AlphaWolf said:
You're right and that's what [H]'s suit was all about. It forced infinium to act or withdraw.
That's a rather strange perception...
Let's review: [H] receives a private, written grievance from a party who has a problem with an unbsubstantiated, unattributed article [H] has written months earlier which is now an archive and is being read by almost no one currently (if anyone.) The aggrieved party states that the article contains false and defamatory information about him and his company and proposes a simple remedy. The party further states that if [H] will not comply then as the aggrieved party he will be *forced* to sue to get satisfaction, considering the nature of the defamatory remarks the article makes.
What is unclear about that? Hence, there was no need for [H] to do anything at all to "get Infinium to act," as you put it, since Infinium had clearly stated an intention to act in the absence of the remedy it asked for.
Additionally, the statute referenced in public comments made by [H]'s lawyers clearly isn't relevant to the [H] vs. Infinium situation as publicized and characterized by [H]. The only logical conclusion to be reached then is that the Texas suit brought by [H] was a bluff to attempt to test the mettle of Infinum. Now, facing a suit in Florida Federal court, [H] apparently believes that Infinium meant what it said in its original letter. Somebody at [H] apparently needs to learn to read a bit better, since [H]'s "preemptive" suit was wholly unnecessary to engage the attention of Infinium...
The [H] article was quite enough in itself to accomplish that, and the letter about which [H] complains proves that [H]'s "preemptive" suit had nothing to do with engaging Infinium's attention, since Infinium's grievance letter to [H] predates [H]'s "preemptive" suit.
Rather than a "preemptive" suit, which would only serve to provoke Infinium to sue in return, my advice would have been for [H] to keep the matter private, engage Infinium in a constructive dialogue, and settle the matter outside a courtroom. Considering the remedy that Infinium proposed was so incredibly light and unburdensome, I am still in awe at [H]'s conduct, which seems just a tad shy of "mad-hatter" material...
Why should they comply? I don't think it's a secret that Kyle is a stubborn sob anyway, but for the most part I would call their article an accurate depiction of the bad joke that is Infinium. Pyramid schemes and florida land are better investments imo.
When someone writes you a *private* letter in relation to your professional business activities, public or private, in which a specific grievance is stated, a remedy proposed, and a lawsuit is threatened in the absence of the relief asked for, you have two choices:
(1) You can react by exploding with righteous indignation and wrapping yourself in a cloak of holy sanctity, denying the validity and reality of the grievance you've received, and deluding yourself into thinking that your cloak will be an effective shield against the slings and arrows of the wicked person who dares to challenge you--which means you respond by publicly ridiculing the person who has privately stated his grievance, publicly ridiculing the grievance itself, publicly demanding that the person "prove the charges false," and then by publicly suing the person "preemptively." (Heh...
I still can't get over the whackiness and utter futility of that strategy.)
(2) You can take the matter seriously while it is in the private, non-litigation phase, and try dialogue--private dialogue--with the aggrieved party in order to work out a private solution palatable to both parties, with the goal of keeping the matter private and avoiding courtrooms and lawyers. Again, considering that [H] has always known it had no *direct proof* of the allegations it made in the article, which is tantamount to being on the losing end of a libel suit, should one be filed over libelous or defamatory remarks, and considering that the remedy proposed by Infinium was *so incredibly light*, I find it remarkable that [H] did not comply. The private letter Infinium sent to [H] did not merely threaten a suit, it offered a *remedy to avoid a suit*--and the cost of compliance for [H] would have been nil.
People often do not understand that denying the reality of a complaint and wishing it wasn't so, and talking to your family and friends about the "injustice of it all" does not excuse you from taking it seriously and responding to it. You cannot wish these things away by denying that they are real. That is why [H] should have complied with Infinium's original settlement offer, in my opinion. Had [H] done so no one outside of [H] and Infinium would have known about any of this, the matter would have been concluded, and the impact of [H]'s original article would have remained undiminished. In short, had it complied, [H]'s "victory" would have been total and complete, and without any need for lawyers and courts. But by taking choice #1 above instead of choice #2, [H] has already lost, in my opinion.
In a situation like this, apart from the two choices above, there are no others. Whatever the "truth" is about Infinium--that is irrelevant to [H]'s current situation, which is that [H] must *prove* that what *[H] said* in the article about Infinium and about Robbins is true. That is the only way for [H] to avoid losing, and that's going to be a much tougher, much more expensive row to hoe than compliance with Infinum's original remedy would have been. Because...suppose the Internet rumor and scuttlebutt the [H] article is based on is....wrong? Suppose it is wrong, horribly incomplete, and like so much of Internet scuttlebutt, not worth the e-paper it is written on? [H] will find itself in a very humiliating public posture, not to mention embroiled in a very expensive process.
