Legal Lesson for Dummies...

[Citruscide]

Here are the elements of Defamation... the difference between Defamation and Libel (Written defamation) is that Libel is AUTOMATICALLY communicated to a third party (satisifying the Pulbication part of the below test)

1)Defamatory language
2) of or concerning plaintiff.
3) publication
4) damage to the reputation of plaintiff -- damage that would cost the plaintiff a job, work, or even their LEGAL LICENSE...

Now... let's make a scenario...

Joe is an attorney. Phil accuses Joe of threatening his life and blackmailing him because of an e-mail or two he recieved.

Phil decides to tell all of Joe's friends, and others ... however, Phil has no evidence, IP trace or otherwise knowledge that these e-mails originated or were sent by Joe...

Ok, we now have defamatory language ... the ordinary person would consider being called a "life-threatener" and "blackmailer" to be bad for one's reputation.

Since it was stated that "JOE" sent this e-mail, it is of or concerning the plaintiff... it was "written" and sent to third parties...

As for Damage... since it was WRITTEN damages are presumed. If you want an explination, Joe could lose his legal license if such information were true.

For the purpose of this problem, and not taking sides... if the e-mails were sent by Joe, he'd hve no cause of action... because what Phil said would be the truth... however, if Joe did not send these e-mails... there is a claim for Libel here and damages are presumed...

Furthermore, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, case law has shown (I believe it was a case against AOL) that a faciliitator of such false claims could be held liable... although, there is another test for that... (such as involvement of the board in the publicatoin or republication of said material) - take EF for instance... if Mods republished such information in posts, without fully investigating the origin of such e-mails... well... then EF could be liable...for... heh heh... Libel.

Now... for the facts of this scenario... we will say that "Joe" is a private figure (as opposed to a public one-- ie a celebrity) ... then only negligence would have to be shown on the part of the defendant... not investigating or inquriing to the sender and making a claim based on ancillary thoughts... is not enough...

Basically... that's internet Libel in a nutshell for dummies...

Oh, and Joe is still waiting for the law firm number from Phil's firm... but hasn't gotten it yet... In this hypothetical...


Citruscide

 

[big4life]

You would never know that you are an unemployed lawyer, by reading that.



I'm impressed.

 

[Citruscide]

You would never know that you are an unemployed lawyer, by reading that.



I'm impressed.

Well... let's not forget I'm doing trademark contracting work part-time right now. I'm only billing out at around $100/hour... and... I only get around 5-10 hours a week... if that. I also am helping a Securities Arbitration firm out of San Diego... of course, I'm only getting $20/Hour for that... and haven't gotten any work from them for all of December... but even at 5 hours a week at the TM firm it's 2K a month, pays the bills.

Thanks for the compliment.

C

 

[big4life]

That's the thing about hypothetical situations. They are always so nice and tidy.


Too bad we don't live in a hypothetical world.


Have a good night. I'm going to bed as I have an 8 A.M. appointment.

 

[XBiker]

C,

Intellectual property perhaps? I know you have posted it, I just can't recall.

Care to refresh my memory?

 

[Citruscide]

Funny thing about that "hypothetical" scenario... it's pretty close to reality.

As for me... I can do my work whenever I please... no sense in getting up that early

C

 

[Citruscide]

C,

Intellectual property perhaps? I know you have posted it, I just can't recall.

Care to refresh my memory?

Yeah, Trademarks and Copyrights are my specialty... (Intellectual Property) ... I also do some work with Patents.. such as business design or programming patents... It's what I can bill the highest at, as I've been doing work for various law firms on and off for about 2 years now... but just recently getting more work.

As for the Securities Arbitration... it has to do with SEC violations of various investment firms... there is a HUGE influx of cases now after all of the scandals are coming to light... so, needless to say, that market is starting to heat up... and I'm getting my feet wet.

