Defense To A Libel Claim

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by panch from ( on Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 0:56AM :

In Reply to: What If I Am Hurt or Embarrassed? posted by panch from ( on Sunday, June 16, 2002 at 0:39AM :


[Free legal information for libel/slander law @] There
are three main defenses to a libel claim (other than asserting that it
never happened or that you were never involved):

The first is claiming, and proving, that the statement was privileged
(and thus not public). Only certain professions (doctors, lawyers,
psychologists), or individuals (chiefly your spouse) can maintain that
privilege; and if any non-privileged third party was part of the
communication, the privilege is broken. (Employees of a professional are
only partially covered, to the extent that you needed to use them to
contact the professional. Don't expect to tell your deepest, darkest
secret to your attorney's secretary, and maintain that privilege.)

+++Anything that was e-mailed to Jeff or anyone else is not priveleged. No one betrayed anyone's trust...that's a joke considering the out and out lies she sent.

The second defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement is true,
for "truth is an absolute defense".

+++++The statements I made are true, I can back them up. The rest is my opinion.

The third defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement was an
opinion, not an assertion of a fact. Since this last defense is only as
good as the weakest or worst, but still reasonable, misinterpretation,
it's not one you really want to rely on. There's a world of difference
between saying "I think he's a crook," and "he's a crook". Especially if
a third party might inadvertently leave out the first two words when
passing your message on.

++++I never called her a crook...besides what does that mean? I said she lied, she mislead me, and she made me stay in San Jose to place a monument that she soon either lost interest in or became convinced she could do as she pleased with only if I was out of the way, and that believing in her word, I almost lost us the monument. The contract alone proves what kind of person she is, that and the fact that she told one lawyer she had nothing to do with it, that it was Atour's idea all the way. He knows different and I think he will tell the truth under oath, if not otherwise.

+++I say she treats her club like her club...that she was negligent in her duties as president. They tell me that over there they have no guidelines for what a president should do...that strikes me as odd. But still, any reasonable person would agree that she should have shown her club members the letter from my lawyer promising legal action if they proceeded. She never showed them that letter, instead merely informing them one day that, "Fred isn't coming and the statue is off"...and not providing any explanation other than I was a troublemaker etc. Also the idea that three clay pots somehow would compensate people for not seeing my work, shows whose interests she had at heart.

-- panch
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-Mail: ( default )
Optional Link ( default )
Optional Image Link ( default )

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from