Herbalistics are threatening to shut this forum down - and to sue me

[2b]

, I just remembered, herbalistics is a company, so it doesn't matter who owns it as my statements refer to the company.

Actually just to split hairs the law only recognises 'natural born people' and 'proprietary limited' companies of which they are.

[Torsten]

herbalistics have removed all plants that I suggested to be illegal under Qld law even though they were adamant that these plants were legal. Surely my magic spell powers do not reach as far as herbalistics, ie surely they would not remove items they honestly and fully believe to be legal just because I think they are not?

Geez, could it be that I was right all along?

Sorry for being childish about this, but arguing with people time after time about laws they do not understand and havign to go as far as dealing with being sued is really tiring for someone who doesn't even like laws, so if it turns out that I am right [again] I am going to revel in that fact proportionally to the amount of arguing I had to do to get there .

No need to revel of course if someone has obtained proof positive of the laws and posts them here or on AE, in which case I'll make this whole nasty mess go away [and I probably won't even counter sue ]

[chilli]

...if it turns out that I am right [again]

Ah, yes, the burdens you must bear.

[ballzac]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. As for the fact that the statements refer to the company, I don't know if that really is relevent. You are saying that they attack your credibility on another forum etc. Those would be completely unfair comments if they referred to a company that had well and truly changed hands. You can't predict future behaviour of a company based on past behaviour if it is different people running the show. Maybe with a huge multinational it would be more accurate, but a little webstore? I don't think so.

[Torsten]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. As for the fact that the statements refer to the company, I don't know if that really is relevent. You are saying that they attack your credibility on another forum etc. Those would be completely unfair comments if they referred to a company that had well and truly changed hands. You can't predict future behaviour of a company based on past behaviour if it is different people running the show. Maybe with a huge multinational it would be more accurate, but a little webstore? I don't think so.

Just to clarify in case you didn't get it. Darren and Sybille live in a defacto relationship in the same house/office/bed. As far as I know they are both directors of herbalistics. By passing the day to day operation from one to the other they did not make any legally [or otherwise] significant changes. In any case, aja [sybille's username on the AE forum] has been making the same comments and insults as manteufel [darren] there and many of their comments are done in reference to their business herbalistics.

As I said, if they want to be treated as different entities then they must behave as different entities.

[ballzac]

I inferred most of that from what you said earlier. The point I was making was in relation to this comment,

"In fact, I just remembered, herbalistics is a company, so it doesn't matter who owns it as my statements refer to the company."

Just seemed like more of a generalisation that wouldn't really hold in other cases.

[Torsten]

sorry, my confusion. I now get what you mean. And yes, non family style companies do change direction quite dramatically at times and new owners / directors are generally given the opportunity to make such changes public. however, it should never be assumed that a company has changed direction unless it actually states so publically [regardless of family company or not].

[Jesus On Peyote]

your explanation kicked ass T, good work

[Guest Øskorei]

Post 3: don't worry, this won't be a shitfight

No sides are being taken by me, as I know neither Torsten or Darren personally, and have over the years bought stuff off both of them, and cannot express product or service dissatisfaction with either businesses....... admittedly my comment on increased market share was a bit of a pisstake, but it does stand to reason that, however small & insignificant, SAB would increase their annual sales if the other business was gone. Was that the impetus for your statements in the now-deleted thread ??? It's a rhetorical question: Maybe not, perhaps even most likely not.

But you're a very smart cookie, Torsten, and I've no doubt that every word you post these days is very well thought out as to how it may be construed by an audience. Truthfully, when I read your (now deleted) comments in question and dropped their company's name, my reaction was 'what the fuck?', for anyone with sometime here must have noticed the antagonism betwixt you guys. It's a shame that whatever has happened in the past is ultimately affecting the spirit of a free market for the little people like us who like to grow medicinal plants and enjoy the subtle effects of legal herbs & spices. Tell us something, if you were to have been contacted by them directly and it was communicated to you that they felt the name-dropping was perhaps inappropriate, and would you pretty-please remove simply the 'H' word, would you have done so, in the spirit of community ambience ? Heck, all the other relevant stuff could have stayed there, it woould have only meant rephrasing a sentence or two at most.

Alas, it has arrived at a point where it gets a bit bloody ugly, not least of all because THIS thread is in existence. Surely the solicitor that has served this letter upon you was consulted by the client, and he/she as a qualified legal practitioner, determined that there was cause enough to proceed with the notice to remove the allegedly defamatory references posted by you.

