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

[Torsten]

yes, folks, the cool people at Herbalistics have just sent me a letter via their solicitor, claiming that my posts are defamatory and that unless the relevant threads are removed they will sue for loss/damages, and injunctive relief [ie shutting down the forum].

The posts in question are those discussing the legality of various plants in Qld, including the recent changes in the law there.

If you had read the thread then you would be aware that my posts were being made on the basis of information sourced from a prominent Qld solicitor and from 2 Qld drug squad officers. I am confident that the posts are correct, but I have temporarily deleted them until I receive a reply from the Qld health department, which is the ultimate authority on the matter. If the health department confirms the basis of my statements then the posts will be reinstated and I will gladly let the fight go to court.

One has to wonder about Herbalistics' motivations here - but you will have to wait for my take on what's going on until I have the reply from the health department.

I apologise for having to delete not only my own posts, but also other posts within the thread that refer to herbalistics. While the herbalistics solicitor demands the whole thread to be deleted, I have read it carefully and find no cause to do so. I am confident that all of the posts will be reinstated in due course and that this matter can then be discussed without the censorship imposed by this move.

[Auxin]

wow

This peace puppy is a preemptive one

[Torsten]

don't worry, this won't be a shitfight. Either I am wrong, in which case I will apologise and delete, or I am right in which case I will restate my original statement in greater detail and happily take it to court.

Regardless of the number of insults they post on AustralianEthnobotany [yes, I keep copies] and bitching that herbalistics does about me to their customers and friends, I have not sunk to their level in several years and have no intention of doing so as a result of this nastiness.

It's a pretty simple factual matter and should not take long to clear up. I am surprised they decided to draw so much attention to it given the circumstances

Cute puppies is something we know all about .

We gave 2 of these gorgeous furballs to herbalistics about 5 years ago.

[transDiMenTional]

this endless quarral between u and D is really rediculous (IMHO). Why does this belong on the forum? Why are you posting this Torsten? Why cant it be kept between the two of you or your solicitors? Is it just to inform everyone why you edited the thread? ha Seems to me to be just another avenue for inflamation

BTW i am on no sides. I just think this is.... well, trolling.

Best wishes to both parties

[Auxin]

Torstens lucky he seems to be a mellow sort of dude. If he doesnt edit hes accused of defamation, supporting trolling, etc, etc.. if he does edit hes accused of being power hungry and trolling

Yes he obviously put it here to explain why it was edited and why, if some strange legal fluke occurred, the forum might vanish.

It will also interest people because this means a more rigorous exploration of the new QLD laws is occuring and will likely be reported here.

[Yawning Man]

Good luck with the whole thing torsten. In my experience your posts are always well informed and un-biased so i doubt you'll have much trouble. I've only been on these forums for a while but they're deffinately a regular haunt for me and an awesome source of info. You have my support!

cheers

[Torsten]

this endless quarral between u and D is really rediculous (IMHO). Why does this belong on the forum? Why are you posting this Torsten? Why cant it be kept between the two of you or your solicitors? Is it just to inform everyone why you edited the thread? ha Seems to me to be just another avenue for inflamation

What do you mean endless quarrel? I have put up with literally dozens of personal and business insults from them on the other forum over the last few years without responding [many of them are still there]. I don't bitch about them to my customers, like they do about me. And I don't post about them, except this one time where it concerned the legal safety of many of the members on this forum. Think about why YOU even know about our quarell? Certainly not from me!

I occasionally discuss them with a handful of close friends who actually know about the background [unlike you]. I've never seen a point in trying to involve people who don't have a clue about what actually happened, just to create 'two sides'. You're complaining in the wrong direction here as quarelling goes.

I posted about this legal challenge because it can potentially affect the whole forum. The letter specifically demands the deletion of whole threads rather than just my posts, so this is directed not just at myself but at other members' free speech.

If the basis of the solicitor's letter is wrong then I was silenced not for the purpose of fairness, but for the purpose of keeping everyone in the dark about the legal situation in Qld.