Citruscide

 

[bwood]

i could have swore that the tort of libel had another
element...

that of being untrue...

that being said, i have no idea of the current
drama and have only popped in to annoy those
worthy of annoyance...

nathan is a fag...

i heard assplorer is gay...

darktooth has nasty feet...

citruscide is may 1010...

khmer needs medication...

i would like to see a buffet consumption
contest between cas and bfold...

back to finals...

peace guys...

Here are the elements of Defamation... the difference between Defamation and Libel (Written defamation) is that Libel is AUTOMATICALLY communicated to a third party (satisifying the Pulbication part of the below test)

1)Defamatory language
2) of or concerning plaintiff.
3) publication
4) damage to the reputation of plaintiff -- damage that would cost the plaintiff a job, work, or even their LEGAL LICENSE...

Now... let's make a scenario...

Joe is an attorney. Phil accuses Joe of threatening his life and blackmailing him because of an e-mail or two he recieved.

Phil decides to tell all of Joe's friends, and others ... however, Phil has no evidence, IP trace or otherwise knowledge that these e-mails originated or were sent by Joe...

Ok, we now have defamatory language ... the ordinary person would consider being called a "life-threatener" and "blackmailer" to be bad for one's reputation.

Since it was stated that "JOE" sent this e-mail, it is of or concerning the plaintiff... it was "written" and sent to third parties...

As for Damage... since it was WRITTEN damages are presumed. If you want an explination, Joe could lose his legal license if such information were true.

For the purpose of this problem, and not taking sides... if the e-mails were sent by Joe, he'd hve no cause of action... because what Phil said would be the truth... however, if Joe did not send these e-mails... there is a claim for Libel here and damages are presumed...

Furthermore, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, case law has shown (I believe it was a case against AOL) that a faciliitator of such false claims could be held liable... although, there is another test for that... (such as involvement of the board in the publicatoin or republication of said material) - take EF for instance... if Mods republished such information in posts, without fully investigating the origin of such e-mails... well... then EF could be liable...for... heh heh... Libel.

Now... for the facts of this scenario... we will say that "Joe" is a private figure (as opposed to a public one-- ie a celebrity) ... then only negligence would have to be shown on the part of the defendant... not investigating or inquriing to the sender and making a claim based on ancillary thoughts... is not enough...

Basically... that's internet Libel in a nutshell for dummies...

Oh, and Joe is still waiting for the law firm number from Phil's firm... but hasn't gotten it yet... In this hypothetical...


Citruscide

 

[KAYNE]

CIT
I SENT OUT PICTURES OF MY EX PERFORMING FELLATIO ON ME AND OF HER IN THE SHOWER AFTER WE BROKE UP. SHE WAS TALKING ALL KINDS OF SHIT ABOUT ME AND TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO FIGHT ME (BUT THEY HAD SENSE). I GAVE HER A CHANCE TO STOP ALL THE BULLSHIT AND EVEN TOLD HER I WAS GOING TO DO IT IF SHE DIDNT STOP.

MY QUESTION IS, DID I DEFACATE UHH I MEAN DEFAMATE OR DEFAME HER!!!

ON A SIDE NOTE, I WOULD NVR DO THAT TO ANYONE BUT THIS CHICK IS PURE TRASH AND WAS TRYING TO RUIN ME. I JUST TURNED THE TABLES ON HER. I HAVE PICS OF ANOTHER EX. I WOULD NVR SEND THOSE OR SHOW THOSE TO ANYONE.

ON ANOTHER SIDE NOTE, ANYONE WANTS THE PIX OF HER IN THE SHOWER??? LMAO



KAYNE

 

[KAYNE]

BTW....I SENT THEM TO HER FATHER WHO IS A PROMINENT DOCTOR. I'M ASSUMING HE ENJOYED THEM QUITE THOROUGHLY.