Insofar as your statements of 'illegal', let's just make it clear - they were NOT selling any of the "Big 5" scheduled substances on their webstore, and the only issue here seems to be resultant of the recent changes to QLD legislation. So they were a little slow in picking up the ball perhaps - on a fucking idiotic state law at that (Khat, Lophs etc, I mean, c'mon!). But jesus, mate, before you, as one who prides himself of being abreast of the changes, posted about the amendments, it was fairly unknown to most people. You claim to have advised them about this personally, and they ignored you. Perhaps the relationship is so strained between all folks concerned that the distaste they have for you overtook the facts you were trying to relay to them (Heck If I receive an email from someone I despise, I might even delete it without even being interested enough to see what they have to say.)

Let's discuss the elements of the actual facts then (coloured of course with my own two-bit opining):

 

• Is Herbalistics selling anything questionable now ? It's highly unlikely. In the space of this information being made public to the online ethno community (via yourself - a genuine thanks from state-specific members is deserved) and the time that they stripped their catalogue, it would have been but a couple of weeks.
  

 

 

• Are you in the process of being sued ? No you're not - it sounds like you were sent a letter that asked you to remove the (deemed) offensive article, which you have done. Sure, it's an ego-depleting matter when you are 'told' what to do, but how about searching within yourself and wondering if you might have reacted the same way if in their shoes? For those readers who might be reading too much into this matter, a letter from a bloody solicitor is not a process of court action underway. It is not an immediate assumption of intent 'to sue'. It's a bloody letter on a letterhead done by the secretary of some guy/girl and sent out. There's literally thousands of such letter that are posted in Australia each and every day for all manner of matters. Sure they might carry a wee nasty threat (a diplomatic version of a pub comment like 'shuddup or I'll punch ya!) but that's the way things operate. The injunctive measures of closing down the forum was the 'punch' threat, it's what solicitors do. We don't live in a mad litigious society where 'suing the ass of' really happens, and the amount of money that "the cool people at Herbalistics" (your words) would have to spend to drag your butt over a barrel, even for personal satisfaction, would no doubt be prohibitive. Why not just say "Allright, they were pissed at my comments in the thread, I've removed it, the 'injunctive relief' has been averted, but you remain in absolute disagreeance. That's already been made pretty clear.
  

 

 

• There are other information streams on this forum that outline the present situation in QLD, and any post that was particularly pertinent to the issue might be allowed by way of agreement. As for the noble argument of 'protecting' those affected, I fail to see how the element of making public a personal B2B activity is looking after the good members here. Oh, do you mean the shutting down of the Corroboree? Hmmm, I covered the idle threat aspect in the paragraph above. You know how these solicitors work, Torsten, and you know that the injunctive relief is nothing more than piss & wind.
  

 

This can all end amiably now, right.... if you choose it to be, yes? Jeez, just take it on the chin and move on. The factual legal information as to species (that IS the holy grail) can still be clearly disseminated without the inclusion of the offending text.

[Torsten]

Oskorei, if you want to play then read what this issue is actually about. It is not about the latest changes in laws! It is about the fact that for many years we have all thought that it is legal to sell mescaline containing cacti [other than Lophs] in Qld. Careful examination of the OLD law shows that this doesn't appear to be the case and that we have all been living in a naive delusion. I pointed this naivety out without mentioning any names.

Personally I think good on any shop that gets away with sticking it to the stupid laws. However, it's not the vendors I am concerned about. Any Qld customer would also be breaking the law and this is what I was trying to point out. As usual several people contradicted what I was saying, to the point of stating that certain vendors would never endanger their customers. ie, customers rely on their vendors to know the laws so that the customer can feel safe. So if the vendor has it wrong then he is endangering his customers. At that point certain vendors has been named [by people who I am certain are quite friendly towards that vendor] and I responded directly about the statements that mentioned those vendors. Whether I had used their names or not would not have made any difference as the names had already been used by others in the effort to contradict me.

As for market share, how do you think I would profit more:

1) I tell everyone about the law and Qld vendors stop cacti sales and concentrate on tropicals, which are the SAB staple. I get more competition in our main field and I lsoe many Qld customers cos they won't be bbuying cacti online anymore [from ANY vendor].

2) I tell no one about the laws and continue trading as normal. Then when Qld vendors get busted I get all their business, not just bits of their cactus business. And I get to gloat about the fact that I quietly warned about it in November 2007, but no one listened.

