kwikrnu
Banned
If I were to file suit I would file against several anonymous users including John who obviously moderates this site heavily.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Libel
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
If I were to file suit I would file against several anonymous users including John who obviously moderates this site heavily.
sultan62
Regular Member
It would have been more appropriate to say he has not been proven to have broken any laws. Either way, the rest of the comment stands.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Absolutely, and I agree with your comment. The English language is not as precise as we would sometimes like. That's why, if I were a betting man, I'd bet against a libel suit being successful in this case. "Criminal" can be someone's opinion of the poster's behavior--or it could be strictly construed as meaning that the person has been specifically convicted of a crime. I wouldn't use that word, nor would I consider it so out of line as to be libelous.
That and proving damages is going to be dang near impossible.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
A comment was made towards Leonard that was expressly egregious, and accusatory in another thread a while back. It specified and directly claimed to have knowledge that Leonard was in fact a criminal.
The individual was expressing his direct "knowledge", that Leonard was in fact arrested and charged with the crime of Domestic Violence.
This is consistent with a rampant smearfest that individuals have partaken in that do not agree with Leonards decision, and more than this, they go out of their way to harass, intimidate, libel, slander, and defame him.
I want to point out some basic facts:
When Mike released his commentary in regards to the "Radnor Lake Incident", it was not nearly as "emotive" as Johns response.
Mike's comment was along the lines of, "While fundamentally he did nothing wrong...", speaking of the incident.
Johns commentary went well beyond that, stating the same emotive fear-laden bull-excrement that many of Leonards detractors have.
Comments specifically focusing on his choice in attire and firearm. A true series of comments that could serve as fuel for the antis train of lies.
I conducted an experiment to see just how bipartisan John and/or Mike were.
I made it a point to make an egregious comment towards Leonards detractor, specifying that he was on "Megans List". This after Leonard had requested that the libelous individuals commentary be removed because it was patently untrue.
I spent $35 to run checks on individuals whose names were made known to me through watching and researching Leonards activities and those of his detractors.
Records popped up, but Leonard was squeeky clean, just as he had claimed. (Neither Mike nor John were part of this loose investigation.)
Shortly after conducting my experiment to point out the biased application of rule here, I received a message from John, telling me "Never to make such commentary again, and to remove the comment immediately.".
Interestingly enough, the other individuals commentary was never removed, despite it being directly similar to that of my own.
I pointed out that I would happily remove it, as I did not believe that comment in the first place, and only said it to prove a point.
I then thanked him for proving it.
When it all comes down to it, it is John and Mikes site. They are allowed to be preferentially biased and formulate opinions just like the rest of us. They float the rent here and provide the support. I respect them in this, no doubt.
However, in my opinion, someones bias is showing as embarrassingly as an open fly while going commando.
Now that I have said my piece...
*Insert numerous posts from Leonard bashers below*
The individual was expressing his direct "knowledge", that Leonard was in fact arrested and charged with the crime of Domestic Violence.
This is consistent with a rampant smearfest that individuals have partaken in that do not agree with Leonards decision, and more than this, they go out of their way to harass, intimidate, libel, slander, and defame him.
I want to point out some basic facts:
When Mike released his commentary in regards to the "Radnor Lake Incident", it was not nearly as "emotive" as Johns response.
Mike's comment was along the lines of, "While fundamentally he did nothing wrong...", speaking of the incident.
Johns commentary went well beyond that, stating the same emotive fear-laden bull-excrement that many of Leonards detractors have.
Comments specifically focusing on his choice in attire and firearm. A true series of comments that could serve as fuel for the antis train of lies.
I conducted an experiment to see just how bipartisan John and/or Mike were.
I made it a point to make an egregious comment towards Leonards detractor, specifying that he was on "Megans List". This after Leonard had requested that the libelous individuals commentary be removed because it was patently untrue.
I spent $35 to run checks on individuals whose names were made known to me through watching and researching Leonards activities and those of his detractors.
Records popped up, but Leonard was squeeky clean, just as he had claimed. (Neither Mike nor John were part of this loose investigation.)
Shortly after conducting my experiment to point out the biased application of rule here, I received a message from John, telling me "Never to make such commentary again, and to remove the comment immediately.".
Interestingly enough, the other individuals commentary was never removed, despite it being directly similar to that of my own.
I pointed out that I would happily remove it, as I did not believe that comment in the first place, and only said it to prove a point.
I then thanked him for proving it.
When it all comes down to it, it is John and Mikes site. They are allowed to be preferentially biased and formulate opinions just like the rest of us. They float the rent here and provide the support. I respect them in this, no doubt.
However, in my opinion, someones bias is showing as embarrassingly as an open fly while going commando.
Now that I have said my piece...
*Insert numerous posts from Leonard bashers below*
eye95
Well-known member
OK. That prompts a question that should not have to be asked, but now, to establish the correctness of the above defense of kwikrnu, it now needs to be asked and answered or the preceding post loses a pillar necessary to stop it from collapsing in on itself:
kwikrnu, have you ever been arrested for any kind of domestic violence (regardless of how the charge was specifically worded or whether the arrest resulted in a conviction on that charge or another)? You know what is being asked, so quibbling about precise terminology would make most folks assume that the answer is yes. If you don't wish to answer, that is OK. But, it does mean that the above post loses a key point on which it rests.
