Posted by HisHughness on 9/6/11 7:18pm
Msg #396511
A word of caution
This is a public forum, open to all, but this admonition applies to more private venues as well. You never know when those private conversations will become public, or just reach the wrong person.
You should be judicious in speaking of both other people and also of companies; in some jurisdictions, it is possible to libel or slander a corporation.
Generally speaking, the law and the First Amendment give you the right to your <opinion>, and the right to voice that opinion. I would feel fairly secure, for example, in saying, "I believe Bob_Chicago is an embarrassment not only to his mother, but even to second cousins he's never met." That is an opinion.
It is a greatly different thing, though, to state negative information as fact, as in"Bob_Chicago picks his nose and deposits the boogers in the upper-right-hand corner of his computer screen for later consumption." That is stating something as fact, and that can get you in trouble. Even if you aren't sued, you may be forced into a painful pubic apology, such as "I wish to apologize for stating that Bob_Chicago saves boogers for later consumption. That is not true. He prefers them warm." Or you may indeed be sued, and even if you prevail, you are out the expense of an attorney and the emotional trauma of a lawsuite.
Finally, remember that slander and libel are two different animals. Slander is basically what you say to someone else. Libel is something that is circulated in print -- as in this forum. Because the impact of libel is so much greater, generally it is regarded as a more serious offense with consequently greater damages.
Now, please, would none of you mention this post to Bob_Chicago?
| Reply by desktopfull on 9/6/11 7:28pm
Msg #396513
5 star post! n/m
| Reply by dickb/wi on 9/6/11 7:30pm
Msg #396514
great post hugh......and the same goes for talking about fees and anti trust issues...but i like bob and i know he doesn't do those things.......
| Reply by Moneyman/TX on 9/6/11 7:55pm
Msg #396522
Great reminder Hugh. Yes, a 5 Star Post! n/m
| Reply by Karla/OR on 9/6/11 7:57pm
Msg #396523
Re: Great reminder Hugh. Yes, a 5 Star Post!
On a scale of 1 to 10, a 10!!! Too funny and so creative!
| Reply by Les_CO on 9/6/11 8:18pm
Msg #396527
Okay counselor…Now you’ve got me worried? Does this mean when I call someone that is a thief a thief, like Joey Le with D&T Signing. Or another thief like Konstantin Safir with Genuine Title a thief and a deadbeat that I should be worried? Is this slander or libel if it’s true? These guys are below pond scum, and if they would like to sue me I’m listed here. If they would like a retraction they can PAY ME what they owe me first, then I’ll think about it. This is just my opinion people, if you want to work for these….. odoriferous liars…feel free.
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/6/11 8:42pm
Msg #396529
Les, you can lead a horse to water...
...but you can't keep it from peeing in the trough.
I hope you don't mind if I move on down the road from you for a drink.
| Reply by Les_CO on 9/7/11 9:57am
Msg #396559
Re: Les, you can lead a horse to water...
Being from Colorado I’m always thoughtful of my brother NSA’s in CA and AZ when pissing in a stream here…I don’t think a lot of our water gets to Texas, but next time I’m in Alamosa I’ll think of you.
| Reply by bagger on 9/7/11 10:40am
Msg #396562
Not to pick nits here Hugh, but....
I think I would move UP the road or UP stream from where Les is pissing.
| Reply by Les_CO on 9/7/11 12:43pm
Msg #396576
Re: Not to pick nits here Hugh, but....
 !!!
| Reply by Juan Jimenez on 9/6/11 8:52pm
Msg #396530
I do believe that evidence of facts is a positive defense in any libel or slander case (you can't commit libel or slander if you are stating facts), and most states require a determination of malice in order to find for the plaintiff. A lot of people like to mouth off about libel and slander lawsuits, but usually they change their minds when their attorneys hit them with a dose of reality, and refuse to take the case without a significant retainer fee.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 9/6/11 9:24pm
Msg #396535
FYI Juan: Hughness IS an attorney! n/m
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/6/11 9:36pm
Msg #396537
Answer this, Hughness
I'm guessing that the close proximity of your post admonishing discretion when it comes to making extremely negative comments about people and companies to my post about Carla Wright is no coincidence.
So running with that, let me say that I cannot imagine that Carla Wright would disagree at all with my assessment of her, which, coincidentally, matches ALL the comments already posted about her on SC.
The chances of Carla Wright, the R&R Group, Safir, Genuine Title, SOX, etc. suing for reinstatement of their good name are extremely slim, knowing, of course, that they wouldn't be in this pickle if they had simply paid for work done. However, I do understand that you are saying this is not a beauty contest and that a person can sue for damages, contending that they lost business or suffered personally as a result of being exposed as, say, a nose-picker. Truth, of course, will hopefully prevail. But in the meantime, everybody could be out a lot of $$$.
