Exactly, she can go nowhere with this, thats why I havent given or wasted much time on it. I could most likely turn this around on her and all involved in a major way, but my concern is causing more foolish litigation expenses that may be burdened at the shareholders at this time. I would not inflict harm upon my fellow shareholders by foolishly challenging her at this time while it seems she is still acting as a SLI employee, plus with every action she takes, it appears as another mark against her and the BOD,s fudiciary duty. Much the same as the dissidents will target their law suit against the individual BOD rather than our company SLI itself. This will mean that funds from SLI cannot be used for defensive measures of the BOD and that the BOD must use their OWN funds for the legal battle. Her/BOD personal attacks on posters that were most blatantly supporting and defending their investment says much to the public eye and is most likely hurting our sp further, as the uncertainty of why the current BOD is still in power while the regulators allow this blatant harm to shareholders. If one looks back, it blatantly appears that the current board seems to have done everything in their power to not support the sp for many months, as if they wanted shareholders to sell, which is very odd in itself. A traded company must promote and support an sp to allow management and employees to exercise incentive options so that they can live. These options are their only pay in most cases and a healthy sp ensures that the employees receiving renumeration through options will stay with the company. To allow an sp to drop, and for the CEO to add insult to injury by selling stock and putting further pressure on the sp, makes one question the motives of the BOD and would seem contradictory to how a small traded company is supposed to function in this respect.

A little bit, investors and posters, about your rights, and why I deem the BOD,s actions with these frivilous suits/claims ridiculous and are only SLAPP tactics. Stand your ground here by posting and dont give in or be intimidated by her antics. If it ever got to court, it could be easily represented by self and she/BOD would most likely have to incur your costs, resulting in you have to pay little or none, and if desired, opens the door wide open for a counter suit by you. Anything any posters/investors say, that is backed by fact and easily proven is not illegal and your rights/just has to be recognized in any court of law.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:

• truth (known in law as "justification")
• absolute privilege
• qualified privilege
• fair comment
• responsible communication on matters of public interest

1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.

2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made in Parliament and statements made as evidence at a trial or in court documents. This privilege does not apply if a person repeats their evidence outside a courtroom. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of these statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.

3. Qualified privilege
This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be defined as defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.

4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest statements of opinion, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment. Media articles that accurately report what was said at public meetings are also privileged, unless the meeting was not of public concern and the report was not for public benefit.

5. Responsible communication on matters of public interest
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:

• the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
• the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.

The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/240.aspx