So, while you say that you are not taking sides, you are in fact supporting that the legal information I posted should not be made available to Qld members. Kinda doesn't fit into the image of neutrality, now does it?

And as Auxin pointed out, the legal threat is one of 'injunctive remedies', which means they directly affect the existence of this forum. Just how is that NOT everyone's business here?

Maybe you need to reexamine your definition of neutrality

Like I said before, my original 'slanderous' claim is either right or wrong [there is no middle ground]. If it is right then I am sure a neutral person like yourself should support the fact that it is made public. If it is wrong I am happy to wear whatever consequences arise. At the moment the credibility balance lies between one small town lawyer on one side, and a high profile lawyer plus 2 Qld drug squad officers on the other side. I am happy to take bets

[strangebrew]

Were these the very same officers who where trying to apply Queensland laws in NSW? If so I don't think I'd be putting much credence in their words.

Edited April 28, 2008 by strangebrew

[mark80]

Obvioously puppies arn't doing much......

so here is a peace peguine.

[2b]

I would be interested as to who is liable for things posted on a forum ? Next i would be equally interested in how it is proven who was actually at the terminal when the post was made.

[Jesus On Peyote]

Wankers, this is ridicules. theve lost my biz. good luck T. and ima kick there emails ass ;) .

i Donno the full history but it sounds like they want to push you out or something.

And i do think it is important because it does affect the forum and everyone in it, and most importantly, Torsten's livelihood, who has put alot of his time into this.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Jesus On Peyote

[inpsyght]

.

Edited February 7, 2012 by inpsyght

[FungalFractoids]

DOS attack?

Or, if you want, I can go burn thir shop down

Failing that I hear The Pirate bay sell server space in Sweden... Demonoid escaped legal action by transferring to the Ukraine

Edited April 28, 2008 by FungalFractoids

[Jesus On Peyote]

Ah fungal. i thought the 2 same things u did, jus dident wanna say coz i woulda been raped for it

[Torsten]

guys, this is a rational debate about legal issues. inflaming it won't help anyone.

maybe it's because it seems that since you got raided,

your posts and take on the law now seems to be about closing loops rather than opening them.

hope your not getting leant on too hard...

It's been more than 6 months, so I guess they've lost interest in me.

You are right in that my understanding of Qld law has changed [not my interpretation, but my understanding!!]. I live in NSW, so I keep up to date with NSW and federal laws. Occasionally I will read other state laws, but to be honest I have enough trouble keeping the NSW ones straight, so I don't try to remember the other states too much. So, when a series of events triggered me to have a closer look at Qld law, I realised that the definitions were quite different than I thought. As I stated previously, I assumed Qld to be similar to NSW in the way it treats 'preparations'. Upon closer inspection I realised that this was not so and hence the loophole we all assumed to exist was in fact imaginary as far as Qld is concerned.

So no, I am not closing loopholes. Kinda silly statement to make as I am not a law maker. All I am doing is letting you know which loopholes exist and which don't. Obviously it is not a good idea to post about loopholes on a public forum, so I doubt you will see me posting blatantly about opening new loopholes here. But I have posted several in the last few months - you just have to read between the lines.

but your re-reading the 1987 wording is what seems to have expanded into this differently oriented view of the law....

if this law has been there the whole time and several businesses have run from qld, seemingly without any hassles so far,

then it seems the only change has been your knowledge of it.

yes. I didn't state anything different. I have been saying for the last few weeks that what many of us thought to be legal appears in fact not to be.

but with the propagation of this perspective through the community

(a community that seems to accept and align with your thoughts and views a little too easily sometimes)

there are obviously a whole bunch of people being affected that you're probably not helping,

really... asking the authority to decide and form the base of a precedent...who most likely are going to side

conservatively with a practical undertone... how is that going to help?

You obviously did not read what I said about how I was going to do that and from your statement above you are obviously underestimating me. Sheesh, try to be on the ball if you are going to criticise my approach .

