Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

mescalito

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 30, 2011
88
0
55
Over on m14forum.com, I NEED A LAWYER....Served with SEI Lawsuit Today - M14 Forum, one of the members is being sued by SEI.
SEI's retailer, Croc's, was taking full payments for SEI receiver orders, approximately $800.00 ea. the tally was reportedly 300 receivers on order. $240,000.00! Receivers were delayed with no explanation from SEI to customers or to Croc's. in fact SEI was ignoring all requests for reasons for delay, or an adjusted delivery date. Phone calls, emails, Facebook posts went ignored. People began to wonder. One poster repeated info that he had heard that heat treatment was off, and that receiver barrel threads were brittle.
Within hours of that post a SEI rep responded angrily denying the heat treatment issues. The next day that same rep responded saying SEI didn't want business from people willing to speculate about the delays. That rep even posted comments said to be from Ron Smith himself, again leaving the impression that they could care less about customer concerns.
SEI shortly thereafter cancelled a number of orders, and ordered Croc's to return the full payments.
The customer SEI is suing had five receivers on order, paid in full for over eight months. He got his money back, and order cancelled, even though he stated he still wanted to wait. He also got a rude phone call from Ron Smith. Later he got a demand to apologize from SEI's legal representation. Today he was sued.
As a side note, there was another member whose order was cancelled, the thread starter. The thread starter started an apology thread, the next day, he announced that SEI had reinstated his order, and put him back in his original place in line.
It is good to know how a company is willing to treat customers.
 
I've only dealt with Smith Ent one time, about 7 years ago. Their work (on a job nobody wanted to attempt) was unbelievably good, in fact it was flawless, but they didn't follow my instructions for payment (which made my life very difficult), and multiple times they were rude with me on the phone about the rifle they were repairing. Overall I felt like I was treated like an idiot, by employees and the man himself. I paid through the nose for them to do the repairs, I expected to be treated with some amount of respect. It's good to be confident in your abilities, but not if it goes to your head.
 
From Merriam Webster online...

Libel: a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt.

Be careful what you post online. You CAN be sued for it...
 
From Merriam Webster online...

Libel: a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt.

Be careful what you post online. You CAN be sued for it...


True. But just because they CAN, doesn't mean they SHOULD. Common sense should factor in there somewhere and tell them this is pretty stupid to kamikaze themselves over an internet post. Haven't they seen similar "Business vs Interwebs" situations like this play themselves out before?
 
Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but the part that bothers me is "without just cause". If the defendant had a reason to express their opinion, then they are free to do so without recourse. heck, I believe they are free to do so anyways, what being that we've got that whole 1st Amendment thing.

In any case, I think the burden of proof falls on the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant's actions were responsible, AND that they were without just cause.
 
A. Haven't heard what sei's point of view is, and now that they have gone the lawyer route don't expect to hear anything.

B. you are responsible for what you say. If the hammond guy said something that put himself in financial risk why the hell should I send him money? Its the legal system buddy, mess with it at your own risk.

C. It is never a good idea to spread rumours.
 
Being a member of the M14 forum I have seen how the whole story has played out and It is one sided but there are plenty of people who have had the same experiences, so from this I was able to draw my own conclusions which others have as well im sure.
 
True. But just because they CAN, doesn't mean they SHOULD. Common sense should factor in there somewhere and tell them this is pretty stupid to kamikaze themselves over an internet post. Haven't they seen similar "Business vs Interwebs" situations like this play themselves out before?

Hate speech, speech of a purely prurient interest, speech calculated to cause a riot, slander, and libel (and a few others that i cannot remember off ot the to o my head) are all classes of speech NOT covered by the first amendment. Apparently, the claimant feels that the company has been libeled by the forum post and is suing for recourse.

The business has a right and a responsibility to protect its reputation. No one has to like it, but it is their right. Kind of like those 1st and 2nd amendment rights we hear so much about...

What is Lowlight's signature line again? Something about "be careful of your words..."
 