KAYNE

 

[Citruscide]

CIT
I SENT OUT PICTURES OF MY EX PERFORMING FELLATIO ON ME AND OF HER IN THE SHOWER AFTER WE BROKE UP. SHE WAS TALKING ALL KINDS OF SHIT ABOUT ME AND TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO FIGHT ME (BUT THEY HAD SENSE). I GAVE HER A CHANCE TO STOP ALL THE BULLSHIT AND EVEN TOLD HER I WAS GOING TO DO IT IF SHE DIDNT STOP.

MY QUESTION IS, DID I DEFACATE UHH I MEAN DEFAMATE OR DEFAME HER!!!

ON A SIDE NOTE, I WOULD NVR DO THAT TO ANYONE BUT THIS CHICK IS PURE TRASH AND WAS TRYING TO RUIN ME. I JUST TURNED THE TABLES ON HER. I HAVE PICS OF ANOTHER EX. I WOULD NVR SEND THOSE OR SHOW THOSE TO ANYONE.

ON ANOTHER SIDE NOTE, ANYONE WANTS THE PIX OF HER IN THE SHOWER??? LMAO

KAYNE

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I'll do my best to analyze it...

Now, her talking all kinds of shit... satisfies the first two elements of defimation -- defmatory statement and about plaintiff (ie, you) -- publication is satisfied in defimation if it is communicated to a third party... telling people "shit" would be to a third party... now, to damages...

Since it wasn't written, damages aren't presumed, and since you are a private figure the other two parts of the test do not apply (no actual malice needed, only negligence... however from the facts, if she had made false statements, they would satisfy BOTH elements) ... You have to ask yourself what you have suffered? Could you get fired? Is your reputation hurt? From the facts, your friends had "sense" enough not to fight you.. .so they obviously didn't believe her... So all in all.. SHE didn't defame you

I didn't answer your questoin first, because sending out pictures (naked or otherwise) of another isn't really "defamation" ... it really falls into the tort of Invasion of the right of Privacy...

Now... this would most likely be the 4th Part of invasion of privacy... which would be the publication of private facts about the plaintiff (Plaintiff being your Ex)... the general rule is if a reasonable person would object to it... Being a reasonable person myself, I'd say that sending out pics like this would be a violation of her right to privacy...

A defense to this would be CONSENT... so if she said she didn't care if you sent them out before... then you are all cool (Unless she recinded this consent).

Hope that helps.

Citruscide

 

[Citruscide]

Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

i could have swore that the tort of libel had another
element...

that of being untrue...

It's not an element, but a defense...

There are TWO more elements if it is a written statement and the first amendment applies... say... if a newspaper were writing a story on Marrion Barry and said he was a Coke addict (when in fact he wasn't)...

Element 5 - the statement must be false
Element 6 - the statement must have been made with Actual malace -- not mere negligence..

Citruscide

 

[TxArmyGuy]

Hey what kind of Legal Rights would I have to legally try and get my things back from a woman I was dating who was holding on to them while I was in a transition period of moving?

She had told me she intended on following me to where I was going and would hold my things till then and now is not comming but wont give back my things

 

[Citruscide]

Hey what kind of Legal Rights would I have to legally try and get my things back from a woman I was dating who was holding on to them while I was in a transition period of moving?

She had told me she intended on following me to where I was going and would hold my things till then and now is not comming but wont give back my things

Ok, let me get these facts straight...

You moved out from your girlfriends, she held on to YOUR stuff.. while you were waiting to move into a new apartment. She then said she would move in with you (follow you to where you were going) and now backed out of the deal... and has decided to keep your things?

If that is the case, do you have proof of ownership? As for a tort claim, you could either sue her for a conversion or a trespass of chattels... either one might work... However, if you have proof of ownership (reciepts and such) you could get them back at small claims court...

Let's delve into Tresspass to chattels and Conversion ... shall we?

TRESSPASS To CHATTELS -- Is a basic interference with your property... the person who is interfering with your property must be INTENDING to do so... (I.E., it can't be in the back of their car and they not know about it)... now, in order to satisfy this claim, there must be actual damages to the chattel.