Here's the thing: it must be assumed that had [H] any real proof that investors or other people were being "defrauded" by Infinium in any manner, then it follows that proof would have been included in the [H] article as such proof would have legitimized the article and pretty much have rendered it immune to charges of libel or defamatory speech. What would "proof" consist of? A few things come to mind:
(1) Quotes from named and fully identified individuals working with Robbins or Infinum who claim to have been defrauded in that relationship.
(2) Quotes from fully identified Infinium investors who would go on record saying that they believed they'd been so defrauded by Robbins/Infinium.
(3) Records from Florida state courts which demonstrate that Infinium/Robbins are currently being sued by investors or other people over fraudulent dealings--these would be public record, I believe, in Florida. Also, records of civil judgments in prior cases where Robbins and his companies lost fraud damage cases in prior years relating to other companies and ventures would have added validity to the article's charges that Robbins is a con man with a history of cons.
(4) Since fraud is not only a civil offense but is also a criminal offense, any information [H] could dig up pertaining to specific criminal investigations in Florida targeting Infinium and/or Robbins for fraud would serve as further proof, and insulate [H] from charges of libel or defamatory speech, in my opinion. Does Robbins have a prior criminal record in Florida for fraud con, etc.
(5) Quotes from indentified law-enforcement officials in Florida involved in those investigations, and willing even to just admit that Infinium was being investigated, would have been absolutely super...
These are just a few of the things [H] should have included in its article prior to accusing both a company and its principals of fraud. These are things any professional journalist would know without having to be reminded. Obviously, [H] does not understand these things.
Now, had [H] actually made a convincing proof of its allegations by way of the avenues I suggest above, and more, I'd be congratulating [H] on some very good, sound, investigative reporting and my opinion would be that [H] has nothing to worry about. The reason my opinion is as it is, though, is because in reading the [H] article I saw no proof in it of any of the charges made, nor did I see anything in the article which would cause me to believe [H] had any such proof. The thing is that regurgitating unattributed Internet forum rumor simply does not constitute proof of anything. [H] has no excuse for not knowing that, imo.
In the absence of proof, the [H] article makes lots of defamatory charges while making no effort to prove any of them. Take the "house" thing, for instance, which I'll *paraphrase* as I recall it:
"Last time I talked to Robbins he was bragging that he'd raised $25M for Infinium and the Phantom, and next thing you know, he's building a $4M house."
The clear inference and thrust of these remarks as printed in the [H] article is that Robbins raised $25M from investors and stole $4M of it to build himself a house. The only problem is that the [H] article makes only the charges--it provides *no proof whatever* that:
(a) Robbins raised $25M, or $1, for that matter
(b) That Robbins has personal, unsupervised, carte blanche access to whatever money his investors have put up for the Phantom
(c) That Robbins owns a $4M home, or any home, for that matter
(d) What kind of mortgage exists on Robbins' home in terms of how much of it was financed, whatever it cost, if Robbins owns a home
(e) What Robbins' income may be, outside of Infinium, if any (the article does not even consider this question)
(f) That whatever money Robbins used to purchase whatever home he has was in any way money improperly appropriated via the defrauding of Infinium investors (whoever they may be)
I could on on here and say a lot more about just this one specific example. I hope it will illustrate how much easier it is to make scurrilous charges than it is to prove them...
That's why I think [H] should have jumped at Infinium's offer as it was originally made.
Basically, to even think [H]'s charges credible *as he presented them*, we have to believe that Robbins is an obvious crook, but that investors there, specifically the Infinium investors, not to mention the local and state police in Florida, are all undisputed, total morons, and that while Robbins steals and pilfers from them in broad daylight with wild abandon, gorging himself conspicuously with his ill-gotten riches, they see nothing at all and have no conception that he is ripping them off....
If you are like me, you find that prospect highly unlikely. Heh...
Understand that I'm not "taking sides" on the Infinium issue. The truth is that I *know nothing* about Infinium, Robbins, or its investors. I'm addressing my comments to the notion that [H] knows as much about Infinium as I do, but has decided to print public charges of moral turpitude against the company and its principals that it feels it does not have to investigate and prove (if you haven't proved your points you have not investigated them.) And that, precisely, is why this situation has developed as it has, in my opinion, apart from the reality that if [H] had simply silently removed the article as *asked* none of this would ever have come to public attention, and there'd be *no* situation for [H] to deal with at all with regard to Infinium. I worry for [H] that its article is long on spurious defamation and almost completely void of verified fact. If it gets to court, it is fact that [H] will need--the rest doesn't count.
