6 ICSA TODAY
who don’t want to be involved in these cases and who are easy
to push around.”
In his experience, Mr. Skolnik has typically seen the following
strategies: The opposing counsel buries the defendant
in unnecessary, never-ending, overarching discovery.
Independent law offices don’t have the resources to manage
the relentless document demands. They also commonly
intimidate through depositions—subpoenaing the defendant’s
friends, family, and close associates. Legal fees, and stress,
accumulate.
When asked why the court system allows such frivolous
litigation, Mr. Skolnik explained that, when a complaint is filed,
courts are obligated to respond, regardless of the merit of the
complaint. If the defendant doesn’t respond, the court has to
do something.
“One way or another, the wheels of the court system have to
begin,” he said.
How long they grind on is one of those issues that
circle back to how intelligently the lawyer who
represents the defendant is able to start pushing the
right buttons. But is it an abuse of the court system? I
think it absolutely is.
There is no established infrastructure to weed out frivolous
suits. Mr. Skolnik said that one of his cases has been grinding on
since 2006 the cult in question files continuous lawsuits against
detractors.
Mr. Skolnik said,
If you leave that group, you’re likely to be sued on
some trumped-up charges that will cost you so much
to defend that you are forced into bankruptcy. When
you are forced into bankruptcy, they will litigate
that you should not be allowed a discharge in the
bankruptcy
They have done this to 10 people whose names I can
give you. They litigate and litigate and litigate they
have destroyed lives. They have harassed almost to
the grave. It is simply their strategy. It is simply their
way of saying, “You mess with us, you’re going to be
very sorry.”
His experiences paint a grim picture. However, he offered
some “right buttons” to push when taking on cultic litigation.
The lawyers must begin, he said, by educating the judge
about the group, exposing patterns of cultic practices that
include frivolous litigation and other such maneuvers against
detractors. He said,
Some judges get it pretty quickly and they know
what they are dealing with others either don’t get it,
or, for one reason or another, are unwilling to clamp
their fist[s] down on overreaching, onerous, harassing
litigation tactics by the cults. Between lawyers who
don’t really know what they are getting themselves
in for and judges who don’t become sufficiently and
quickly enough educated to know what they are
dealing with, that can cause problems all around.
Additionally, he calls defamation claims “the horse that draws
the cart,” the central claim in most cases other charges may
be tagged on, but typically these suits rely primarily on
defamation. Federal defamation laws have become more
sympathetic to defendants over the past 30 years. Federal
First Amendment constitutional principles that protect the
defendant must be applied by state courts. For example,
defendants previously had to prove that their statements
were true now the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the
allegedly defamatory statements are not true.
“One tip I would have for a lawyer who is taking on one of
these cases, and has very little experience, is to learn the law of
defamation,” Mr. Skolnik said.
There is very likely to be far more protection for your
client, because one of the rules in a defamation claim
is that the plaintiff has to say exactly what it is that
your client said that the plaintiff thinks is defamatory.
Additionally, the defamatory statement must be factual—
statements of opinion are not actionable. Therefore, plaintiffs
must provide a specific statement and cannot modify the filing
unless the court grants permission.
“Defamation cases are always about what freedom of
expression really means, what you are allowed to say and what
you are not allowed to say,” he said. “Defamation law is also, by
definition, state law. There are federal constitutional principles,
but the specifics of defamation law are a state-by-state matter.”
However, when that plaintiff is a public figure, the First
Amendment has an additional requirement: The plaintiff
must prove that the defendant knew he was lying when the
statement was made.
Mr. Skolnik said,
They essentially have to really prove that “the
defendant is really just doing this to bug me. He or
she knows that it’s a lie, or that it’s likely a lie, but is
just hoping to get away with it.”
Additionally, he reported, “Cults do not like discovery aimed
at their finances.” Oftentimes, when facing a court-upheld
document request for financial papers, a cult will withdraw its
case.
Even those who could afford
representation found most lawyers
unwilling to take on cult cases. Those
lawyers who did take on the cases
were unprepared for the cultic legal
strategies … Attorney Peter Skolnik
is the exception…
who don’t want to be involved in these cases and who are easy
to push around.”
