Dana, please read section 3 of the definition of libel. You are accusing a man of criminal activity. He has the evidence to legally prove otherwise.
You are accusing a judge of illegal and unethical activity. The judge has already legally proven otherwise. I stated my opinion. I would really like to see you try to prove in court that neither of the above is lebal that my opinions of you don't fall under the "opinions are generally immune from libel" clause. It doesn't fall under any of the exceptions. Of course, you are giving me lots and lots of ammunition to back up my opinion, should you ever sue me. The thing that cracks me up the most about this is that I was the (I believe) third person to accuse you of libel and I'm the one you are attacking for accusing you of libel. I guess technically you aren't being libelous because the definition implies that your comments are taken seriously enough to have an effect on the man you are accusing. Since that seems to not be the case, unless you decide to write a "non-fiction book" about the subject. Then you should hire a lawyer but quick. You say a lot of things to distract away from your initial comments. Here's a quote from you: "There is evidence. It was presented at one or another of the hearings (who cares which at this point) and the judge chose to disregard it because Schiavo is so obviously a nice guy" Later you say that you didn't say that the judge was biassed in his favor for being a "nice guy" but that people in general are because they don't want to believe that someone they know is capable of such a thing. You later state that the reasons that the judge ignored this evidence is detailed and that it was upheld on appeal by a second judge, yet you state that no other judge examined the evidence. Perhaps no other judge examined the evidence *closely* but for a judge to uphold that on appeal, he/she has to do some rudimentary examination of the evidence to determine if the judge's opinion has legal grounds. For some types of evidence, the judge's opinion is always upheld "This person is not believeable" for instance. For other types, such as "this expert witness is not an expert," the appellate judge has to do some examination. And then you start with the personal attacks calling me an "idiot" because I said that you are biassed and irrational on this subject. Biassed and irrational on this subject is not a personal attack, it's an opinion based on your actions (or more specifically, you words). Biassed and irrational IN GENERAL would be a personal attack. Likewise, "uninformed about this case" is a statement of opinion. "[You are an] idiot!" is a personal attack. Since I seem to have to have you do all of my heavy intellectual lifting for me, why don't you go look up whether or not personal attacks are considered a legitimate argument and why. And as for your personal life, it's kind of sad to hear that grandstanding in a mailing list in an attempt to justify yourself (by avoiding addressing your previous comments and making personal attacks against people that you have no experience with) takes precedence over your social activities. Especially considering that some of them seem awfully important. Me? I had to drop this thread for a while because some friends unexpectedly came by for dinner. By the way, I never said that you were a victim of domestic abuse, just that you have personal issues surrounding domestic abuse that cloud your judgement. You do not have to be a victim of domestic abuse to have personal issues with it-- you can be a relative or a friend of someone who was abused, or you can be a witness. I do not know whether to imply that your statement that you are "[not a victim but a witness]" is in reference to being a witness of domestic abuse, a witness to these court procedings, or a witness to "end-of-life decision" making. In any case, two of those make you a likely subject for being biassed. > 3. Statements of Opinion and not fact are generally immune from Libel. > That's because an opinion can never be proven false. However, if your > opinion implies your knowledge of an underlying set of facts which > your opinion is based upon, Libel might exist. For instance, stating > that a certain business in your opinion "is a fraud" implies that you > know of some facts indicating the business has committed fraud. On the > other hand, stating "I don't like that business' product" is merely > expressing your individual tastes which is not Libel. -- "You can't destroy EVERYthing. Where would you sit?" The Tick Now for hire... http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/index.cfm Now blogging.... http://www.blivit.org/blog/index.cfm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164167 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
