of how Scientologists have tried to discredit people who speak out against them. Is that where they got their PR playbook from? In the words of Hubbard himself:

    "Show me any person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end."

    "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
    Sound familiar?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I live in the USA. I wasn't served, but I DID go down to the local authorities and personally asked for my papers. I will gladly defend my statements against this group! Everything I have said was repeated from their web pages and out of their own mouths. Also, if they want to show the world my "criminal record", which consists of a few dismissed traffic tickets, that is their right. But what are they hiding? I just find it interesting how they continue to call people "haters" who only ask how their donations are being spent. I think that's a valid question for anyone donating to a group!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes I too have been labelled a "hater", so many times now that I have come to wear the label as a badge of honour. As for the threats to post records, it's nothing but a deflecting sideshow. If these records are of any importance it is for a judge to determine. I've seen board members publicly post directly to individuals that they have defaulted, yet it is simply not true. There has been absolutely no ruling on default, and will be no ruling until May at the earliest. I guess we will simply have to wait until then to see what a judge thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't been served & I'm the one in Edinburgh, Scotland. I've nothing to hide & nothing to fear. My only reason to have caution with my privacy is that they have no problem targeting the children of those who speak out against them. How horrific that we must do so from a public organisation who relies on the public for their money to 'rescue'? animals & pay for their slapp suit. I' m looking forward to the court case ending. It will be a very publicised result.

    ReplyDelete