More On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Most often used by developers)--click title link for the full story!

Here is an article from a blog which better explains SLAPP-suits and why/how they are used. More than half of all states in the U.S. have legislation on the books to stop these type of frivilous lawsuits:

Thursday, -- 2006

LEGAL UPDATE: MOTION TO DISMISS SLAPP LAWSUIT #2
I have received numerous emails from people who wanted more information or clarification on my motion to dismissed the lawsuit filed by Blois Olson.

Because Blois Olson has done nothing to resolve the lawsuit in over 90 days, I believe Blois Olson filed this lawsuit to intimidate and silence me. This is called a SLAPP lawsuit.

SLAPP is an acronym for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." SLAPPs are lawsuits aimed at silencing a plaintiff's opponents. The purpose of the SLAPP is not to win, but to intimidate the SLAPP defendant and to chill petition and/or free speech rights.

One court has explained the characteristics of SLAPP suits as follows: SLAPP suits are brought to obtain an economic advantage over the defendant, not to vindicate a legally cognizable right of the plaintiff. Indeed, one of the common characteristics of a SLAPP suit is its lack of merit. But lack of merit is not of concern to the plaintiff because the plaintiff does not expect to succeed in the lawsuit; only to tie up the defendants' resources for a sufficient length of time to accomplish plaintiff's underlying objective. . . . (for the rest of this story click the title link above).


from http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2006/03/legal-update-motion-to-dismiss-slapp_30.html

________________

Comment: The SLAPP-suit of Johnson development against Sienna homeowners enters its first year this August. Typically these cases can run 3-13 years when not settled early (according to the SLAPP research). Classic SLAPPs involve a target (defendent), smears, are very expensive to the target, environmental, chill the community and the goal is usually not to win but to inflict financial harm on the opponent in order to silence them from current or future public activity. . . stay tuned for more as we update this story! Attempts to stop this type of litigation in Texas has failed on several levels. Land developers use them most often according to Canen & Pring (1996).