In his experience, Mr. Skolnik has typically seen the following
strategies: The opposing counsel buries the defendant
in unnecessary, never-ending, overarching discovery.
Independent law offices don’t have the resources to manage
the relentless document demands. They also commonly
intimidate through depositions—subpoenaing the defendant’s
friends, family, and close associates. Legal fees, and stress,
accumulate.
When asked why the court system allows such frivolous
litigation, Mr. Skolnik explained that, when a complaint is filed,
courts are obligated to respond, regardless of the merit of the
complaint. If the defendant doesn’t respond, the court has to
do something.
“One way or another, the wheels of the court system have to
begin,” he said.
How long they grind on is one of those issues that
circle back to how intelligently the lawyer who
represents the defendant is able to start pushing the
right buttons. But is it an abuse of the court system? I
think it absolutely is.
There is no established infrastructure to weed out frivolous
suits. Mr. Skolnik said that one of his cases has been grinding on
since 2006 the cult in question files continuous lawsuits against
detractors.
Mr. Skolnik said,
If you leave that group, you’re likely to be sued on
some trumped-up charges that will cost you so much
to defend that you are forced into bankruptcy. When
you are forced into bankruptcy, they will litigate
that you should not be allowed a discharge in the
bankruptcy
They have done this to 10 people whose names I can
give you. They litigate and litigate and litigate they
have destroyed lives. They have harassed almost to
the grave. It is simply their strategy. It is simply their
way of saying, “You mess with us, you’re going to be
very sorry.”
His experiences paint a grim picture. However, he offered
some “right buttons” to push when taking on cultic litigation.
The lawyers must begin, he said, by educating the judge
about the group, exposing patterns of cultic practices that
include frivolous litigation and other such maneuvers against
detractors. He said,
Some judges get it pretty quickly and they know
what they are dealing with others either don’t get it,
or, for one reason or another, are unwilling to clamp
their fist[s] down on overreaching, onerous, harassing
litigation tactics by the cults. Between lawyers who
don’t really know what they are getting themselves
in for and judges who don’t become sufficiently and
quickly enough educated to know what they are
dealing with, that can cause problems all around.
Additionally, he calls defamation claims “the horse that draws
the cart,” the central claim in most cases other charges may
be tagged on, but typically these suits rely primarily on
defamation. Federal defamation laws have become more
sympathetic to defendants over the past 30 years. Federal
First Amendment constitutional principles that protect the
defendant must be applied by state courts. For example,
defendants previously had to prove that their statements
were true now the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the
allegedly defamatory statements are not true.
“One tip I would have for a lawyer who is taking on one of
these cases, and has very little experience, is to learn the law of
defamation,” Mr. Skolnik said.
There is very likely to be far more protection for your
client, because one of the rules in a defamation claim
is that the plaintiff has to say exactly what it is that
your client said that the plaintiff thinks is defamatory.
Additionally, the defamatory statement must be factual—
statements of opinion are not actionable. Therefore, plaintiffs
must provide a specific statement and cannot modify the filing
unless the court grants permission.
“Defamation cases are always about what freedom of
expression really means, what you are allowed to say and what
you are not allowed to say,” he said. “Defamation law is also, by
definition, state law. There are federal constitutional principles,
but the specifics of defamation law are a state-by-state matter.”
However, when that plaintiff is a public figure, the First
Amendment has an additional requirement: The plaintiff
must prove that the defendant knew he was lying when the
statement was made.
Mr. Skolnik said,
They essentially have to really prove that “the
defendant is really just doing this to bug me. He or
she knows that it’s a lie, or that it’s likely a lie, but is
just hoping to get away with it.”
Additionally, he reported, “Cults do not like discovery aimed
at their finances.” Oftentimes, when facing a court-upheld
document request for financial papers, a cult will withdraw its
case.
Even those who could afford
representation found most lawyers
unwilling to take on cult cases. Those
lawyers who did take on the cases
were unprepared for the cultic legal
strategies … Attorney Peter Skolnik
is the exception…
