Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
Bob and his bots better be able to prove that the card came from the doctor, or they could be in big trouble. I don't believe that the statement "The person who had the card said it is from the good doctor" is sufficient proof.
Admin wrote on columbuzz:
"They must prove what we posted isn't true for there to be libel."
100% incorrect. I guess Bob didn't read or comprehend the link I posted previously: Libel And Slander
Here's a summary:
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court. The plaintiff must show that the:
- DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement
- statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff
- communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message
- communication injured the plaintiff's reputation
- truth
- consent by the plaintiff for the publication of the defamatory statement
- accidental publication
- the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for PUBLIC POLICY reasons. This type of protection is known as privilege
Elements of Defamation
To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff.
Defenses to Libel and Slander
If the defendant can show that the substance of a defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff's claim for slander or libel will fail. For example, assume that the defendant publicly ACCUSED his boss of cheating on taxes. The boss could sue for slander or libel, depending on whether the accusation was written or spoken. If the defendant could prove that the boss actually did cheat on taxes, the defendant would prevail. If the defendant had no proof of such tax cheating, the plaintiff would prevail.
DUDE: Note that the burden of proof is on the defendant (columbuzz), not the plaintiff, to prove that the statements are true.
14 comments:
No one is going to sue Bob and company. Please! If Fred Barkes could not make a case, no one can. After what Bob said about him and his family there is no LAW going to get Columbuzz.
Maybe, maybe not. The doctor has deep pockets.
Actually, Fred Barkes did make a case. That's why Bob agreed to settle out of court.
The Converted one Speaks !!
http://i.1dl.us/txt.jpg
I just love it when people google "columbuzz" and end up on my site. Especially when it's someone from one of the largest law firms in the country, one with offices in several major cities.
Can that be interpreted to mean that Columbuzz is on the hot seat?....again?
I would interpret it to mean that columbuzz could be on the hot seat in the near future.
Dude, let's be realistic. Fred Barkes may have had a case but settling with the likes of Bob Freeman accomplished what? Bob still launches into tirades on his family so I doubt, seriously, Fred's "case" was rock solid. It probably had some holes and Bob being Bob (a total and complete idiot) had no choice but to settle.
"Dude, let's be realistic. Fred Barkes may have had a case but settling with the likes of Bob Freeman accomplished what? Bob still launches into tirades on his family so I doubt, seriously, Fred's 'case' was rock solid."
Since I was not a party to the settlement, I don't know what it says, but the libel and personal attacks have stopped for the most part. I don't recall any recent tirades about Fred and his family.
"It probably had some holes and Bob being Bob (a total and complete idiot) had no choice but to settle."
From what I've read about libel per se, I don't think there were any holes in Fred's case. I believe he just wanted the libel and personal attacks to stop and it looks like the settlement accomplished that.
Insurance companies have the decision on when and if to settle.
Sometimes it's cheaper to pay an ambulance chaser and walk away. They are paid for their time and their bill goes up and gets paid regardless.
Also, sometimes it's better to settle for a puny amount than to risk more facts coming out in court.
Guilt or innocence isn't always relevant.
Facts were always posted. Now only verifiable facts will be posted.
Stay tuned. Christa Acton's situation is a good example of things to come.
Christa Acton's demise has nothing to do with anything that Columbuzz has done. It's kind of hard not to see her failures at this point.
If ole "Blob" had not publicized his support for her opponent it's likely that she would have never been elected. Being even remotely associated with Bob Freeman when seeking an elective office ensures defeat.
Question for Jeremy:
What is your connection to Data Cave, Inc.?
I have heard that some lawyers are looking into columbuzz and making a case against them. If I was the doctors wife I would sue someone for putting a picture of the house she and her kids live in on columbuzz. They are protecting the women, who in my opinion were whore to be sleeping with a married man. They thought he would leave his wife for them, anyone with any sense should know he wasn't going to leave his wife. People who know the doctor said the card did not have his signature on it and that it wasn't his hand writing either.
Post a Comment