Replies

Since many people seem to be a little confused on this recent libel/slander issue, I found a decent layman's synopsis of exactly what defamation entails, replete with case law. Feel free to peruse this reference.

It's important to note that just adding JMO (Just My Opinion) to statements does not leave the commentator exempt. For example, back when John O'Quinn passed out briefly in Seidlin's court room, I happened to be reading the Court TV message boards. The accusations that he is a drunk and that's why he passed out were running like a rabid fever on that forum. Some of their posters actually believed that by adding "JMO" at the end of their accusations made it an opinion instead of statement. Not so! See section D of the reference.

Key here is "whether a statement is intended to convey an actual fact about a person". In the accusations made against O'Quinn being a drunk and which continue even today there, it's treading on libel ground, irregardless of adding JMO. See the difference?

I don't know where they got this "JMO" disclaimer. It doesn't exempt them from saying anything they want. They are passing along incorrect information. But this is law we're talking about and under the law, they are wrong - JMO or no JMO.

Anyway, I hope the article helps clear up any confusion some of you may have had on the subject.

On a personal note, there's been many times I would have loved to release some frustration out due to the boiling wrongness of this case. But the truth is, it's simply not worth my life, my family or my house. And I'm sure it's not worth yours either. In the end, I still have faith in the democratic system and the Higher Authority that oversees us all; both of which, will judge accordingly -- one way or the other. In other words, don't let this get to you to that level. ;)

What we have to watch out for is that HKS may pretend to be a vortex public person, one of Leroy’s specialties.

HKS will protest that Anna was the public person and he was just in the public eye because of her, but didn’t court the spotlight. To which, I would laugh and laugh.

Not only are there miles and miles of videotape, showing differently, but there should be some contracts on file somewhere to show how much he was paid for these appearances by the photo agencies and production companies.

He *is* a public person and as such, must prove not only falsity in the alleged statements, but also malice. There won’t be very many, if any, deep-pockets he can sue. And Leroy will tell you outright that he only goes after deep pockets.

Thank you for the reference and information on the differences between libel and slander. I really do appreciate it because I was not sure of the difference myself.

However, after reading the information you provided, I am even more convinced that it would be almost impossible for HKS/Lin Wood to go after any poster on this site (or any of the other sites I’ve read) for that matter. I’m not saying that there aren’t blogs or websites that HKS/LW might have a case to go after, but this site is not one of those. If you need me to go over the reasons, point by point, I will, but there are so many stipulations that HKS could NOT in any way prove or even allege in most circumstances, that it is almost comical. If HKS and Lin Wood are going after the media or networks, good luck to them because I still believe they have an almost IMPOSSIBLE case to prove They might garner a lot of TV exposure, but I seriously doubt they could PROVE anything...especially with an ongoing INQUEST into one death, and the possibility that the other death investigation could be re-opened if there is any ‘new’ or additional information, which is entirely possible at this point. (If Anna’s death hadn’t occurred on the Seminole CASINO property, it is very likely the investigation would have had a different outcome...or STILL be ongoing).

HKS hired Lin Wood as to be his “MEDIA Body Guard”...no more, no less. When HKS and Lin Wood file a slander (or even a libel) suit againt O’Quinn, I will sit up and take notice. If they go after anyone before that, I will consider them PUSSIES!! Yes, I said it....either go after the BIG DOG or lie down and roll over!!

NOTE TO BRONWYNN - This post is not meant to be derogatory to you at all, and I really do appreciate your information about the slander/libel issue....so please don’t think I’m directing it at you at all. I just took the information your provided and posted my opinion about the circumstances of the case.

From your link:C. "The defendant knew or should have known that the communication was false"

"Defamation allows recovery for unfair damage to reputation. As a consequence, if true statements are made about a person which damage their reputation, they cannot maintain a lawsuit."
"This is a relatively recent development. One origin of libel and slander laws was a criminal cause of action by the English Crown used to silence its critics; hence, it was the truth of the alleged libel which provoked the lawsuit. However, as the right of free speech developed and gained support, the use of defamation to suppress true statements was rejected. Virtually all states today apparently require that the alleged defamatory statement be false before a defamation action may proceed.

According to the above I see no problem with saying; "I think Howard K. Stern had something to do with Anna Nicole's death." There is no way for me to know that is a completely false accusation. He would have to prove that it is false.