As you referenced. SEI's owner and rep's words both stating how they don't want business, and owe their customers nothing. I guess they believe their customers owe them. Remember, at this point Crocs is holding approximately $250,000.00 in customer money, because all orders must be paid in full at time of order. Croc's is telling customers that SEI won't give him an update, even though some of these orders have already tripled in wait time. On top of that SEI is openly ignoring all requests for updates, won't even acknowledge the people who ask, again read their words. Also, check Croc's restocking fee if you cancel cuz SEI won't answer. Not very cool how they handle business.
One more point - SEI says business is with Croc's, but they also say they can tell Croc's to cancel your order. Screwey from top to bottom.

"I'm sorry, but as you said, your business is with Crocs and not with SEI. We do not have your money, we got out of the FFL game for this very reason. We don't owe ANYONE an explanation, because we are doing what we can to get these done and out to you. If you want to be impatient, by all means, cancel your order, we do not want your business. There are plenty of other patient people out there who wouldn't mind taking your spot on the list. The reason there aren't any comments or updates being made by us is because we are too damn busy working on this stuff to quell rumors or console you because you have a boo-boo tummy. Let us work. I come on here on my own free time to see if I can help anyone out with any issues they're having and to see what's going on, not to read this kind of crap. This is why Andy stopped coming on here as well. We're forum sponsors and all we get is grief. No good deed goes unpunished with you guys, seriously. But god help us if we take our time to do something correctly and pay close attention to our QA.

-Jack

I just spoke with Ron on the phone and this is from him --

Ron Smith - "If you come on here saying you have a "reliable source", then I will have my lawyer contact this forum, find out who you are, and depose you to find out who your "reliable source" is, and start a lawsuit against them for slander. I have done it before, and I will do it again. I have been doing this for 40 years, no one else is making their receivers from barstock like we do, it takes time and skill of which not one of you would understand. We are too busy trying to get this stuff out to you and taking care of all the other stuff that we have always done to be putting up with this. Bottom line, I don't want your business if you are going to slander us like this, and that handful of you that have been constantly complaining (Rick Stern among others), we will tell Croc to go ahead and cancel your orders for you. ""
 
Ron Smith - "If you come on here saying you have a "reliable source", then I will have my lawyer contact this forum, find out who you are, and depose you to find out who your "reliable source" is, and start a lawsuit against them for slander. I have done it before, and I will do it again. I have been doing this for 40 years, no one else is making their receivers from barstock like we do, it takes time and skill of which not one of you would understand. We are too busy trying to get this stuff out to you and taking care of all the other stuff that we have always done to be putting up with this. Bottom line, I don't want your business if you are going to slander us like this, and that handful of you that have been constantly complaining (Rick Stern among others), we will tell Croc to go ahead and cancel your orders for you. ""

LOL if he really said that he's a fucking asshole.

I can't believe how people get on their knees for these gunsmiths, wait months and months without any explanation, pay up front, all because the receivers are 'better'. Boggles the mind.

BTW that is my opinion lol........
 
Last edited:
My opinion, based on what has been happening behind the scenes, (which has nothing to do with Smith Ent) is this is how companies are looking to get "even" with the evil internet, even if the problem is of their own doing.

It's turning into a way for guys who got in over their heads, and like posted above, feel they don't owe anyone an explanation for anything can get back at people for asking for one.

Nobody understands "their" pain, nobody gets what they are going through, and how dare you question them... take that anonymous internet poster !

We get a lot more requests from people (read: companies) to remove stuff ----- > or else ! They sort of know they can't stop the site from operating but they have figured out they can sue the poster, or posters who they don't agree with or don't like what they said. Sad really.

Personally speaking I don't like removing things, especially if the train-wreck is of their making, which a lot of times is... but the other side of the coin you guys don't see is the threat to sue you the members. More of that happening lately, so it is easier to remove the bullshit and deal with the fallout then to open you guys up for crap.

Standby, because unless you the consumer can convince people (read: companies) how damaging to their reputations this can be, you'll see more looking to settle disagreements that way. Even if it never goes to court, they feel caving to the threat of their lawsuit is a win for them.
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

Not to mention the minimum amount of damages for a suit based on diversity in federal court.

