Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something else

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5
And remember, even truth is not an absolute defense in Pa. -

Do you happen to have a Statute or case law to back up this assertion ?

Nothing personal, but I'll take the opinion of an eminent Constitutional Law Professor and well known gun rights expert.

http://volokh.com/posts/1235577832.shtml


And a case won by one of the Founding Fathers , Alexander Hamilton

http://www.justicelearning.org/justi...1&timelineID=1


Before I take the unsubstantiated claim of a random person on teh interwebs

Per your request, with the most relevant portion in bold:

42 Pa.C.S. § 8342: Justification a defense

"In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true and is proper for public information or investigation, and has not been maliciously or negligently made."

You will note that the elements of justification are conjunctive, i.e., in order successfully to assert a defense of truth as bar against liability for libel/slander in PA, you must prove, not merely contend, each and every one of the following:

1) The statement is true; and
2) The statement is proper for public information; and
3) The statement is was "maliciously or negligently made."

So, yeah, my statement that truth is not an absolute defense is absolutely accurate.

If truth were an absolute defense in PA, § 8342 would be truncated as to the last two elements of the defense and read:

"In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true."

Your statement in your earlier posts, that you wish engage in "smear campaign tactics" and that "Sometimes we have to go DEEP into backround , just like a political campaign, to find the long forgotten " dirt " that will compromise someone in the here and now" are the sort of statements that make defamation defense lawyers cringe, and plaintiffs' lawyers giggle with delight.

You also need to realize that there is a fairly substantial sea change in terms of the way that courts are dealing with defamation claims that has been evolving over the past few years. Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. Mass. 2009) -- which addresses this very issue -- is being favorably cited by courts all over the place.

I'd think long and hard about my purpose in making a statement -- even if true -- before I opened my mouth.

And as gunlawyer noted: He and I may disagree on the tactic as appropriate or not, but the law is what it is.

Finally, I'm anything but I'm far some "random" dude on the internet. If you're going to call into question someone's bona fides, do a little research first. I've been here for quite some time, and have worn a trail "around the block" as an attorney. You probably haven't seen my posts in the year that you've been here because I don't make that many any more.

Why?

First, lawyering on the internet isn't exactly fulfilling. The law is complicated, and for every person who understands that, there are thousands who think it's just a matter of reading a statute, or telling a judge some magic language. It ain't. But that doesn't stop the thousands from posting up a storm and foaming about it. It generates static, and I could spend all day, every day, correcting every erroneous legal proposition advanced on this site and still not make a dent. You can't convince a zealot. I no longer choose to try. Most of them will learn, if they do at all, the hard way (and pay for my kids' tuition, in so doing). I've lost count of the number of times I've watched a layman -- convinced of the correctness of his point -- stand up in court and argue what he thinks the law is, and then get stomped into the ground. It's sad to watch, honestly -- the look on the guy's face is usually puzzled, then befuddled, then angry, then absolutely sad and crushed. Don't be that guy.

Second, I just don't have the time to be on here as much as I used to. Work, wife, kids, hobbies -- I'm just too damned busy.

[synergy]

Do you happen to have a Statute or case law to back up this assertion ?

Nothing personal, but I'll take the opinion of an eminent Constitutional Law Professor and well known gun rights expert.
...
Before I take the unsubstantiated claim of a random person on teh interwebs

It was just provided for you.

Rule makes more per hour (as a lawyer) than I make in a week....that's not because he sucks at it.

As for defending the image of gun owners, from being a bunch of stupid, redneck bible thumpers....if you want to dress it up, I would humbly suggest toning down your attack against a pro-gun attorney giving you some good advice (for free no less).

FYI, Rule is pretty much the guy who found the case law and got the ball rolling on OC in PA. So, kinda far from "random dude on the interwebs".

[son of the revolution]

It was just provided for you.

Rule makes more per hour (as a lawyer) than I make in a week....that's not because he sucks at it.

As for defending the image of gun owners, from being a bunch of stupid, redneck bible thumpers....if you want to dress it up, I would humbly suggest toning down your attack against a pro-gun attorney giving you some good advice (for free no less).