So, call me a dunderhead (no, don't), but is this what you are saying? And if so, what is the appropriate way in your opinion to expose such people without risking a heap o' trouble? (And, by the way, the reason I posted at all was to warn another notary to stay away from her, which apparently meant nothing as she went right ahead and got her own through Paypal with no apparent concern as to Carla's long history of notary abuse, thus doing her part to keep Carla in business, but that's a different story.)
Seems I can't win.
Which reminds me: NR Harry was addressing this very issue earlier this year and sought our input as to what he should do about fired-up SSs stinging from (anonymous) negative comments about them. What was the outcome, if any?
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/6/11 10:30pm
Msg #396546
Re: Answer this, Hughness
Libel and slander laws vary from jurisdiction. We have 50 states; we have 50 different sets of laws governing libel and slander. Because of that, you should not rely upon truth or the absence of malice as an absolute defense.
What you CAN rely upon is that if you are sued for either libel or slander, you will regret it. You will regret it if you know what you have said to be true. You will regret it even if you know that what you said was not motivated by malice.
In each case, you will have to prove your defense. And, whereas truth itself may not be elusive, proof of the truth is a different matter. So is establishing the lack of malice.
But assume the best, that you are able to conclusively establish that you told the truth and that there is even less malice in you than in Mother Teresa herself. <<<You have still had to prove those things.>>> You had to do that in a courtroom, and, presumably, you had to do so with the assistance of an attorney, and, again presumably, that attorney had not incorporated himself as The Association of Free Attorneys for Loose-Lipped Signing Agents Inc., so you presumably had to pay that attorney. And let us remember, in a dark dark day for some lawyers, most state bars now prohibit lawyers from collecting their fees while naked. That means you had to write him a check -- a very large check.
With all that, isn't the simplest thing just to say, "Hugh Nations refused my advances, even after I did The famous High-Octane Hip Waggle, and I think he's just an impotent Olde Phart," than to say, "Hugh Nations can't get it out of neutral into drive, so I know he's impotent?"
This is very much a case of discretion is the better part of value -- i.e., retaining the value of what you own rather than yielding it to a court judgement.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/6/11 11:08pm
Msg #396548
Re: Answer this, Hughness
<<With all that, isn't the simplest thing just to say, "Hugh Nations refused my advances, even after I did The famous High-Octane Hip Waggle, and I think he's just an impotent Olde Phart," than to say, "Hugh Nations can't get it out of neutral into drive, so I know he's impotent?">>
Well, Hugh, next time I'm in Texas, we'll have to put this to the test. (Or do you have any plans to come to California?) But we'll have to make it soon or my High-Octane Hip Waggle will be more like Replacement Hip Waggle.
| Reply by John Schenk on 9/6/11 10:07pm
Msg #396540
Truth of the facts is the defense.
Not sure I agree that "malice" is a necessity, outside of a public figure, for either slander or libel. I think it probably borders on a finding of "malice" in most slander and libel cases, but not sure that requirement exists.
If I post "Juan is dog killer," and Juan isn't a dog killer, but that pisses Juan off, and PITA and the Humane Society come down on Juan, then I think that would be enough to set me up for a lawsuit against myself for libel (Very simple analogy).
As for posting whether X pays or Y doesn't pay, either X or Y paid, or they didn't. Easy enough to prove, and normally if X doesn't pay, there's a LOT of folks that post that X sucks. Not libelous, but doesn't mean X couldn't sue any poster that posted such a thing, even though true. Defensible, but X could sue any one of us for posting that, although that really doesn't bother me when we have known deadbeats, or simply post that X missed a payment to me and I'm 60 days out. Closed on 07/06 and it's 09/06 and I still have no check...no lie on that...just fact...the defense.
No legal advice here. Just a lay poster, as always.
JJ
| Reply by Cheryl Anderson on 9/6/11 9:34pm
Msg #396536
Oh My Goodness...this was hilarious! And the immature side of me especially picked up on the phrase: "...painful pubic apology..." the picture that created inside my crazy head was, well, words could not justify. Anyway, excellent post, nonetheless! Oh, and did I mention..."boogers" was quite entertaining too!?
| Reply by Bob_Chicago on 9/7/11 1:10am
Msg #396551
Excellent points. Also I would like to ask you to come to
Chicago and help me clean off my computer screen.
And you are the one who told me that it was a great way to have ready made Texas snacks available and that they would clean off easily, you disingenuous sack of poop.
My attorney will be contacting you soon, if I can find a competnet one in Texas.
| Reply by Claudine Osborne on 9/7/11 11:20am
Msg #396565
Re: Excellent points. Also I would like to ask you to come to
Too funny..Its nice to laugh on here as oppose to gasps..
| Reply by Moneyman/TX on 9/7/11 1:07pm
Msg #396577
LOL n/m
| Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 9/7/11 12:21pm
Msg #396571
excellent post Hugh, Bob your ears must've been ringing! n/m
|
|