OK, saw the complaint now. Even if it is a federal question there remain potentially fatal factual issues and jurisdictional issues...
 
Last edited:
As you referenced. SEI's owner and rep's words both stating how they don't want business, and owe their customers nothing. I guess they believe their customers owe them. Remember, at this point Crocs is holding approximately $250,000.00 in customer money, because all orders must be paid in full at time of order. Croc's is telling customers that SEI won't give him an update, even though some of these orders have already tripled in wait time. On top of that SEI is openly ignoring all requests for updates, won't even acknowledge the people who ask, again read their words. Also, check Croc's restocking fee if you cancel cuz SEI won't answer. Not very cool how they handle business.
One more point - SEI says business is with Croc's, but they also say they can tell Croc's to cancel your order. Screwey from top to bottom.

"I'm sorry, but as you said, your business is with Crocs and not with SEI. We do not have your money, we got out of the FFL game for this very reason. We don't owe ANYONE an explanation, because we are doing what we can to get these done and out to you. If you want to be impatient, by all means, cancel your order, we do not want your business. There are plenty of other patient people out there who wouldn't mind taking your spot on the list. The reason there aren't any comments or updates being made by us is because we are too damn busy working on this stuff to quell rumors or console you because you have a boo-boo tummy. Let us work. I come on here on my own free time to see if I can help anyone out with any issues they're having and to see what's going on, not to read this kind of crap. This is why Andy stopped coming on here as well. We're forum sponsors and all we get is grief. No good deed goes unpunished with you guys, seriously. But god help us if we take our time to do something correctly and pay close attention to our QA.

-Jack

I just spoke with Ron on the phone and this is from him --

Ron Smith - "If you come on here saying you have a "reliable source", then I will have my lawyer contact this forum, find out who you are, and depose you to find out who your "reliable source" is, and start a lawsuit against them for slander. I have done it before, and I will do it again. I have been doing this for 40 years, no one else is making their receivers from barstock like we do, it takes time and skill of which not one of you would understand. We are too busy trying to get this stuff out to you and taking care of all the other stuff that we have always done to be putting up with this. Bottom line, I don't want your business if you are going to slander us like this, and that handful of you that have been constantly complaining (Rick Stern among others), we will tell Croc to go ahead and cancel your orders for you. ""



Simply amazing.
He should hang with Jesse Ventura.
 
Here is what I am referring to

These laws basically shift the burden

SLAPP suits -- Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation -- are typically claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, or tortious interference with contract filed against a party who has criticized or spoken out against the plaintiff in some public context. The paradigm case is a real estate developer filing a defamation or tortious interference suit against a citizen who has spoken out publicly against a proposed development project. By filing suit, no matter how weak its claim might actually be, a plaintiff forces the citizen to spend money responding to the claim and, in the process, to think twice about speaking out publicly again.
In response, twenty-six states and one territory have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that offer some procedural protection to defendants in these actions. In another two states -- Colorado and West Virginia -- courts have granted defendants a defense to lawsuits targeting their exercise of First Amendment rights concerning issues of public importance.
The California statute was the first of its kind and is generally considered the broadest (i.e. most protective of speech rights). Under the law, any action "brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances" will be subject to a special motion to strike by the defendant. This applies to any act by defendant in "furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." . . . .

And
. Finally, eight states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Utah) allow so-called "SLAPPback suits," which provide that defendants who have been hit with a SLAPP suit can file a counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages for abuse of the legal process. While these suits do not help the defendant avoid the time and expense of litigation, they can act as a deterrent to those considering filing what might be a SLAPP suit.

A Brief Overview of Anti-SLAPP Statutes : Newsroom Law Blog
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

Oh, it's far from a burden on the legal system: This one hasn't even made it through the front door of the courthouse yet.

And even if it does, then the issue to be litigated will be whether the plaintiff is as big a douche as everyone on the Internet is saying that he is. I am not sure that it is wise to leave that kind of an issue, as Dana White says, 'in the hands of the judges'.
 
