followup on Libel

Followup On Libel: Info from a Pro
Current mood:  productive
Category: Blogging

Borrowed from Stone Crazys blog:

EurodanceAddict Eurodancea..ddict Two

Cheryl, both you and Serendipity are wrong. "HOWEVER...if you use these documents and the information within them to Lie and accuse and slander a person.,attempt at getting them fired, or ruin their reputation that will in fact hinder their livelihood   then  ..it is Criminal." No it is not. If that information backs what you believe that person to be, than it is not Libel. What you and Serendipity both fail to realize is that the person suing has to PROVE that the accuser has NO reason to believe what they said that was of Libelous nature. Misty's account of what happened is enough for defense to anybody that Michael tries to sue. There is nothing more convincing than the words of a supposed victim. All of the information that has been posted about Michael was all public record. He has no case and I rest mine.    Posted by EurodanceAddict on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 2:27 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! Michael Rochester	Misty was only sick after the meal, asshole. Misty has never been a victim, just like your poor ex wife who is glad to get rid of your unemployed ass.   Posted by Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 12:53 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict Eurodancea..ddict Two	MTRG, "Misty was only sick after the meal, asshole. Misty has never been a victim, just like your poor ex wife who is glad to get rid of your unemployed ass." you missed the whole point of my comment. Its all about the TIMING. When people believed you roofied Mistys drink, it was AT THE TIME that Misty appeared to be a REAL victim. What has happened SINCE would not be pertinent in the court case for any libel. To prove the Libel, you have to prove that the person allegedly USING the libel , actually had NO reason to believe that you roofied Mistys drink. Her words make it probable cause. If she would have reported that to the police, they may have very well taken the case.   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 7:14 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict Eurodancea..ddict Two	"Prove the Statement was False In order to win a civil lawsuit for libel or slander, you will need to be able to prove that the statement (either written or spoken) was false. In other words, you have to demonstrate in court that the statement has no element of truth. This can be far more difficult than you would imagine, so it's important that you pay attention to this point. For example, let's say that a restaurant critic wrote that the food at your establishment was made from cat meat rather than chicken. Obviously, this is a case of libel if you don't, in fact, use cat meat to make your food, but you have to prove that there isn't any cat in the dishes your restaurant serves. This is easy enough - hire an expert witness to test the meat in your restaurant and to testify that it is chicken rather than cat." source: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/466974/how_to_prove_libel_or_slander_for_a.html?cat=17   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 2:34 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! Michael Rochester	Liberace won a case against him in the 1950s for a newspaper article which suggested...not said straight out...but suggested he was homosexual...and won. Thus he lied under oath, and like Bad Lisa, liars can prevail.   Posted by Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 3:48 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict Eurodancea..ddict Two	The laws and proof/evidence procedures have changed DRASTICALLY since the 50's and Liberace WAS gay. He admitted it later on.   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 7:16 PM

	Josh	That was in England, Mike.  The libel laws are different in other countries.   Posted by Josh on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 3:54 PM

	Josh	Complete and utter misstatement of the law in every state.  I hope this link posts, because it's from an official legal website by subscription only: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/research/default.aspx?ORIGINATION_CODE=00092&signoff=off Here's what happens, quite logically.   Somebody identifies you and publicly calls you a criminal or a whore.  That is libel per se as opposed to libel per quod.  Libel per quod requires extrinsic explanation as to why the statement was defamatory.  Libel per se recognizes categories of statements that on their face are defamatory. The difference between the two types of libel is that in libel per se, the plaintiff is not required to show any actual damage resulting from the statement.  Per quod requires that proof. NOW:  Let's say we have a libel per se case, in which a woman is called a whore and said to have committed crimes. All the plaintiff need do is show that she was called a whore and accused of those crimes.  On its face, the plaintiff's claim moves to the finder of fact (judge or jury). Still with me?  Blown up all over the courtroom are postings, say, on the internet by the defendant(s) calling the plaintiff a whore and claiming conviction of crimes.   Libel per se.  The Plaintiff has met her burden of proof to get the case to the finder of fact. THIS IS FOR FOR EURODANCE:  The defendant is afforded defenses to his/her actions.  Privilege and fair comment are not available here because the plaintiff isn't a public figure in the meaning of NY Times v. Sullivan, nor is the defendant acting with any official impunity to which a privilege would attach. The defendant has TRUTH AS A DEFENSE.  If the defendant can prove the plaintiff engaged in acts of prostitution and in fact was convicted of crimes so claimed, then the defendant gets to lay that on the finder of fact. Notice, that at no time did I say that the plaintiff must prove that the statements were false.  Plaintiff has met her burden of proof and persuasion by establishing the the remarks were defamatory (which is defined categorically in libel per se), they were published (internet posting) and that the plaintiff was clearly identified.   That's it. Do you really think the law would require a woman to prove she's not a whore to prevail against such a claim?  To prove that she's not a criminal?  Seems people would be freely calling people whores and thieves quite commonly dont you think? [Public figures, like Tila Tequila, are treated differently.   Those plaintiffs must prove the statement was made with "actual malice" which is almost impossible.  the Sullivan line of cases] Yeah MTRG, how many do you want to sue?   Posted by Josh on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 2:32 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict Eurodancea..ddict Two	Josh, apparently MTRG is an IDIOT and didnt see that you PROVED HIS side, that he CAN sue. He needs to stop calling you names when he is clearly the idiot here. Now with what you said, I will believe you since you ARE a lawyer...however...Michael has called MANY people including Lika and I, names like whore, child molester...etc... Therefore we could do a counterclaim and one would cancel the other out. He would be wasting his time with most everybody on here since he returned fire.   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 7:27 PM

Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! Michael Rochester

Josh, you cannot convince shit here...that is because this is the truth: criminals know more about the law than most citizens. That is why Bad Lisa thinks she knows what she can and cannot get away with on the Internet and on the radio airwaves. This is why you are an unemployed lawyer. Mumbo jumble and obfuscation is nice, but the fact is, Bad Lisa made false charges on the air that I was a pedo, a rapist, etc. Far worst than being called a "whore." She said she would produce people to back these claims. They never came forward. Misty shut up and went back to self imposed drug addled obscurity and never repeated her charges again. She lied. Bad Lisa, however, really did commit REAL crime, served REAL time in prison, is on parole (which is in jeopardy due to her behavior online and offline) and has made horrendously horrific charges, that were vicious and filled with hatred and she knew were false and misleading and meant to injure reputations. So shove your phony ass "authoritarian" tone because she would not win shit, and neither would Misty.   Posted by Michael, The Reborn Rochester Renegade! on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 3:46 PM

So this is my message...If you want to call Michael a name, make sure he calls you one back.
We don't want him to earn a cent.
Thanks Josh.