Facts -- she is holding some of your stuff -- She is intentionally interfering with you gaining your property back... any cost to you that this deprevation might induce, could be construed as damages... also, any damages that were done to the property in question could also be negotiated.

CONVERSION -- An intentional interference that is SO SERIOUS the converter should have to pay the purchase price of the chattel. Same intent, obviously and to calcuate damages, the Fair Market Value of the chattel AT THE TIME OF CONVERSION is used. (I.E. a friend "borrows" your bike after you purchase it you demand it back the next day... he doesn't give it back... you keep demanding for 3 months... take him to court... the value is of the day he refused to give you back the bike... not 3 months later)

Facts -- again, she is holding on to some of your stuff... if she has sold it, damaged it beyond repair, or the interference is so great, she should have to buy you new stuff (I.E., sterio held for over a year would be less a value by a greater than marginal amount). You'd get the FMV of the goods at the time they were converted, IE, you made a demand for them back and she did not relinquish them.

Those torts apply... although, if you have some sort of proof of purchase... best buy service plan, payment plan (on furnature), reciepts or some form of proving the property is yours and not hers... you could hit small claims (unless the value is much higher) or you could contact your local sheriff... that's always my favorite, but most messy.

Citruscide

 

[Citruscide]

BTW....I SENT THEM TO HER FATHER WHO IS A PROMINENT DOCTOR. I'M ASSUMING HE ENJOYED THEM QUITE THOROUGHLY.



KAYNE

Never a pretty situation to see one's daughter naked... an effective means of revenge against the daughter, however... though, I would NEVER advise that as an attorney.

You know... all of this helping others has made me think... There are alot of people on EF that could use some council at times... EF... I have to say... I'm here for you... if you have any legal concerns... I'd be more than willing to add my expertise to the best of my ability...

Citruscide

 

[TxArmyGuy]

No we haven't lived together...I was going from one training school to another, mailed her my things with the intent that she was to hold onto them until I

A. got to my duty station
or
B. She said she wanted to move up here to be with me and would bring things with her

 

[Citruscide]

No we haven't lived together...I was going from one training school to another, mailed her my things with the intent that she was to hold onto them until I

A. got to my duty station
or
B. She said she wanted to move up here to be with me and would bring things with her

Same legal advice then... she is keeping your "things" against your will... despite the original agreement.

Also, if she is claiming you owe her money, it is no reason for her to hold onto your stuff... by law, her remedy would be to RETURN your goods and sue you in court for the money...

Citruscide

 

[TxArmyGuy]

lol

no way she could have lost any money...I've blown too much money on this and spent to much time trying to make things happen and all for nothing

do I really care about things not working out...NO, but when things didn't workout the 1st time I said fine whatever give me back my things...Hasn't done that yet...I'm afraid this might actually turn to a legal issue seeing how she is in possesion of some of my military items like Class A jacket, Jump boots, training notes and items from tech school and my Damn Airborne school plaque...I can't replace those items

 

[Citruscide]

lol

no way she could have lost any money...I've blown too much money on this and spent to much time trying to make things happen and all for nothing

do I really care about things not working out...NO, but when things didn't workout the 1st time I said fine whatever give me back my things...Hasn't done that yet...I'm afraid this might actually turn to a legal issue seeing how she is in possesion of some of my military items like Class A jacket, Jump boots, training notes and items from tech school and my Damn Airborne school plaque...I can't replace those items

If they are destroyed, she could be held for the actual value of those items... IE, a training log from the military which might be physically worth 10 bucks, could contain what would amount to 1000's of hours of work... what you should start doing is determining exactly how much work went into the notes (which are UNIQUE -- that is a good legal word to use) and exactly what hte value of these other items would be...