If you are only looking at this blinkered, as in how SAB can profit from what i did, then you will miss all the other options. It's a good way for me to tell what people's mindset and attitude about me is. That's why I like these types of threads. Ignoring the blind supporters, it is much more interesting to look at those who think they are neutral and critical thinkers. Critical thinkers don't just see the 'popular' option, but also the logical ones and the more complicated ones. So going by the 'popular' opinion that Torsten is trying to create a monopoly, wouldn't option 2 be a lot more effective in achieveing that goal?

Now, about solicitors. In 2004 I wanted to start a business importing BZP. I could not fin it to be illegal anywhere relevant to me, but I consulted a solicitor, a friend's solicitor, and a drug law barrister to the total tune of nearly $2000. All of them gave me the all clear. I was just about to get the first lot shipped off when i stumbled across the BZP listing in the NSW drug schedule. It had been there for nearly a year.

In the last 15 years I have had several such incidents, which is why I now prefer to do the legal research myself. I am not saying that I am good at reading law, but I am definitely good at reading certain aspects of drug law. And where I don't udnerstand something I go to the source for clarification. That is how this community found out about salvia being scheduled, about salvia plants being included in the schedule, about BZP, and about a whole heap of other things. And I always have a bunch of people who think they know better and exhaust me with arguments. To this day i still get regular emails telling me I have the salvia plant scheduling concept wrong. It's been 5 years and the rest of the world still hasn't caught on.

* Is Herbalistics selling anything questionable now ? It's highly unlikely. In the space of this information being made public to the online ethno community (via yourself - a genuine thanks from state-specific members is deserved) and the time that they stripped their catalogue, it would have been but a couple of weeks.

That's not the point. The point is that they still claim that these plants are legal. Unless they publically state otherwise there will be many people who will believe them.

* Are you in the process of being sued ? No you're not - it sounds like you were sent a letter that asked you to remove the (deemed) offensive article, which you have done.

I was being threatened in writing with damages and injunctive action. I can hardly post about the court case AFTER the forums has been shut down.

Sure, it's an ego-depleting matter when you are 'told' what to do, but how about searching within yourself and wondering if you might have reacted the same way if in their shoes?

HUH? My business and my person has been insulted and defamed by them online for the last 5 years and I haven't sued, so obviously I would NOT have reacted the same way, because I HAVEN'T. Have a look at the waybackmachine for an archive of EA. These insults and the slander about SAB will never be erased. And just because a lot of the threads on AE were removed by gomaos doesn't mean they actually retracted them.

Oh, and if I wanted to sue someone I would make sure I got my facts straight first. It's not slander if it is true.

Why not just say "Allright, they were pissed at my comments in the thread, I've removed it, the 'injunctive relief' has been averted, but you remain in absolute disagreeance. That's already been made pretty clear.

This is not a personal disagreement. The statement I made is either a fact or a lie. The health department will be able to tell us EXACTLY which it is. So, if it is true then it should not have been removed in the first place. I only removed it temporarily because health departments don't work very fast.

* There are other information streams on this forum that outline the present situation in QLD, and any post that was particularly pertinent to the issue might be allowed by way of agreement. ...Torsten, and you know that the injunctive relief is nothing more than piss & wind.

Sorry, I know them better than that. Shutting SAB is a wet dream come true for both of them and I am sure they would pay a lot of lawyer money to see that happen. So much for who is trying to hurt who. btw, I have proof for that, but am only prepared to use it in court.

This can all end amiably now, right.... if you choose it to be, yes? Jeez, just take it on the chin and move on. The factual legal information as to species (that IS the holy grail) can still be clearly disseminated without the inclusion of the offending text.

Well, no, the factual argument is between herbalistics and me, so you can't take the names out of it. My name can't be take out of it, so why should theirs?

As for making this go away, I already offered this to Sybille. My offer is that if she clarifies the legal situation publically I will make the whole thing go away. See, as I keep saying, this is about getting the facts right, not about keepig insults on forums. Sadly it seems sybille is not interested in the truth and prefers to keep going on the current path.

And again, I find it funny that it is ME who is suppsoed to retreat, even though I have done nothing wrong. I have stated the law, have commented on someone else's post referrign to specific vendors, and have not insulted any of the vendors.

