You may be wondering why I have removed certain statements concerning LifeVantage from this website. As you may know, LifeVantage sued me to force me to remove certain statements from my website. I defended against the lawsuit by filing what is known as an anti-SLAPP motion, which, if it had been successful, would have caused the case to be dismissed at the outset. However, the California Superior Court for San Mateo County ruled against my motion. I appealed, but the First District Court of Appeal recently upheld the trial court. More information concerning the case is available at this court website. (LifeVantage Corporation v. MacFarland, No. A141057 in the Court of Appeal, CIV 521137 in the Superior Court).
I asserted in my motion that the LifeVantage defamation suit was without merit, and I advanced that position in good faith. I disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court and Court of Appeal that declined to throw the entire lawsuit out at the outset. Unfortunately, the result of the Court of Appeal decision is that the lawsuit would move forward, potentially all the way to a trial, and I simply could not afford the cost of defending the lawsuit any further. Because of the personal expense that further litigation would have entailed, and for no other reason, I have reached a settlement with LifeVantage. Under the settlement, both parties have agreed to remove certain statements from the internet. Neither party has conceded any issue of fact or law. Unfortunately, the terms of the settlement restrict my ability to comment on matters that may be of interest to you, so thank you for understanding why I may not respond to your inquiries, comments, etc.
I leave you with a point made by a lawyer in a recent article about a famous court case that struck a chord with me:
"To make sense of such strongly conflicting claims, the judges and their clerks will need to put in plenty of grunt work, reviewing and digesting small pieces of a large record of evidence. Sometimes the judges and their clerks are willing to put in that time. Sometimes they’re not, opting instead to view a case through the prism of their pre-existing political and/or philosophical leanings to craft a preferred outcome, and then working backwards to make that outcome fit the facts. (Even if it doesn’t.)
We’re supposed to view the court system as a complex, sophisticated, and ultimately fair process for dispensing justice. In too many cases, it’s a sausage factory, with the links processed not based on their actual ingredients but by the inclinations of whoever is stuffing the casings.
And so the lawyers routinely present briefs that are so different that they often seem like they come from entirely different cases. That’s what has happened in the Brady case.
After the parties get together in court to speak two separate languages for the oral argument, the three judges randomly assigned to the case will have to figure out what to do. While the profile of the case could prompt them to apply the care necessary to work it all out properly, there’s a chance that the meat will be ground up like it is in so many other situations, based not on what’s actually in it but based on how the butcher wants it to taste."