Anyway, I know there is a conviction in Qld for a mescaline cactus that is not Lophophora, so even if I was going to ask outright I would hardly be giving away any major secrets [but just to be sure no one misunderstands this, let me repeat that I will not endanger any species with my enquiry].

i'm not sure if there's been some other legal conniving re plants being considered as being comprised of entirely one chemical,

but surely no legal mind would argue that this is the case?

isn't this perspective more about powders being of less than pure quality but convicting on the entire amount?

Yes, the basis of the law is for this purpose, but doesn't have to be. ie, someone with dried shrooms can be done for the herb weight of psilocybin. However, it seems that in recent times this is EXTREMELY rare and charges will usually be reduced to the analysis weight before trial.

But again I think you are misunderstanding the interpretation - this is not the significant difference in the law I have been on about. The significant difference between Qld and other states is that in Qld even a live plant is regarded as a 'substance' and hence if it contains mescaline you may be done at the very least for the amount of mescaline contained in the plant you are possessing [at worst for the weight of the whole plant, but I would assume that to be challenged on appeal].

[Torsten]

2b - in general the author of a post is responsible for the content. There are some instances and certain processes where the responsibility may fall onto the administrator, but I am pretty careful with that.

Were these the very same officers who where trying to apply Queensland laws in NSW? If so I don't think I'd be putting much credence in their words.

So, if a plumber electrocutes himself while doing some electrical DIY you automatically assume he is a bad plumber? I would think that he might just be a bit limited outside his field of expertise.

Qld cops know Qld law pretty well and they certainly know what they've busted in their careers. So why would you doubt that?

How about reading the law yourself?

I am getting the sense that most folks here would prefer not to have been told about these laws. Kinda puzzles me.

[Guest Øskorei]

I am getting the sense that most folks here would prefer not to have been told about these laws. Kinda puzzles me.

Let's not twist things around here. It's one thing to post about the laws for each member to determine how they may proceed with managing their garden, but I recall that the thread in question specifically mentions a rival online store as having been operating outside of the law for some time. I was a bit alarmed by that at the time myself and wonder why you thought to publicly besmirch a competitor. The 'community spirited' thing to do might have been to alert them privately, and leave it at that if they refused to listen.

And why the fuck would you start this thread ? It only serves to further paint them in an unfavourable light and harm their business. Oh yea, that's right, I forgot about the concept of increased market share. And haven't you always said that if someone is having legal issues (as you are right now) then they should not go into detail on an online forum ......

[devance]

Tell assholes they will lose on two ways.

Freedom of speech which will get you alot of free lattorneys for a couple of hundred years and the other is deformation of character counter suite for about a million bucks.

[nothinghead]

Let's not twist things around here. It's one thing to post about the laws for each member to determine how they may proceed with managing their garden, but I recall that the thread in question specifically mentions a rival online store as having been operating outside of the law for some time. I was a bit alarmed by that at the time myself and wonder why you thought to publicly besmirch a competitor. The 'community spirited' thing to do might have been to alert them privately, and leave it at that if they refused to listen.

And PM everyone else known to be subject to the laws, leaving readers of the forum that don't post in the dark?

[PD.]

Ignorance is bliss.

[chilli]

I am getting the sense that most folks here would prefer not to have been told about these laws. Kinda puzzles me.

PD is right... most people want to believe whatever makes them feel safe and secure, whether they actually are or not is academic.

Oskorei, I don't get it... I have absolutely zero knowledge about these guys' personal issues, which is the way I like it, but these peeps are encroaching on our forum, demanding threads are deleted and threatening to seek to have the forum closed down... not only do I think Torsten is well within his rights to post this info when he found out, but I think he would be irresponsible not to. Obviously, if he has a history with whoever the fuck this guy is, it will be difficult to leave all personal stuff out of it, but wouldn't you agree this is still a fairly important thing for the rest of the forum members to be informed about?