Citrus

 

[TxArmyGuy]

well lets see

7 hrs a day, 5 days a week, 17 weeks.....hmmm not much math to figure this one out

 

[KAYNE]

UMM....SO DID I DEFAME HER BY SENDING THE PIX OUT OR NOT. I'M LOST WITH ALL THAT LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO.




KAYNE

 

[Citruscide]

UMM....SO DID I DEFAME HER BY SENDING THE PIX OUT OR NOT. I'M LOST WITH ALL THAT LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO.




KAYNE

No Kayne... you did not defame her... but you may have violated her right to privacy... as I explained.

Citrus

 

[KAYNE]

No Kayne... you did not defame her... but you may have violated her right to privacy... as I explained.

Citrus

LAMEN'S TERMS. MUCH BETTER THAN THE FIRST POST. NOW I AM ENLIGHTENED.



KAYNE

 

[Citruscide]

LAMEN'S TERMS. MUCH BETTER THAN THE FIRST POST. NOW I AM ENLIGHTENED.



KAYNE

well... yes... I suppose it is better... if it helps you understand... I think the first was more informative...

Citrus

 

[KAYNE]

well... yes... I suppose it is better... if it helps you understand... I think the first was more informative...

Citrus

YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT ALL THAT ENLIGHTENED ON LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO.


KAYNE

 

[kronk]

Here are the elements of Defamation... the difference between Defamation and Libel (Written defamation) is that Libel is AUTOMATICALLY communicated to a third party (satisifying the Pulbication part of the below test)

1)Defamatory language
2) of or concerning plaintiff.
3) publication
4) damage to the reputation of plaintiff -- damage that would cost the plaintiff a job, work, or even their LEGAL LICENSE...

Now... let's make a scenario...

Joe is an attorney. Phil accuses Joe of threatening his life and blackmailing him because of an e-mail or two he recieved.

Phil decides to tell all of Joe's friends, and others ... however, Phil has no evidence, IP trace or otherwise knowledge that these e-mails originated or were sent by Joe...

Ok, we now have defamatory language ... the ordinary person would consider being called a "life-threatener" and "blackmailer" to be bad for one's reputation.

Since it was stated that "JOE" sent this e-mail, it is of or concerning the plaintiff... it was "written" and sent to third parties...

As for Damage... since it was WRITTEN damages are presumed. If you want an explination, Joe could lose his legal license if such information were true.

For the purpose of this problem, and not taking sides... if the e-mails were sent by Joe, he'd hve no cause of action... because what Phil said would be the truth... however, if Joe did not send these e-mails... there is a claim for Libel here and damages are presumed...

Furthermore, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, case law has shown (I believe it was a case against AOL) that a faciliitator of such false claims could be held liable... although, there is another test for that... (such as involvement of the board in the publicatoin or republication of said material) - take EF for instance... if Mods republished such information in posts, without fully investigating the origin of such e-mails... well... then EF could be liable...for... heh heh... Libel.

Now... for the facts of this scenario... we will say that "Joe" is a private figure (as opposed to a public one-- ie a celebrity) ... then only negligence would have to be shown on the part of the defendant... not investigating or inquriing to the sender and making a claim based on ancillary thoughts... is not enough...

Basically... that's internet Libel in a nutshell for dummies...

Oh, and Joe is still waiting for the law firm number from Phil's firm... but hasn't gotten it yet... In this hypothetical...


Citruscide

Nice.

 

[WODIN]

Here are the elements of Defamation... the difference between Defamation and Libel (Written defamation) is that Libel is AUTOMATICALLY communicated to a third party (satisifying the Pulbication part of the below test)

1)Defamatory language
2) of or concerning plaintiff.
3) publication
4) damage to the reputation of plaintiff -- damage that would cost the plaintiff a job, work, or even their LEGAL LICENSE...

Now... let's make a scenario...

Joe is an attorney. Phil accuses Joe of threatening his life and blackmailing him because of an e-mail or two he recieved.

