Re: Kathleen's crack addiction

On Dec 2, 1:55 pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 2, 11:41 am, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 2, 11:19 am, Stubby Elvis <webmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm NOT saying that this statement is necessarily defamatory. Might be
true. Problem with it, though, is that it is structured as a statement
of FACT. Seems to be a statement. If it's false...then it's probably
defamatory.

And...a couple of explanatory notes...

Defamation actions are based upon damage to reputation within the
community.

Arguably, you cannot be defamed if you are posting anonymously
here...as no one in the "community" has any knowledge of who is being
defamed. Your reputation simply isn't damaged because we don't know
whose reputation we are talking about.

And...there are exceptions for statements of opinion and what is
called "mere name-calling".

Kathleen defames, probably, at least a dozen or so every day. A couple
on a regular, continuing basis.

Why isn't she sued? Probably because she is basically "judgment
proof". No assets to seize in satisfaction of judgment.

Damages are a necessary element of the action, also. Except in certain
categories which are called "per se", (damages are inferred)...you
have to set out...plead and prove exactly HOW your reputation has been
damaged.

So, ironically, by posting under her own name, she might be able to
attack under a defamation suit...but is more or less protected from
the same in reverse, because the plaintiff would have virtually
nothing to gain by suing an internet bag lady, and would look kind of
pathetic in the eyes of the Court for doing so, anyway.

And...like I say, she might be able to get, at a minimum, Chuckle's
address. And we don't want poor Chuckles to feel all scared and
squeamish and wet himself and be forced to move again.

Chuck has posted several attacks recently on her here that are
blatantly false.

I have NO idea what he thinks he is gaining by this...and he has
apparently not realized what the person who continually re-posts the
articles about her arrest and confinement is doing.

Those are truthful. And the posts are hers. Her own words.




How do you know the drug use is not true?

3rd nut is the one re-posting her arrest record, that is why he knows
it was not me.

Please spare me the lawyer talk, my name is not JOPN.

Kathleen and most likely yourself are hopelessly addicted to illegal
drugs and kiddie porn

please seek help





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Genetics of the British
    ... >> Well, there you go, he trades on his reputation as a rich and successful ... but does not in my book constitute defamation. ... wriggle wriggle wriggle ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Implied Defamation
    ... the act of making untrue statements about another which damages ... his/her reputation. ... Therefore a truth is not defamation! ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Implied Defamation
    ... the act of making untrue statements about another which damages ... his/her reputation. ... Therefore a truth is not defamation! ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Buckingham: We was robbed!
    ... Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. ... >> They awarded Falwell damages for emotional pain, ... what is said is that parody is protected; if the publication ... Libel requires no such proof. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Genetics of the British
    ... >> "you are the one who claims to be capable of earning big money and having ... > Pat Gardiner Jul 1, ... > Well, there you go, he trades on his reputation as a rich and successful ... but does not in my book constitute defamation. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)