Fireclean LLC Sues Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker for Defamation in Federal Court

[alamo5000]

I think they first will have to identify the claims that Andrew made that they say are un-true, and then PROVE that they are untrue.

I could be wrong but that seems rather backwards. The people that made the claim are the ones that have the burden to prove that 'it's the same as crisco' or whatever.

If some old lady said she saw you driving the get away car after a robbery from the first national bank would you be considered guilty until proven innocent? Or do they have to find 3 or 4 witnesses, get your dna out of the car, find the video of it and build a case first to say 'hey, maybe he was driving the car'...

In this case they basically accused the Fireclean people of fraud. OK fine, now what do they have to back that up?

The burden of proof lies with the accuser not with the defendant. Unless the accuser has something pretty solid to back their stuff up it's going to be a hard time for them. If they can't prove that it's the same as Crisco then their claims become equivalent of 'I feel like' or just a whisper campaign, which is basically a baseless accusation with no merit.

[DUX]

@alamo5000: I can see it now; all blogger product reviews will be done in a satirical manner from now on so they can be protected as free speech. Rip something apart and at the end put a disclaimer: "Just kidding." And of course everyone knows it's just there to protect the writer. :) I think Fireclean will win. I also thing the market will adapt to the ruling and walk right around their intent and keep on trucking. There is no way where Fireclean truly wins here. They will be made the butt end of jokes in the industry and way will be found to circumvent the ruling. That's what societies and groups of people do.

[alamo5000]

@alamo5000: I can see it now; all blogger product reviews will be done in a satirical manner from now on so they can be protected as free speech. Rip something apart and at the end put a disclaimer: "Just kidding." And of course everyone knows it's just there to protect the writer. :) I think Fireclean will win. I also thing the market will adapt to the ruling and walk right around their intent and keep on trucking. There is no way where Fireclean truly wins here. They will be made the butt end of jokes in the industry and way will be found to circumvent the ruling. That's what societies and groups of people do.

Even if they do 'win' they lose. The gun community ain't stupid.

As for people doing reviews online or wherever that to me isn't the same thing. Then again I could be completely wrong in figuring out where this whole thing originated. I don't know if it started in the format of a review or not.

I am not trying to defend Fireclean by any means. I have never even touched their products.

My take on formal reviews are that if you make something it needs to stand up to the tests. Especially anything gun related. And no bitchin' about it if the reviewer thinks it sucks.

What I don't know about this particular case is...was it a case of a review gone bad or the case of competition throwing someone under the bus. I don't know.

[DUX]

For Example: "I don't want to get Firecleaned out here in the middle of nowhere." :)

[DUX]

http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/

Here is the blog of one of the guys being sued if you want to follow along. It looks like he's setup a go-fund me for legal expenses and has quite a bit of support so far. Popcorn up! Que the Benny Hill music folks!

[alamo5000]

If they are trying to sue over a simple product test that they didn't like the results of then I say screw them. That changes everything if you ask me.

[DUX]

If they are trying to sue over a simple product test that they didn't like the results of then I say screw them. That changes everything if you ask me.

OMG! LMFAO! This guy on the blog is a Marine Corpsman with two combat tours under his belt. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It's done! LOL! Fireclean sues Marine Combat Vet: FILM AT 11!!!



Navy, sorry, you know what I meant. His Marine buddies will come to his aid. Messing with "the Doc." LOL!

[alamo5000]

Based on what I read on the blog there it sounds like the guy tried to be on the up and up about it but the people who were publishing stuff kind of screwed him over making it look like he said something that he didn't really say.

This is for sure going to be popcorn worthy.

[DUX]

I have to go to Home Depot for some leaf bags, and an industrial grade popcorn popper. :)

[Joelski]

Frankly, its amazing anybody gives that much of crap. They deserve to be sued. It's not like it takes unicorn tears to properly lubricate a rifle. Be as meticulous or as carefree as you want. That's the point of living in a free country, isn't it?

[gatordev]

It sounds like a lot of you aren't regular Vuurwapen readers. His site was always a breath of fresh air. Very little emotion, just a guy trying to give quantitative feedback. Some of it's anecdotal, but even in his anecdotal tests, he tries to be as scientific about the process as he can afford to be.

And for the record, he never, ever did say that FC was Crisco. He was actually very clear about that from the beginning.

[Aragorn]

^^this

I've swung through there multiple times in the past, and Gatordev sums it all up well.

[DUX]

A little humorous parody on my part. I'm almost certain this is still protected 1st Amendment expression. God Bless America!

[Stone]

Fireclean is Crisco, the real problem is that a lot of folks have been cooking with the same crap that they are lubing their rifles with.

[JGifford]

Now Weapon Shield is involved.
http://soldiersystems.net/2016/04/01...e-advertising/