I wish to state that it is an absolute affirmative defense to false allegations of slander and libel when one is speaking the truth. We have absolute and overwhelming evidence to support our contentions and that false sworn affidavits were attached as exhibits in the suit against me and others.
I am absolutely innocent of Defamation, Slander, and/or Libel; and I will prove it very soon by publishing certain information in the proper forum. Further, maliciously libelous information accusing me of extensive criminal convictions, using numerous aliases, were included in the suit and have been disseminated extensively in false statements throughout the Internet as well as on Internationally broadcast radio shows; against me, as well as other allegations made against third parties. The responsible parties will be held accountable in the appropriate jurisdictions.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/defamation
Defamation is the general term for a legal claim involving injury to one's reputation caused by a false statement of fact and includes both libel (defamation in written or fixed form) and slander (spoken defamation). The crux of a defamation claim is falsity. Truthful statements that harm another's reputation will not create liability for defamation (although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature).
Defamation in the United States is governed by state law. While the U.S. Constitution sets some limits on what states can do in the context of free speech, the specific elements of a defamation claim can -- and often do -- vary from state to state. Accordingly, you should consult your state's law in the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for specific information.
Generally speaking, a person who brings a defamation lawsuit must prove the following:
- The defendant published the statement. In other words, that the defendant uttered or distributed it to at least one person other than the plaintiff. You don't need to be a media mogul to be a publisher. There is no requirement that the statement be distributed broadly, to a large group, or even to the general public. If you publish something on the Internet, you can assume that this requirement has been met.
- The statement was false. This means that statements of pure opinion, which cannot be proven true or false, cannot form the basis of a defamation claim (e.g., a statement that Bill is a jerk, is clearly a statement of opinion). Moreover, because truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, the plaintiff must prove that the specific statement at issue is false. This is not to say that every detail you publish must be perfectly accurate to avoid liability. If you get a few minor details wrong, this will not necessarily negate the truth of what you say so long as the statement at issue is substantially true. See the section on Substantial Truth for more information.
- The statement is about the plaintiff. The statement need not name the person explicitly if there is enough identifying information that those who know the person will recognize the statement as being about him or her. For more information, see the section on Who Can Sue For Defamation.
- The false statement actually harmed the reputation of the plaintiff, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive. Generally speaking, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his peers, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. For more information, see the section on What is a Defamatory Statement.
- The statement was published with some level of fault. Fault requires that the defendant did something he should not have done or failed to do something he should have. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official. The level of fault that must be proven is discussed in the Actual Malice and Negligence section of the legal guide.
- The statement was published without any applicable privilege. A number of privileges may be available depending on what the defendant published and the source(s) he relied on for the information. For more information, see the section on Defamation Privileges and Defenses in this guide.
Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).
On the other hand, if you repeat what someone else said or wrote in an official hearing or official document, there's an important privilege that may protect you provided you attribute the information you gathered and are accurate in your reporting. See the section on Defamation Privileges and Defenses for information on this, and other, privileges.
There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect YOU if a third party - not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction - posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.
Damages for Defamation
In most states, the plaintiff must also prove that the defamatory statement caused him or her actual damage. Actual damages include such things as the loss of a job because of the defamatory statement, but can also include mental anguish or suffering associated with the defamation. Some jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where damage is presumed if the defamatory statement relates to one of the following subjects:
- Impugns a person's professional character or standing;
- States or implies that an unmarried person is unchaste (e.g., is sexually active);
- States or implies that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; or
- States or implies that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude (e.g., theft or fraud).
See the State Law: Defamation section of this guide for specific information on what each state recognizes.
If a plaintiff succeeds in proving defamation, he or she is entitled to recover what is called compensatory damage, which is the payment of money to compensate the plaintiff for the wrong that has been done. This includes not only out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., doctor's bills), but also personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering, and lost wages and benefits if the defamation caused the plaintiff to lose employment. In limited circumstances, a plaintiff may also be able to recover punitive damages, which are awarded in addition to compensatory damages and are intended to punish the defendant.
Note that some states require that a plaintiff must first ask the defendant to correct or remove the defamatory statement in order to be entitled to certain types of damages. See the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication for more information.
Texas Defamation LawNote: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide. Elements of DefamationIn Texas, the elements of a defamation claim are
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). The elements of a defamation claim are for the most part similar to the elements discussed in the general Defamation Law section, with the following clarifications: Public and Private Figures Texas law defines when a plaintiff is a public official, all-purpose public figure, and limited-purpose public figure in more-or-less the way described in the general Actual Malice and Negligence section. Some examples of individuals deemed to be public officials or all-purpose public figures by Texas courts include:
Some examples of individuals deemed to be limited-purpose public figures by Texas courts include:
Actual Malice and Negligence In Texas, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statement was false or recklessly disregarding its falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on these standards. Privileges and DefensesTexas courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including substantial truth, the opinion and fair comment privileges, and the fair report privilege. Although the Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, many lower courts in Texas have recognized a privilege similar to the neutral reportage privilege. The CMLP has not identified any cases in Texas that recognize the wire service defense. There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect YOU if a third party - not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction - posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others. Most of the privileges and defenses to defamation can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with actual malice. This does not apply to immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Fair Report Privilege In Texas, the fair report privilege protects a "fair, true, and impartial account" of various official proceedings and meetings, including:
One court has applied the fair report privilege to reporting based on a police department press release. See Freedom Commc'n v. Sotelo, 2006 WL 1644602 (Tex. App. June 15, 2006). A plaintiff may overcome the fair report privilege by showing that the defendant acted with actual malice. Neutral Reportage Privilege The Texas Supreme Court has neither recognized or rejected the neutral reportage privilege. Many lower courts have recognized a similar privilege, without calling it "neutral reportage." Under the rule set forth in these cases, when the media reports on an accusation made by a third party, it can defend itself by showing that the accusation was in fact made and under investigation, rather than by showing that the underlying allegation was substantially true. See Dolcefino v. Turner, 987 S.W.2d 100, 109 (Tex. App. 1998). This privilege extends to investigations and accusations made by government and non-government actors and organizations. Proof of actual malice defeats this privilege. Wire Service Defense The CMLP has not identified any cases in Texas that recognize the wire service defense. If you are aware of any cases, please notify us. Statute of Limitations for DefamationTexas has a one (1) year statute of limitations for defamation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code sec. 16.002. Texas has adopted the single publication rule. For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section. Texas state courts have not yet considered whether the single publication rule applies to postings on the Internet, but a federal appeals court applying Texas law recently adopted it in the Internet context. See Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2007). See also Hamad v. Center for the Study of Popular Culture, No. A-06-CA-285-SS (W.D. Tex. June 26, 2006) (adopting single pubication rule for Internet publications). |
It's ridiculous what's been going on. But evidence doesn't lie, and the Courts will vindicate you when it's all finished. If only Phil listened, and absorbed what was going on behind his back, he wouldn't be about to ruin his track record.
That is so very true. It's too bad he has falsely accused me of stealing the modertors when it was Lisa who banned each and every one of us. (Except for you.)
The whole truth is going to come out in court and then he will see he was deceived. He's risked everything for Lisa by filing this frivilious lawsuit.
Everyone, thank you for your support.