[ballzac]

When I last visited the herbalistics site, about a month ago, the site was down because ownership was changing hands. This is now confusing me, because if you have past history with herbalistics, isn't it actually a different person/people that are now doing this?

[apothecary]

Let's not twist things around here. It's one thing to post about the laws for each member to determine how they may proceed with managing their garden, but I recall that the thread in question specifically mentions a rival online store as having been operating outside of the law for some time. I was a bit alarmed by that at the time myself and wonder why you thought to publicly besmirch a competitor. The 'community spirited' thing to do might have been to alert them privately, and leave it at that if they refused to listen.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you read the threads enough to notice Tort 'besmirching' a rival, and assuming his motive was to increase his own market share, but you didn't read the bit where he said "I contacted them several times privately and they essentially ignored me".

You feel at this point he should have let it drop. Torsten obviously felt he had a responsibility to inform community/forum members of their own potential liability. I honestly doubt he is trying to grab a bigger share of the monetary peanuts that both stores provide. If anything I would lay that motive at the feet of those litigating.

As for "competition" maybe it should be considered just exactly how Herbalistics began, and how much of their stock and standing in the community came from their connection with Tort in the first place?

And why the fuck would you start this thread ? It only serves to further paint them in an unfavourable light and harm their business. Oh yea, that's right, I forgot about the concept of increased market share. And haven't you always said that if someone is having legal issues (as you are right now) then they should not go into detail on an online forum ......

Shit man, if they are acting in an unfavorable way by keeping their own customers in the legal dark to keep their business model going then as a customer and supposed good friend of theirs, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT, and fuck yes, suing Torsten for defamation is gonna harm their business, I mean who wants to buy from litigious characters? What's next, I get sued for posting a bad review of one of their products?

Torsten hasn't made any defamatory claims or any vindictive comments in this thread, he has only stated the facts, and if the facts point out some dodgy goings on then maybe those pointed out should change their ways if they don't want to be pointed out as dodgy.

[Torsten]

And why the fuck would you start this thread ? It only serves to further paint them in an unfavourable light and harm their business. Oh yea, that's right, I forgot about the concept of increased market share.

Not that this has anythign to do with marketshare, cos those people who know me also know how much I hate the retail side of this business, but just for the point of discussion...... you support that holding onto market share by suppressing the truth via threat of legal action is OK, but the reverse is not?

Anyway, when I made my original point I did not at first mention any names. I just said "Qld vendors". It was only after it was pointed out to me by other people's posts that certain named vendors could not possibly be doing anything illegal that I responded in detail about those vendors mentioned by the poster.

I find it funny that SAB and myself are constantly discussed in terms of legality, labelling, market share, forum dominance, censorship etc, but as soon as anyone else gets mentioned then that is suddenly uncool. I presume your outrage about my discussion of other vendors now means you will make similar soap box posts about the insults and slander these other vendors have posted both ehre and at other forums? Hey? Didn't think so.

And haven't you always said that if someone is having legal issues (as you are right now) then they should not go into detail on an online forum ......

I have said that if someone gets busted then they need to be careful about what they post. This is because any statements made on this forum could easily be used in a drug prosecution and could make the difference between being seen by the judge as a naive experimenter or a hardcore druggie and hence could make a huge difference to the sentence. I fail to see how this has any relevance in this case as both parties and the judge will be aware of the existence of the forum and the involvement of either party.

Oh, I forgot, you only come out when it's time to shit stir.

[Torsten]

When I last visited the herbalistics site, about a month ago, the site was down because ownership was changing hands. This is now confusing me, because if you have past history with herbalistics, isn't it actually a different person/people that are now doing this?

herbalistics changed from Darren to Sybille. 2 peas in a pod

I think it is safe to treat them as one and the same. At least until they differentiate.

In fact, I just remembered, herbalistics is a company, so it doesn't matter who owns it as my statements refer to the company. Chances are they are both directors anyway.