So, were you, were you not, or is it none of our business? Feel free to ignore this post if the third option is the one you'd choose. But, again, in that case, the above argument collapses.
I wish we didn't have to ask. But the issue has been raised in your defense.
kwikrnu, have you ever been arrested for any kind of domestic violence (regardless of how the charge was specifically worded or whether the arrest resulted in a conviction on that charge or another)? You know what is being asked, so quibbling about precise terminology would make most folks assume that the answer is yes. If you don't wish to answer, that is OK. But, it does mean that the above post loses a key point on which it rests.
So, were you, were you not, or is it none of our business? Feel free to ignore this post if the third option is the one you'd choose. But, again, in that case, the above argument collapses.
I wish we didn't have to ask. But the issue has been raised in your defense.
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
Here is John's reply.
"We do not condone libelous content nor would we knowingly allow a libelous comment to remain on the forum. However, we also do not retain private investigators to verify the statements made by posters.
If you believe that another poster has libeled you then you should file suit against them. As one of my law professors likes to say "The courts are open every day."
John"
calling someone an idiot is against forum rules, but calling them a domestic abuser is okay?
Citing used to be a rule, not anymore?
John, you're full of crap.
"We do not condone libelous content nor would we knowingly allow a libelous comment to remain on the forum. However, we also do not retain private investigators to verify the statements made by posters.
If you believe that another poster has libeled you then you should file suit against them. As one of my law professors likes to say "The courts are open every day."
John"
calling someone an idiot is against forum rules, but calling them a domestic abuser is okay?
Citing used to be a rule, not anymore?
John, you're full of crap.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
Heavily? Most people complain that I don't moderate nearly enough. LOL.
Given my heavy time constraints, I mostly respond to reported posts and make an on-the-spot determination without much context at that time.
As for deleting posts when someone claims libel, that would be unethical of me because it is evidence against the offender in the resulting suit.
And finally, I WILL remove posts that I know to be false but I am under no duty to investigate every comment posted here to verify its authenticity. That would make moderating the forum impossible.
John
Given my heavy time constraints, I mostly respond to reported posts and make an on-the-spot determination without much context at that time.
As for deleting posts when someone claims libel, that would be unethical of me because it is evidence against the offender in the resulting suit.
And finally, I WILL remove posts that I know to be false but I am under no duty to investigate every comment posted here to verify its authenticity. That would make moderating the forum impossible.
John
kwikrnu
Banned
I have copies of this page and authorize you to delete the defamatory comments.
eye95
Well-known member
That you chose not to answer the question means that your argument that you have been libeled falls apart. In any libel case, you will be asked that same question. No matter how the official record has been changed, ordinary folks on the jury will believe that any such arrest amounts to a "criminal history" and will determine that the alleged libelous statement is true, with the truth being the surest defense against your libel charge.
IANAL.
That being said, IMO, posting of you as having a "criminal history" is a personal attack, and should be removed. However, the owners of this site are the only ones whose judgment regarding acceptable content matters. I understand if they think it was pertinent to the discussion at hand and, therefore, allowable. I just wouldn't have allowed it, were it my call. It isn't.
As to citing being a rule: citing is only a rule when it comes to claims of law. Otherwise, citing to support alleged facts is simply a matter of being rhetorically responsible. The poster should have supported his claim or not made it. "Should," not "must." If he refuses to support it, we should be inclined not to believe it.
The best advice I can give you is to let the matter drop. You will not succeed in getting the post removed, you will not win any libel suit. All you are accomplishing is to keep the accusation in front of more people. Clearly, a lot of people here already think poorly of you. Your actions stand only to increase this number. So I suggest that you simply stop. Maybe you could politely ask John to delete this thread. He would likely graciously accede to your request.
IANAL.
That being said, IMO, posting of you as having a "criminal history" is a personal attack, and should be removed. However, the owners of this site are the only ones whose judgment regarding acceptable content matters. I understand if they think it was pertinent to the discussion at hand and, therefore, allowable. I just wouldn't have allowed it, were it my call. It isn't.
As to citing being a rule: citing is only a rule when it comes to claims of law. Otherwise, citing to support alleged facts is simply a matter of being rhetorically responsible. The poster should have supported his claim or not made it. "Should," not "must." If he refuses to support it, we should be inclined not to believe it.
The best advice I can give you is to let the matter drop. You will not succeed in getting the post removed, you will not win any libel suit. All you are accomplishing is to keep the accusation in front of more people. Clearly, a lot of people here already think poorly of you. Your actions stand only to increase this number. So I suggest that you simply stop. Maybe you could politely ask John to delete this thread. He would likely graciously accede to your request.
sultan62
Regular Member
I would tend to agree with kwik on the matter of personal insults. It's against forum rules to call someone an idiot, but not to call them a domestic abuser without warrant? Usually, the burden of proof falls to the person stating the claim. In this case, however, not only has the domestic abuse not been proven, the claim has been mostly refuted by kwik.
