The Timeshare Beat Home | Today's Headlines | Back to Previous Page
|
The Timeshare Beat Home | Today's Headlines | Back to Previous Page |
|
|
|
Editorial by Rod Hackman
November 24th 2006.
It is with deep regret that I am announcing today that due to circumstances beyond our control 'The Beat' will soon cease to exist and we will no longer be publishing
daily timeshares news stories, timeshare company press releases, travel reports, Resorts In The Spotlight and other
such information that we have proudly and freely provided for the past 7+ full years to our (now) 4 Million+ annual
readers.
On September 29th of this year I informed our readers of a lawsuit that had been filed on 01/02/2003 against this
publication for defamation (www.thetimesharebeat.com/2006/sept/0929-02t.htm) by the then-teenage
son of Thomas F. Flatley, who is the notorious timeshare developer of the infamous bankrupted Epic Resorts.
Due to an overwhelming response from that editorial I then published an update (www.thetimesharebeat.com/2006/oct/1002-02t.htm)
on October 2nd in order to publicly answer some of the questions that I had received from countless e-mails and
phone calls from our readers.
Shortly after that October update I received an e-mail from an Attorney for a newly formed Delaware entity, JATSB, LLC, who is attempting to collect the balance of the
default judgment entered against me, my wife and this publication (Plaintiff has already received approximately
$75,000).
According to the public court records, when the original suit was filed by the then-18-year-old Plaintiff Thomas
J. Flatley he claimed that his good name had been damaged because we published a brief paragraph from a third party
who made an allegation in our 'Street Talk' blog
section purportedly involving the young Plaintiff.
That allegation originated from content that we had received via e-mail from Epic employees at that time (later
we provided the judge in the case the relevant e-mail to prove that we were not the ones making the allegation
and that it came from someone inside Epic corporate offices).
As per the public court record, as filed by the Plaintiff, the paragraph causing him to claim damages reads: "It has also been alleged by several former Epic employees that in the early days following
the bankruptcy T.J. bragged about how he and Tom Flatley's son were flown to closed Epic offices, where they allegedly
broke into the offices and took back office and computer equipment as well as the files."
The Plaintiff declared in the original complaint that a letter was sent to us demanding a retraction. In line with
what is and has always been our clearly published disclosure and policy regarding retractions, etc., and as we've
demonstrated over the years, we take such requests seriously and follow up accordingly.
However, contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion, we never received such a written demand or notice (nor phone calls
or e-mails) so no opportunity existed for us to take any action. To the best of my understanding, in the original
complaint Plaintiff referenced said letter as I believe either exhibit 'A' or 'B'; however a copy in the court records did not surface until long after the litigation process was in motion, and
we have still not seen even that copy.
In an attempt to resolve this dispute during the required pre-trial settlement process (without admitting any wrongdoing),
in 2003 we offered in writing (through our Attorney to Plaintiff Flatley et al) to immediately pull the paragraph
from our publication and at the same time print a retraction and run it as the front page lead story in our very
popular three day weekend edition, as well as providing a hyperlink to the front page story in the blog section
('Street Talk') where the allegation was originally
published.
We also offered to place large banners on our 10 most-read pages (at the time our
readership exceeded 2 Million readers annually) advertising and promoting any legal
charity of the Plaintiff's choosing and the campaign would be designed and credited in the name and honor of the
Plaintiff. Our offer also included a small cash commitment from us to be donated directly to the charity, in the
Plaintiffs name if so requested.
Those banners would have led our then 2 Million readers to an interim page that would have fully described the
charity, including recognition that the Plaintiff endorsed and financially supported the cause; and we would, as
we offered, actively encourage our readers from time to time to consider making donations.
Additionally the charity campaign would have been in our publication 24/7 with full exposure up to 12 full uninterrupted
months and would have included additional editorial content from time to time demonstrating the 'good-nature' of
the Plaintiff and charity.
Sadly for all, including the charity that could have been selected by the Plaintiff, that written offer to amicably
bring the dispute to an immediate conclusion was not only summarily declined, no counter offer or further attempt
to settle was ever made by Plaintiff, by which we reasonably deduced that they had no interest in settling. Therefore
the legal process continued.
We made that commendable offer to the teenaged Plaintiff as a practical business decision, while admitting no wrongdoing
whatsoever, in an attempt to immediately end the dispute to everyone's satisfaction even
though there were already precedent cases established whereby specific courts had ruled that online entities such
as this publication could not be held libel for publishing other peoples' comments, etc.
In fact, just this past Monday (see www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955) the California Supreme Court ruled
that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued
for posting defamatory statements made by others.
A later offer to settle the matter this past March (2006), which included an offer of more money paid directly
to the Plaintiff and that we would never again publish any information regarding the Plaintiff and his family (including
his Father, his father's past, present and future business dealing including any principles associated with the
Plaintiff and/or his Father etc.) was also instantly declined (and again no counter offer was made).
It was now perfectly clear, as we had suspected all along, that there was an alternative motive (as I wrote in
part II) and despite the fact that the attorney (and managing director) for JATSB, LLC wrote me recently stating
that they have no desire to shut down our publication, Flatley's previous and most recent actions clearly demonstrate
otherwise.
JATSB, LLC (I.E. the Plaintiff) is now attempting to garnish our advertisers from as far back as a year ago despite
the fact that none of them currently advertise with us and that in some cases they haven't owed this publication
any money for nearly a year.
As published in our media kit, all advertisers have always been required to pre-pay all ads in full (no terms or
billing cycles etc.) prior to publishing any advertisements. Plaintiff Flatley should be fully aware of this fact
as the Plaintiff's father's botched, disastrous and ultimately failed timeshare company was at one time an advertiser
in our publication and was fully aware of our policies and process.