I dont think I in anyway " attacked " 10b, Im always fascinated by people that claim to discern such things absent the normal visual clues most often associated with traditional face to face conversation that are big indicators. Did I ask a question with a touch of smartassedness ? Sure, maybe. Never once denied I was a smart ass. I've witnessed plenty of lawyers ask questions positively dripping with sarcasm in real life. Like Phil pointed out, Ms so and so might be a very nice,personable, intelligent, sharp as nails attorney, but apparently she also desires to see everyone but the police disarmed and forced into a posture of helpless victimization. And people like that always have been and shall remain my mortal enemies and I will use exactly the same tactics they do. Since 10b so helpfully posted, I guess under PA Law I've got a fantastic open and shut case for slander and libel against CeaseFire PA for various unfounded and specious allegations against me and my wife as "uneducated" , " Pro Death " Pro Violence seekers " or do the Statutes only protect one privledged class of people from casting aspersions and airing dirty laundry ?
FYI, Rule is pretty much the guy who found the case law and got the ball rolling on OC in PA. So, kinda far from "random dude on the interwebs".

WHOA , WHOA lets cool our outraged indignation a second and peruse this post I made one page back, is " random guy on teh interwebs " some sort of emtionally charged insult ? If its considered that way, I missed the memo.


Point taken Phil, however I reserve the right to disagree about the critique of my " random person " comment only from the standpoint of in the near year I've been here, I've rarely seen a post from 10b so in effect he would be by my definition a " random person " as opposed to a known regular such as yourself, Patriot, Greg , HeadCase and innumerable others. As you so eloquently pointed out, politics is a blood sport and Im fully prepared to fight just as dirty as our opponents.

Perhaps both parties reacted somewhat harshly to each others statements ?

[MDJschool]

FYI, Rule is pretty much the guy who found the case law and got the ball rolling on OC in PA. So, kinda far from "random dude on the interwebs".

Hm. Kentucky, reading essentially what are now today's Pa.Const. Art I, Sec. 21 and 25, knew OC was legit in 1822. Georgia read the 2A and knew OC was legit in 1846. That makes Rule10b5 in PA a bit late to the party, but maybe it's certainly something to celebrate as I've never seen this little piece of history posted in at least the course of a year.

Would you care to direct us to the roots of this momentous occasion?

[synergy]

Hm. Kentucky, reading essentially what are now today's Pa.Const. Art I, Sec. 21 and 25, knew OC was legit in 1822. Georgia read the 2A and knew OC was legit in 1846. That makes Rule10b5 in PA a bit late to the party, but maybe it's certainly something to celebrate as I've never seen this little piece of history posted in at least the course of a year.

Would you care to direct us to the roots of this momentous occasion?

It wasn't on this forum. Feel free to re-read what I wrote.

Rule is pretty much the guy who found the case law

...as in, brought it into light.

[son of the revolution]

Per your request, with the most relevant portion in bold:

42 Pa.C.S. § 8342: Justification a defense

"In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true and is proper for public information or investigation, and has not been maliciously or negligently made."

You will note that the elements of justification are conjunctive, i.e., in order successfully to assert a defense of truth as bar against liability for libel/slander in PA, you must prove, not merely contend, each and every one of the following:

1) The statement is true; and
2) The statement is proper for public information; and
3) The statement is was "maliciously or negligently made."

So, yeah, my statement that truth is not an absolute defense is absolutely accurate.

If truth were an absolute defense in PA, § 8342 would be truncated as to the last two elements of the defense and read:

"In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true."

Your statement in your earlier posts, that you wish engage in "smear campaign tactics" and that "Sometimes we have to go DEEP into backround , just like a political campaign, to find the long forgotten " dirt " that will compromise someone in the here and now" are the sort of statements that make defamation defense lawyers cringe, and plaintiffs' lawyers giggle with delight.

You also need to realize that there is a fairly substantial sea change in terms of the way that courts are dealing with defamation claims that has been evolving over the past few years. Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. Mass. 2009) -- which addresses this very issue -- is being favorably cited by courts all over the place.

I'd think long and hard about my purpose in making a statement -- even if true -- before I opened my mouth.

And as gunlawyer noted: He and I may disagree on the tactic as appropriate or not, but the law is what it is.

Finally, I'm anything but I'm far some "random" dude on the internet. If you're going to call into question someone's bona fides, do a little research first. I've been here for quite some time, and have worn a trail "around the block" as an attorney. You probably haven't seen my posts in the year that you've been here because I don't make that many any more.

Why?

