[Grut]

The likely fact of the matter is -- and not that it matters -- is that the Arnold staffer DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT it was the same Rhonda Miller.

Why do you think it doesn't matter? It's just about a textbook example of 'reckless disregard', if true.

[pogo101]

All the email/memo said was (to paraphrase, despite my quotation marks), "Check out this database of public records. Type in 'Rhonda Miller' and see what you get."

At no point did the memo say that any results obtained on "Rhonda Miller" pertained to THE Rhonda Miller who'd accused Arnold. Such was left to the judgment of whoever might go look up such information.

I don't know how many different times I can say this simple fact. It's not slander to say, truthfully, that "there's this database, and you might get some results if you type in this name." If you can show me a controlling case holding that such is defamatory, I'll eat my law degree.

[Map Kernow]

Why do you think it doesn't matter? It's just about a textbook example of 'reckless disregard', if true.

And why do you think that would be actionable under California law? California Elections Code sec. 20501 requires that libel or slander made during an election be "willfully and knowingly made" to be actionable---"reckless disregard" doesn't cut it, pal.

My prediction is that the lawsuit will be flattened on CCP sec. 425.16 motion under Beilenson v. Superior Court and its progeny.

See you back here within the year.