Personally I can't believe that the Plaintiff is so arrogant or stupid not to have recognized that there was always
the opportunity for a negotiated final conclusion to the matter and one that might have been reached; but that
option is now off the table because they have caused the financial demise of this company and ourselves.
Considering various online sources that suggest that the Plaintiff's family may have a net worth literally in the
multiple millions of dollars, and since I firmly believe their goal has always been
to shut us down as well as to destroy us financially, I hardly think they are doing
all this (the suit, declining offers to settle, refusing to negotiate, foolish garnishments
etc.) because they need the money or for the sake of a principle.
As proof to that statement simply consider what the Plaintiff's original attorney wrote on behalf of his client
in an email this past March where instead of negotiating he made threats of arrest and stated that they fully intend
to shut down this website even after they had already attached our assets and seized
our bank accounts.
Other facts are also indisputable, starting with the original suit wherein Plaintiff Flatley declared harm and
damages because anyone could find the paragraph that we published online simply by typing plaintiff's name, "Thomas J. Flatley", in any search engine. This was not only a lie it was a technological impossibility at that time because we had NEVER published
the Plaintiff's name.
I believe after I personally brought this fact to the court's and Plaintiff's attention that Plaintiff and/or his
attorney actually tried it themselves (more than a year after the suit was filed) and found out that it was impossible
to find the paragraph in any search engine by typing in "Thomas J. Flatley".
I believe it was then that it became obvious that they were not only wrong but that they would be unable to prove
that any "harm" or "damages" whatsoever were caused to the teenaged Plaintiff.
However, refusing to accept that reality and negotiating a settlement with us they instead quickly amended the
complaint to assert that a college friend had found the paragraph by simply searching for "Tom Flatley".
In my opinion that assertion was as ridiculous as was another amended complaint wherein the Plaintiff implied that
his future would be destroyed because prospective employers could find the paragraph by searching online for "Tom Flatley's son"-- as if any prospective employer would actually
think they'd better search the Internet for "Tom Flatley's son" before he/she hired the lad.
In addition, when I terminated our relationship with the law firm that was representing our interests for what
I believe was gross incompetence if not outright negligence-- and when we were unable to secure a new firm within
the time frame provided by the court to protect our rights-- Plaintiff's Attorney took advantage of the situation
by communicating directly with the court and stated in writing other non-truths such as "Defendants
have made no effort to provide any discovery"; yet we had already provided over 1000 pages of information
that Plaintiff's Attorney had specifically requested.
Also in a written communication with the court the Plaintiff's Attorney in July of 2004 stated "Last Week I checked" and "(Defendants') website continues to be hugely successful with millions of hits while defendants continue to display
the defamatory publication". This, again, was also blatantly false as we had pulled the paragraph in question down, of our own choosing, in December 2003.
There is so much more, but we have grown very weary of it all and it is time for us to make the final decision
regarding bankruptcy, put our lives back together and we are indeed interviewing various attorneys for their legal
expertise, guidance and advice in such matters.
Therefore, beginning Friday December 1st, 2006 this publication will cease to exist in its original format. In
order to honor our commitment to our few remaining advertising clients so that their pre-paid ads can run the full
length of the allocated campaign, we are redesigning the front page.
What will be left (as we do have over 30,000 archived timeshare news stories, press releases, columns, etc.) will
essentially be the industry's largest search engine. This will remain online until such time as our contract with
our hosting service expires or Plaintiff pulls yet another legal maneuver to have the website taken down or attempts
to otherwise seize the domain name.
In the meantime if you want to read anything that we published over the years, simply visit the search box on the
opening page and type in (e.g.) "Rod Hackman"
or a resort name or a developer, present or past such as (e.g.) "Thomas F.
Flatley" and then select the 'Search the Beat' button and you're on your way.
While I'm quite confident the Plaintiff and his family (and a few supporters) will be rejoicing this Holiday Season
when they read that they succeeded in shutting us down they might want to keep in mind that we proved, beyond a
shadow of any doubt, that an online daily news publication in this industry such as 'The
Timeshare Beat' is a viable entity.
And because we did so prove, there are others coming behind us that have indicated they will carry the torch. Although
I'm told they'll use a different online format, I'm also told they will be keeping a close eye out for unscrupulous
timeshare developers, travel clubs that are scams etc. and will report on those activities (and the good honest
companies as well), as we did, in real time. So in the end the Flatley types in our industry didn't prevail after
all.
In my opinion this all could have been avoided, but Junior Flatley was either forced to or freely decided to allow
his father to fund the teenager's vindictive suit against us for exposing the father's highly questionable business
practices which included government imposed business sanctions and restrictions; his direct involvement contrary
to court orders in setting up a 'travel-club' program for consumers; plus our in-depth coverage of the details
surrounding his miserably failed bankrupted timeshare "empire".
In closing Andrea and I want to thank all our readers, our advertisers and especially the contributing authors/writers
who stepped up to the plate and volunteered their talents and expertise (since 1999) each week, contributing countless
hours to improve our beloved industry, and whose efforts also made 'The Beat' the success that is was!
We wish everyone a very healthy, prosperous and successful future and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
God Bless you all!
Rod and Andrea Hackman
rhackman@thetimesharebeat.com
Part 1: www.thetimesharebeat.com/2006/sept/0929-02t.htm
Part 2: www.thetimesharebeat.com/2006/oct/1002-02t.htm
NOTE: For those of you who are interested in following feedback on this issue, please visit the Street Talk Blog at http://streettalkblog.com/?p=1106
SEE ALSO http://streettalkblog.com/?p=971 and http://streettalkblog.com/?p=1131 (Lies, omissions and/or half truths; you decide!) for later comments and discussion