Phil decides to tell all of Joe's friends, and others ... however, Phil has no evidence, IP trace or otherwise knowledge that these e-mails originated or were sent by Joe...

Ok, we now have defamatory language ... the ordinary person would consider being called a "life-threatener" and "blackmailer" to be bad for one's reputation.

Since it was stated that "JOE" sent this e-mail, it is of or concerning the plaintiff... it was "written" and sent to third parties...

As for Damage... since it was WRITTEN damages are presumed. If you want an explination, Joe could lose his legal license if such information were true.

For the purpose of this problem, and not taking sides... if the e-mails were sent by Joe, he'd hve no cause of action... because what Phil said would be the truth... however, if Joe did not send these e-mails... there is a claim for Libel here and damages are presumed...

Furthermore, if we want to get down to the nitty gritty, case law has shown (I believe it was a case against AOL) that a faciliitator of such false claims could be held liable... although, there is another test for that... (such as involvement of the board in the publicatoin or republication of said material) - take EF for instance... if Mods republished such information in posts, without fully investigating the origin of such e-mails... well... then EF could be liable...for... heh heh... Libel.

Now... for the facts of this scenario... we will say that "Joe" is a private figure (as opposed to a public one-- ie a celebrity) ... then only negligence would have to be shown on the part of the defendant... not investigating or inquriing to the sender and making a claim based on ancillary thoughts... is not enough...

Basically... that's internet Libel in a nutshell for dummies...

Oh, and Joe is still waiting for the law firm number from Phil's firm... but hasn't gotten it yet... In this hypothetical...


Citruscide

Too long, I have the attention span of a .........

 

[big4life]

Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

Nice.

I'm glad to see that as a moderator, you're not letting your personal relationships cloud your judgement.





Before you ask, no it doesn't apply to me, as I'm not a mod. I USED to be a paying member, but that doesn't apply anymore.

 

[spentagn]

Ok, so what the fuck happened? And C, I just got an A in my Business Law class covering all this info. I was trying to forget it. I'd appreciate it if you'd let me wallow in stupidity.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

save the drama for yo mama...

 

[kronk]

Re: Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

I'm glad to see that as a moderator, you're not letting your personal relationships cloud your judgement.





Before you ask, no it doesn't apply to me, as I'm not a mod. I USED to be a paying member, but that doesn't apply anymore.

Sorry Big4life if you do not agree with me. From the information I have seen and read my judgement is not clouded.

Having a legal degree myself, I am looking at this from that point of view.

 

[big4life]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

Sorry Big4life if you do not agree with me. From the information I have seen and read my judgement is not clouded.

Having a legal degree myself, I am looking at this from that point of view.

It's a good thing that the information that you are receiving is not slanted.

 

[manny78]

Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

i could have swore that the tort of libel had another
element...

that of being untrue...

Under the Quebec's Civil Code it is. It must be notoriously false or wrong for a reasonable person. But Citrus is talking here about the Common Law, that's another story....

 

[Citruscide]

Re: Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

Under the Quebec's Civil Code it is. It must be notoriously false or wrong for a reasonable person. But Citrus is talking here about the Common Law, that's another story....

Yeah... who knows about Quebec's law... Defamatory language is basically what the ordinary person would find to be harmful or offensive... that could mean any number of things... If i say "You're a fag" -- I doubt it's going to go anywhere.. becuase people would have to BELIEVE it to be somewhat defamatory... Now I say "You are a theif and lier... and stalk women" then it gets a little more dicey...

Citrus

 

[manny78]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Lesson for Dummies...

Yeah... who knows about Quebec's law... Defamatory language is basically what the ordinary person would find to be harmful or offensive... that could mean any number of things... If i say "You're a fag" -- I doubt it's going to go anywhere.. becuase people would have to BELIEVE it to be somewhat defamatory... Now I say "You are a theif and lier... and stalk women" then it gets a little more dicey...

Citrus

I believe Lousianna has the same Civil Code with some minor changes...... am I right ?