He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.
Do you think his constant lying migh be a manifeststion of mental
instability. After all, he has also threatened me twice now and used
great verbal abuse?

Cheers MC

wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:49:16 -0500, DSK wrote:



The navigator© wrote:


NO I want my MONEY.

Well then, you'll have to win the bet.

So far you have lost pathetically, and if you don't mind your manners a little better you might find yourself with a bit of legal bother. A lawyer who hangs around our office says it
could well be actionable as slander and certainly malicious mischief, to title one's posts with another person's name and call them a liar.

The fact that I am the one presenting accurate and truthful information has no legal import, apparently.

DSK


Your lawyer is as wrong as you are.

BB

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.

Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW

Good lord. Are you saying that you can't always publish the truth????

Cheerrs MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.


Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW

Correct. The test is truth *and* public interest. guess who defines
what's in the public interest?

Hell, you can be sued for libel here if some smart lawyer (using the
word loosely) can convince a jury that a mythical 'reasonable person'
could draw libellous imputations from what's written.

NSW (dunno about Tas) has some of the best libel laws that lawyers and
corrupt politicians can think of. Truth should be sufficient defence
but it's not.

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

Good lord. Are you saying that you can't always publish the truth????

Cheerrs MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


He's probaly lying again because I know that truth is an absolute
defense to claims of libel and slander as should all lawyers.


Good thing that what you 'know' is restricted to NZ and maybe the USA.
Truth most cerrtainly in NOT an absolute defence to libel in Australia
and a court here has ruled that stuff published on the Web can be used
as a basis for court action in Australia regardless of the country of
origin of the article.

Not that I'm saying anything one way or another as to the merits or
otherwise of this.......

PDW