DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[nickcarraway]

The Ninth Circuit may no agree with us on much, but they come in handy sometimes.

[Poohbah]

I'm sure that if I characterized you as a worm, the worms might have a cause of action...

[dogbyte12]

Watch out for people like this. They try to invite you to see their briefs. But, faster than you can say Cum Laude, they are at ya like a snake.

[ambrose]

Funny how you loved the law when you wanted to "protect" Terri Schiavo's life, and wanted to send her husband to jail, and when the law asked for the tube to be reinserted. Have you any principles, or are you just the conservative equivalent to the average ACLUer?

Nothing but the sound of chirping crickets.... The silence is deafening.

[FITZ]

Quite true. But the more lurid allegations are that Mr. Schiavo deliberately CAUSED his wife's injuries.

Since the jury found OJ Simpson innocent ---- if someone alleges that he deliberately CAUSED his ex-wife's injuries then can OJ sue them for slander or libel? Same with Scott Peterson, since no court of law yes yet decided on his innocence or guilt ---- can he sue someone who suggests he murdered Laci?

[Neets]

It seems like you and Askel and maybe two or three others really care about the CP/OPH TOBEORNOTTOBE dilemma.

[Senator Pardek]

I see you've finally found something close to your lowest level. Personal attacks and name calling is about your speed.

You do so amuse me with all that fulmination and bluster, pounding it out on your keyboard for some type of sexual release.

Oh my goodness - this is a joke, right?

And why won't you answer the question?

[jwalsh07]

LOL. There's the old libelous Poobah we all know and love.

Are things back to normal now?

[nickcarraway]

Sorry to hear about that. You got major league unlucky. That really is unfortunate. What kind of publication was this?

Nope. He was trying to present himself as anything BUT fly-by-night

Of course, but usually the more legitimate they try to appear, the less they seem. I love it when they add a ``III''' to their name.

[Torie]

Since the 9th circuit decision was from 1999, it presumably was not reversed by SCOTUS. I wonder if SCOTUS denied cert. I will look that up tomorrow. Probably it cert was not even sought. That is just how weak the Plaintiff's case was. The odds that the subject decision is bad law in the eyes of the current SCOTUS is close to nill. One area that both ends of the spectrum on SCOTUS are agreed, is that the 1st amendment is very robust, particularly in political debate, and trumps all else, and anything that circumsribes it (outside of campaign finance issues perhaps), is ipso facto on a presumptive shit list.

[Axenolith]

Well, then why, rather than post some good examples of how to phrase some of these vitriolic statements, do we have this huge thread that starts off with a big chunk of threatening legalese?

Palp could have just said or added as a comment "You know, you might watch how you word stuff. Switch to ... Say... Based on the information I've seen, and my experience with human motives, I think Mike Shiavo is trying to get his wife out of the money picture."

The vast majority of people scurry off when threatened with legalese. I'm sure the percentage of those types is a lot lower on FR than the general population, but it still sucks, and it doesn't seem to have earned him any brownie points with the pro-life crew (of which I am firmly one)...

[dogbyte12]

Ann Coulter has a doll out. Now Chancy does too!

[nickcarraway]

Since we don't have loser-pays, I ate about a thousand.

I am very sorry to hear that. This sounds like a case tailor-made for loser-pays. You were just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have an attorney?

[independentmind]

Also the term "penny stock operator" usually refers to a broker, not the company itself. The company is responsible for filing with the SEC.

[Catspaw]

And why won't you answer the question?

I'm going to sign off now, but if you need an answer to your question, I've supplied you with four handy answers to the question you and others have asked me repeatedly. Just cut and paste to your heart's content:

1. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

2. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

3. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

4. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

[bvw]

Maybe you picked up a bad habit from him, or he re-inforced one that was more possible for you than others. Being cute, having an appealing charm -- that comes with responsiblities too -- OPH is not a man to talk with about responsibilites in such matters. Not someone to be guided by.

[dogbyte12]

1. Because I don't know what you're talking about.

Typical lawyer. You have no idea what the answer is, yet you argue a side most vociferously. Is it just the principle of one shark defending another? Professional courtesy?

[honeygrl]

she's not a troll. (you OTOH..)

[Senator Pardek]

If I was planning to sexually harrass you, believe me - you'd care - and rightly sue me.

[FITZ]

Maybe what Jim Robinson should do is just put up a disclaimer that the opinions of the posters don't necessarily reflect the views of this board or management ---- or something such as that --- like you see on television.