[pct-l] A potential mining operation along the PCT

[Judith G]

Sounds like a SLAPP suit to me ... here's how Wikipedia defines it:

> Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") was  
> originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to  
> influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a  
> civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment  
> individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public  
> interest or social significance.[1] It has been defined more  
> broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection  
> with a public issue.[2] This form of litigation is frequently filed  
> by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics  
> or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so  
> that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was  
> coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope  
> Canan and George W. Pring.
>
> The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure §  
> 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of  
> litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a  
> defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint  
> where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the  
> rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to  
> any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under  
> consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial  
> proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but  
> there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated  
> directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a  
> public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other  
> petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
>
> The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from  
> amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special  
> motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the  
> trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action.  
> Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any  
> subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable  
> attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have  
> interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.
>
> California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the  
> anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6,  
> 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to  
> certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions  
> that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18,  
> signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP  
> victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious  
> prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys  
> after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed.

Two Legs