Last edited:
Completely off topic here, but how would a company get good word of mouth advertising if their customers are too afraid of getting sued to mention their name?
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

Completely off topic here, but how would a company get good word of mouth advertising if their customers are too afraid of getting sued to mention their name?
Is that like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb?

How? By not suing the people who say good things about them.
 
Last edited:
Anything that I post that may later be found to be slanderous, treasonous or otherwise get me in deep shit was posted by whoever hacked my account... ;)

The plaintiff still has the burden of proof that you are the one that actually typed the words and short of you admitting it they are SOL.
 
Last edited:
When I lived in CA I wanted to get A SEI Crazy horse rifle, so I could have a detachable magazine. After some research I decide on an AR-10 instead and dealt with the fixed mag issue. My main reason was customer service complaints that I found on the Internet. It's not one or two, but too many to count. Websites dedicated to telling everyone of their bad experiences says a lot and this is the icing on the cake.
 
Last edited:
I think this situation deserves a new word...

Commercial Suicide- verb. The act of seeing how many figurative shots your company can take in it's figurative face, before it figuratively dies. Figuratively speaking of course.
 
Is that like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb?

How? By not suing the people who say good things about them.

"So ya like your new rifle, huh? Any problems with it?"
"I'm not allowed to talk about those"
or
"Post sale customer service is great. I can't tell you why I required CS, but it was great"

Lol

Reviews that only mention positives while ignoring negatives are generally considered "fluff pieces" and have minimal credibility, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Machinists run machines, gun fighters fight with guns, and marketing professionals promote products and develop brands. If you try it any other way, you don't stand a chance.
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

Sometimes filing a lawsuit is a good business strategy or an appropriate tactic with which to fight a bigger battle. Other times it's a sign of deep troubles within a company, or desperation. In my experience, in the most sophisticated of cases you can't always tell by reading the complaint. However, in less elevated circumstances.....
 
Curiously, on SEI's facebook post, they state "It is important to note that Dr. Hammonds is not our customer. He has never bought anything from SEI directly."

Yet in the legal complaint they filed, p2-6, they state Hammonds has been doing business with SEI in Arizona.

Is there some legal distinction that is served if he is, or is not, a customer?
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

Curiously, on SEI's facebook post, they state "It is important to note that Dr. Hammonds is not our customer. He has never bought anything from SEI directly."

Yet in the legal complaint they filed, p2-6, they state Hammonds has been doing business with SEI in Arizona.

Is there some legal distinction that is served if he is, or is not, a customer?
You nailed it: Personal jurisdiction.

The defendant's only contact with Arizona, the venue state, appears to have been the purchase of a receiver from a third party. Hmmm.........
 
Not to mention the minimum amount of damages for a suit based on diversity in federal court.

OK, saw the complaint now. Even if it is a federal question there remain potentially fatal factual issues and jurisdictional issues...

If I didn't know better I would say that Graham has finally agreed with something that I said in a post. I knew this day would come.
 
Hello,

Item 1: I would like to state that I'm in no way associated with Smith Enterprises. When I chose the name Smith Sights, I had no idea they existed.

Item 2: I'm reading into the case further, but will likely contribute to the fund. I'm of the opinion that suing clients/customers is probably the worst way to do business. The best way is to publicly respond directly to the person doing the complaining; privately or publicly depending upon how the customer initially approached the subject. If the heat treating is off, hell, admit it. If not, explain that it's not. Customers tend to be very understanding, knowing that things happen. Just make sure you're honest about it.

I dunno. Just... I'm not associated with them and if any of my customers have any problems whatever, they can come directly to me. Not sure what these other Smith folks are doing yet.

Regards,

Josh
 
SEI lawsuit related threads has about 75000 views over a couple forums. I can't see this helping them any. I wonder if they will go after Hammon even harder now? Just to get something out of this ordeal. In my opinion even if they re-nig on the lawsuit they have already alienated a large portion of thier (potential) customer base.
 
Smith Enterprises, Inc. Suing over a forum post.

If I didn't know better I would say that Graham has finally agreed with something that I said in a post. I knew this day would come.
Its important to know better than to count one's chickens....
 
Last edited: