I just love how Ultra Liberals wish to silence the entire world. Facts are just no longer politically correct.

If you beleive everyone posting is this sock puppet ( ridiculous name) why operate a blog in the first place.

No agency is without its critics, it is part of the territory. An occasional complaint from clients or the public should not unduly threaten an otherwise decent agency nor would it likely turn away customers unless it was coupled with other red flags like history of arrests and firings.

Ironically, I can’t imagine anything that would scare away business faster than an agency that sues people who dare to criticize it.

Karl Petersen: Neurodoc, how can you believe this totally silly lawsuit? It sounds almost ridiculously exaggerated. When you say yes, your overseas employee was arrested, but it’s not relevant because it was “politically motivated”? And then you expect us to believe the rest of this?A lot of these people who run international adoption agencies are either shady or mentally unstable, and a little bit of both. From the wild allegations made here and the sweeping nature of the relief sought, I’d say Ms. Sizemore is probably both. These read like the vengeful fantasies of someone with borderline personality disorder, something that won’t survive a motion for summary dismissal. I like the offer of proof … one affidavit saying “I could swear to this under oath”. Where’s the redacted printouts of the alleged emails? Huh? Do they even exist? I doubt it.What kind of lawyer would have taken a case this shoddy and emotionally driven? I have zero respect for this “Internet Law center” operation. You’d think they’d have found out where the defendant actually lives and works instead of just saying, well, we think she lives in this city and works here.EV, has the defendant responded? It would be interesting to see what they say in response.

OK, I only skimmed it and assumed the plaintiff wouldn’t be complaining of reports that she had been arrested abroad and fired here, if those weren’t just defamatory, but false too. Probably shouldn’t have rushed to judgment like that, so will take back my expression of support until the facts are established, if that ever happens. (And maybe Kazinski‘s speculation that this is two nut cases going at it will prove correct (or incorrect, I don’t know).

If one is being seriously cyber-smeared, that is truly libeled and damaged, how much does it take to put a stop to it and how does one go about it? It’s a different game when it is going on in cyberspace than in print, isn’t it, with things move much, much faster and reaching much, much farther.

Any mega victories by those who have been cybersmeared? What are the practicalities when going after a cybersmearer as opposed to a “traditional” libeler/slanderer?

A lot of these people who run international adoption agencies are either shady or mentally unstable, and a little bit of both. From the wild allegations made here and the sweeping nature of the relief sought, I’d say Ms. Sizemore is probably both. These read like the vengeful fantasies of someone with borderline personality disorder, something that won’t survive a motion for summary dismissal. I like the offer of proof … one affidavit saying “I could swear to this under oath”. Where’s the redacted printouts of the alleged emails? Huh? Do they even exist? I doubt it.

What kind of lawyer would have taken a case this shoddy and emotionally driven? I have zero respect for this “Internet Law center” operation. You’d think they’d have found out where the defendant actually lives and works instead of just saying, well, we think she lives in this city and works here.

EV, has the defendant responded? It would be interesting to see what they say in response.

Provided that the facts are as alleged by the plaintiffs, and I have no reason to doubt that they are, my sympathies are with them and I hope they prevail, though EV thinks the law doesn’t favor them, at least not at this stage going for an ex parte TRO.