If I am right about the law, then Herbalistics on the other hand has a duty to their customers which they would have failed up to this point. They have slandered me on public forums for years and now they are sending letters threatening my livelihood and this forum [and if it is a hollow threat then the consequences are still their problem].

Makes me curious why you are not telling them to back off.

Oh, and I am not going to reply to your posts anymore until you actually inform yourself of the details of what this is about. Making generalisations isn't helping anyone here. In fact, some of the stuff you wrote are plain falsehoods which you obviously use to undermine me. I know how you work... I remember it from last time. So stick to the facts.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Yet again, your information is key, which is why you run this forum

Keep us informed T on whats happening. if they even think of closing your store and forum down, there gonna have hell to pay..MY people dident suffer 400 years of ottoman oppression (with the forced convention) to be dicked over by these herb-a-crap-lic swindlers ( no offense, i just like making ottoman references )

Anyway, one more thing, WHEN it turns out that your right, what would happen to herb-a-crap-lic? will they be charged\closed for selling and suppling an illegal plant? or just a fine?

Again, sorry for my lack of knowlage on the history, but from what iv read in the forum, it seems that someone is gonna have to pay a penalty.

[Francois le Danque]

does this have anything to do with the information regarding khat, peyote and ephedra contained within an email sent out by herbalistics?? if so i can't see what the hell they are up to..why would they admit it and then be shitty with you for pointing it out?

obviously if this is some unrelated issue then nevermind.

[MindExpansion]

Hey, I didn't read the original threads and don't know the history, as such i should probably keep out of this,

but im a bit nosey, so all i have to say is that if all you did was point out that they were in breach of the law I would love to see them try and take you to court. I hope it doesn't get that far but anyway.

Peace,

mind

[Torsten]

Keep us informed T on whats happening.

Nothing at this stage. I've replied to the solicitor outlining my side and our history, but I don't expect a reply.

The fact that they have removed all items I suggested might be illegal seems to indicate to me that they are no longer as certain about their legal advice and personal opinions as they previously were. I am not taking it as an admission of wrong doing as it may just be a cautious move.

Curiously they did not remove ALL of the items that fall under the drug schedules, but until they ask for my input I have no intentions of sharing that information with them.

if they even think of closing your store and forum down, there gonna have hell to pay.

Well, I have already indicated that if they sue me I would go for a much larger counterclaim. Taking legal action is not my cup of tea, but if someone has a go at me I am happy to reciprocate.

Anyway, one more thing, WHEN it turns out that your right, what would happen to herb-a-crap-lic? will they be charged\closed for selling and suppling an illegal plant? or just a fine?]

This argument is between them and me and does not involve any authorities. I have made my legal enquiries without actually implicating anyone. So, whatever legal trouble they might have is independent of the argument. My original statement had nothing to do with them specifically, but rather I was pointing out that customers need to learn a lesson from events such as operation 'webtryp' [for those who don't know, this was an operation in the USA where several RC companies were busted simultaneously and their sales records seized. Even though most customers thought they were not breaking any laws, there were hundreds of raids that followed on from these record seizures over many months and in several countries. The compounds were mostly analogs of scheduled drugs and were either naively or intentionally portrayed as legal substances by the vendors. Have a look here for more details].

The fact that in this discussion one vendor got mentioned specifically was because someone else claimed that this particular vendor would never endanger their customers. I disagreed.

Businesses have to keep sales records for 7 years, so anyone who purchases a scheduled substance from an online vendor [irrespective of whether the customer or vendor knows it is scheduled] is exposed to the risk of being prosecuted for at least this period of time. The risk is minimal, but obviously increases with obvious intent. So, if you buy a few mixed plants and cacti here and there you are of less interest than if you buy 50 peyote over a certain period [50 illegal plants usually equals a custodial sentence]. Then you also need to consider if you have other 'stuff' lying around. A search for peyote might just end up in them being destroyed and you getting a slap on the wrist, but if they find a couple of pot plants or a few pills in the search then you go down for the whole lot. The good thing is the authorities are pretty busy and usually couldn't be stuffed with this sort of thing, but a vendor still has a responsibility to let his customers know of the risk.

[Jesus On Peyote]

k cool, so now its pretty much a stalemate, but the odds are on your side yea

[John Smith]

I've only skimmed this topic but it is dissapointing that all the good guys in the War on Drugs can't work together against the forces of darkness. Could the evil doers have had a hand in this issue somewhere? Y'know, divide & conquer....