Not my forum, not my rules. Just throwing in my .02.
Not my forum, not my rules. Just throwing in my .02.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
The Brentwood PD regrets that it cannot confirm a DV offense by someone? Wow, I'd be proud of that, and I'd go out of my way to have my full name on a memo like that and posted on the internet. I'd call the guy an idiot, but I'd hate to be sued for libel.
I suppose I would be just as popular with a LE agency if I walked around with a hacked up Kalashnikov "pistol", but in my arrogance I think I've more damn sense than that.
I suppose I would be just as popular with a LE agency if I walked around with a hacked up Kalashnikov "pistol", but in my arrogance I think I've more damn sense than that.
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
The Brentwood PD regrets that it cannot confirm a DV offense by someone? Wow, I'd be proud of that, and I'd go out of my way to have my full name on a memo like that and posted on the internet. I'd call the guy an idiot, but I'd hate to be sued for libel.
I wouldn't sue for that, but John would probably remove the post for name calling.
Instead of publishing the facts, this particular police department has printed lies. When caught, they refused to release the BOLO, but the State said they had to. Now they came out with a vague statement, but rest assured if they had proof such as an arrest warrant, or booking paperwork, or any court documents they would not have issued that statement. This is the same City that defies State law by prohibiting the carry of firearms within City limits. The same city that up to a few years ago required their police officers to wear a patch of Nathan Bedford Forest and a confederate flag in the background as the police patch. This is Tennessee and the cops do as they wish. Evidenced by the frequent detentions I have experienced while open carrying.
SavageOne
Regular Member
An interesting observation, since in another recent thread you repeatedly stated you did not have to cite to support your claim. Post #64
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-to-sight-of-legally-holstered-firearm./page3
Eye, I have not always agreed with your position on topics. I did, however, respect the manner in which you carried yourself and voiced your opinions. In recent posts you repeatedly seem to resort to tactics which you would never find acceptable from another. I don't know why there has been this shift, I just hope you can once again start presenting your positions in the same manner you expect others to present theirs.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
I did not cite because I was not quoting law, but questioning it, hoping that those more familiar with how to find things in MN law would do so. You will find that when I make a statement of law (such as Alabama law, which I navigate with ease), I will cite if challenged.
I suggest that you reread what I wrote. I never claimed to be stating MN law (and said that I wasn't several times in the thread).
Moving on. Continue to press this point if you will. I won't.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I have been called, and it has been implied that I am a Commie, Socialist (maybe a little), committing intellectual acts of treason, anti-freedom, unAmerican, etc.
Really, I don't mean to be to direct or callused, but.....get over it. Get over yourself. And hit the ignore button if you don't like what someone is saying. We are all adults here, and people say whatever they say, get over it.
So you refute that you are a criminal, OK, end of story, you are not a criminal.
Just relax a bit, damn
Really, I don't mean to be to direct or callused, but.....get over it. Get over yourself. And hit the ignore button if you don't like what someone is saying. We are all adults here, and people say whatever they say, get over it.
So you refute that you are a criminal, OK, end of story, you are not a criminal.
Just relax a bit, damn
SavageOne
Regular Member
So, you were not ,by your own words, being "rhetorically responsible".
eye95
Well-known member
*sigh* RIF. Ignore.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
kwikrnu
Banned
I sued a woman and as retalliation she took out an ex-parte order of protection against me. I had never seen the woman before face to face and had emailed her once and called her once. Ex-parte orders are when a judge with only one side of the story issues an order. In this case she told the magistrate a bunch of lies and the magistrate issued a civil order, ex-parte order of protection. Ex-parte orders are required to be heard within 15 days by a general sessions judge. Ex-parte orders, because they are civil in nature, only require a preponderance of the evidence (this is one reason why they are often used in divorce preceedings). The order was heard at trial and the judge dismissed the order with prejudice saying the woman had lied. The woman attacked me after the trial and had to escorted out of the courthouse by security. Later, I had the civil proceeding expunged under Tennessee law. If fact, the only civil matter which is allowed to be expunged in Tennessee is an ex-parte order of protection which was dimissed at trial.
kwikrnu
Banned
I have been called, and it has been implied that I am a Commie, Socialist (maybe a little), committing intellectual acts of treason, anti-freedom, unAmerican, etc.
Really, I don't mean to be to direct or callused, but.....get over it. Get over yourself. And hit the ignore button if you don't like what someone is saying. We are all adults here, and people say whatever they say, get over it.
So you refute that you are a criminal, OK, end of story, you are not a criminal.
Just relax a bit, damn
If people started rumors that you molested children and posted those lies over several forums and if those rumors were stated as fact in PTA meetings I'll bet you would just take the abuse. To me that is unacceptable behavior and is not protected free speech. The ignore button does not prevent others from seeing the libelous remarks.