I intend on countersue, making sure to sue for legal costs as well
The defense: A) Truth - The truth is a damn good defense, and you have documentation showing an IRG office in Vancouver, as well as the Palm Beach Post article with Bobby G
These documents are publically available information which you were relying upon, and you can show that you used them in my research
B) Absence of malice - It will be very hard to prove that you have any malice, nor did you act out of malice towards IRG
How did your article hurt IRG? What financial harm has come to them?
C) Reasonable Man - You have enough evidence to show that even if, somehow, after Bobby G represented DVNT, that a totally seperate, unrelated, IRG, picked up the account, a reasonable man would assume they were the same company.
D) the Investor Relations Group never called me for a retraction. Their own phone records will prove this to be the truth.
Lets face it, the chances that DVNT would hire a different IRG, after using Bobby G, are just too remote |