First, lawyering on the internet isn't exactly fulfilling. The law is complicated, and for every person who understands that, there are thousands who think it's just a matter of reading a statute, or telling a judge some magic language. It ain't. But that doesn't stop the thousands from posting up a storm and foaming about it. It generates static, and I could spend all day, every day, correcting every erroneous legal proposition advanced on this site and still not make a dent. You can't convince a zealot. I no longer choose to try. Most of them will learn, if they do at all, the hard way (and pay for my kids' tuition, in so doing). I've lost count of the number of times I've watched a layman -- convinced of the correctness of his point -- stand up in court and argue what he thinks the law is, and then get stomped into the ground. It's sad to watch, honestly -- the look on the guy's face is usually puzzled, then befuddled, then angry, then absolutely sad and crushed. Don't be that guy.

Second, I just don't have the time to be on here as much as I used to. Work, wife, kids, hobbies -- I'm just too damned busy.

Thanks , and for the record I really dont feel like getting in a pissing match with you or anyone else for that matter over this. You've generously provided information that is valuable to know , while I and apparently one other well known attorney dont necessarily agree that what I mused about reached the level of an actionable offense. That being said, I will entertain points 1,2 and 3 that you posted.


While its certainly quite true that no one can ever predict what a jury will do with 100 percent certainty


1) The statement is true; and
2) The statement is proper for public information; and
3) The statement is was "maliciously or negligently made."


1) Obviously if the statement is true , then its true
2) I absolutley believe most people would agree that it IS in fact in the public interest if there is the possibility or appearance of collusion between certain govt officials and special interest groups for the purpose of undermining rights protected by the BOR.
3) I must confess Im confused about this one, which party that would refer to. That being said,to use your example, "malicious " would be making unfounded accusations about someones sexual activities that are untrue and without supporting evidence. Revealing a former govt Commision members policy decisions or opinions that may have resulted in a lackadiasical attitude towards criminal activity becoming endemic in Govt is hardly malicious, its holding people responsible for their official decisions that may have a harmful effect on Society in general.

Why do you think former Gov Huckabee was excoriated by media far and wide for his pardon years and years ago , of the guy that recently murdered those four police officers in Washington State ? I have yet to hear of a single case of libel/slander against ANYONE being filed by the Gov. He made the decision, it eventually many years later blew up in his face, with consequences to his stature , credibility and the publics perception of his worthiness to serve.

Additionally , like Phil pointed out. Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott were viciously and intentionally smeared with blantly false innuendo and I dont recall either one of them filing a suit for slander or libel.

How in the name of Zeus would my hypothetical scenario be any different ?

[GunLawyer001]

. . . like Phil pointed out. Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott were viciously and intentionally smeared with blantly false innuendo and I dont recall either one of them filing a suit for slander or libel.

How in the name of Zeus would my hypothetical scenario be any different ?

There are different standards for defamation as applied to public figures and non-public figures. For someone who's generally famous, an all-purpose public figure like Cher or Newt or the President, they'd have to prove legal malice for any statement to be actionable.

A private plaintiff has an easier case, plus there are some additional causes of action, for public disclosure of private matters; and the burden of proof (I believe from memory) is on the defendant to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A former government employee, someone who ran for office, is probably a public figure within the area of discussion related to that office. A tort lawyer would know for sure.

New tort suits are filed every day, some of them for defamation, so every time we open our mouths we roll the dice. That's life.

[WhiteFeather]

One other point about anyone suing anyone over anything that has been left out of the debate, they got to have something worth getting or losing - a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as table stakes.

Hence the reason why gun owners that unintentionally violate some section of the UFA with no criminal intent are aggressively prosecuted (they have something to lose or get), while repeat violent criminals get a slap on the wrist / nolle possessed for the same UFA charges when they intended or could have injured someone during the commission of a another crime (they have nothing lose but the threat of jail time and when that is not used they quickly learn how to play the system).

I have enjoyed the discussion about slander and liable in thread, Learned a couple things from several points of view and it seems to have run its course – “Hopefully" we ALL can move on.

[Yellowfin]

Additionally , like Phil pointed out. Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott were viciously and intentionally smeared with blantly false innuendo and I dont recall either one of them filing a suit for slander or libel.

How in the name of Zeus would my hypothetical scenario be any different ?

Public figures can't claim slander or libel, as it would too easily be used to silence free political speech. That's why.

[son of the revolution]

Public figures can't claim slander or libel, as it would too easily be used to silence free political speech. That's why.

Right , and one would certainly think that a former member of the Pennsylvania Commision on Crime and Juvenile Deliquency would certainly fall under the definition of " public figure "