Charles Pezeshki wrote:

HI Mary,

A point about the law. In order to show libel in the US, you must document
and demonstrate damages. This is NOT the case in Great Britain.

Tim is extremely annoying, but it would be impossible for anyone to show
damages from his actions.

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling us all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

--
Regards

Brian

Brian Nystrom wrote in message ...
Charles Pezeshki wrote:

HI Mary,

A point about the law. In order to show libel in the US, you must document
and demonstrate damages. This is NOT the case in Great Britain.

Tim is extremely annoying, but it would be impossible for anyone to show
damages from his actions.

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling us all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

Don't knock it, Brian. Whe more wild-eyed his (documented and
archived, heh heh!) rantings on the web, the more powerful the
ammunition we will have if boaters must stand against him before the
Coast Guard or some legislative body.

All he is doing is providing material with which he can be
discredited.

--
-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================

in article , Brian Nystrom at
wrote on 8/21/03 3:45 AM:

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling us all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

--
Regards

Brian

HI Folks,

A point of clarification for all those that believe that the U.S. Legal
system is so messed up that anyone can sue anyone and win.

It isn't.

Anyone can FILE a suit-- but if the suit is frivolous, the lawyer that filed
the suit can be sanctioned. There has to be some basis, provable to a judge
(who decides whether sanctions are warranted) for any given lawsuit.

There are two types of procedure in U.S. Law-- civil and criminal.

Such claims as defamation of character or libel are civil procedure-- which
means that a citizen (represented by an attorney) can file a complaint. But
you have no complaint if you can't show DAMAGES. DAMAGES are usually
considered monetary in form-- you have to have compensatable damages to get
anywhere.

Criminal charges must be filed by the appropriate prosecuting attorney, and
follow a whole 'nother process.

You may say your character is defamed, but if you cannot show harm/damages,
you have no case. Just because you can sue someone for anything does not
mean you can WIN. And it doesn't mean that your case won't be dismissed
INSTANTANEOUSLY.

An unpopular opinion in public, currently-- largely because the public does
not realize that civil procedure is the only refuge of the weak against
large corporations-- but our legal system, while FAR from perfect, has many
admirable characteristics. "Tort reform"-- meaning a "free lunch" for the
rich, is trumpeted by the rich using tools such as the fabled 'McDonalds
lawsuit' and the recent lawsuit against fatty foods. Reality is that
without tort law, we would all be getting sliced and diced in auto
accidents, we'd still have lots of unsafe home products, products would be
labelled deceptively, and on and on. Why the public seems so bound and
determined to give up their one major tool against the powerful is BEYOND
me.

As far as name-calling goes, who cares what Timmy says? I mean, really?

Chuck

Charles,

Thanks for the clarification. You're right about the monetary damage. Unless some
of the guides here could show that he cost them clients (how would they know), I
guess there's not much of a case, since this amounts to little more than Timmy
hurling invectives at us from his sandbox. However, I wonder if the ACA has a
case, especially in view of their being impugned in his book?

--
Regards

Brian

You don't have to show damages if it is libel per se

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

I think saying there is a conspirousy to kill children in order to make
money selling kayaks would probably fit.

--dan

"Charles Pezeshki" wrote in message
...
in article , Brian Nystrom at

wrote on 8/21/03 3:45 AM:

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling us
all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

--
Regards

Brian

HI Folks,

A point of clarification for all those that believe that the U.S. Legal
system is so messed up that anyone can sue anyone and win.

It isn't.

Anyone can FILE a suit-- but if the suit is frivolous, the lawyer that
filed
the suit can be sanctioned. There has to be some basis, provable to a
judge
(who decides whether sanctions are warranted) for any given lawsuit.

There are two types of procedure in U.S. Law-- civil and criminal.

Such claims as defamation of character or libel are civil procedure--
which
means that a citizen (represented by an attorney) can file a complaint.
But
you have no complaint if you can't show DAMAGES. DAMAGES are usually
considered monetary in form-- you have to have compensatable damages to
get
anywhere.

Criminal charges must be filed by the appropriate prosecuting attorney,
and
follow a whole 'nother process.

You may say your character is defamed, but if you cannot show
harm/damages,
you have no case. Just because you can sue someone for anything does not
mean you can WIN. And it doesn't mean that your case won't be dismissed
INSTANTANEOUSLY.

An unpopular opinion in public, currently-- largely because the public
does
not realize that civil procedure is the only refuge of the weak against
large corporations-- but our legal system, while FAR from perfect, has
many
admirable characteristics. "Tort reform"-- meaning a "free lunch" for the
rich, is trumpeted by the rich using tools such as the fabled 'McDonalds
lawsuit' and the recent lawsuit against fatty foods. Reality is that
without tort law, we would all be getting sliced and diced in auto
accidents, we'd still have lots of unsafe home products, products would be
labelled deceptively, and on and on. Why the public seems so bound and
determined to give up their one major tool against the powerful is BEYOND
me.

As far as name-calling goes, who cares what Timmy says? I mean, really?

Chuck

I keep hoping that someone, somewhere will tell us just how stupid we are.
Promises, promises.

"dan" dancytronatyahoo.com wrote in message
...
You don't have to show damages if it is libel per se

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

I think saying there is a conspirousy to kill children in order to make
money selling kayaks would probably fit.

--dan

"Charles Pezeshki" wrote in message
...
in article , Brian Nystrom at

wrote on 8/21/03 3:45 AM:

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling
us
all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

--
Regards

Brian

HI Folks,

A point of clarification for all those that believe that the U.S. Legal
system is so messed up that anyone can sue anyone and win.

It isn't.

Anyone can FILE a suit-- but if the suit is frivolous, the lawyer that
filed
the suit can be sanctioned. There has to be some basis, provable to a
judge
(who decides whether sanctions are warranted) for any given lawsuit.

There are two types of procedure in U.S. Law-- civil and criminal.

Such claims as defamation of character or libel are civil procedure--
which
means that a citizen (represented by an attorney) can file a complaint.
But
you have no complaint if you can't show DAMAGES. DAMAGES are usually
considered monetary in form-- you have to have compensatable damages to
get
anywhere.

Criminal charges must be filed by the appropriate prosecuting attorney,
and
follow a whole 'nother process.

You may say your character is defamed, but if you cannot show
harm/damages,
you have no case. Just because you can sue someone for anything does
not
mean you can WIN. And it doesn't mean that your case won't be dismissed
INSTANTANEOUSLY.

An unpopular opinion in public, currently-- largely because the public
does
not realize that civil procedure is the only refuge of the weak against
large corporations-- but our legal system, while FAR from perfect, has
many
admirable characteristics. "Tort reform"-- meaning a "free lunch" for
the
rich, is trumpeted by the rich using tools such as the fabled 'McDonalds
lawsuit' and the recent lawsuit against fatty foods. Reality is that
without tort law, we would all be getting sliced and diced in auto
accidents, we'd still have lots of unsafe home products, products would
be
labelled deceptively, and on and on. Why the public seems so bound and
determined to give up their one major tool against the powerful is
BEYOND
me.

As far as name-calling goes, who cares what Timmy says? I mean, really?

Chuck

Hi Dan,

Libel per se also depends on the credibility of the source, and the
credibility of the charges. If you were to go in front of a judge and argue
that you were libeled by Timmy's statements, the judge, upon considering the
record, would laugh his/her ass off-- and then sanction your lawyer.

Tell ya what, folks. Brian has already said he's willing to take a tort
claim against Timmy. Brian has already admitted to insanity by inference in
an earlier post. I suggest that Brian take his claim, with all the printed
e-mails, to a lawyer and see if he can find one to take his case based on
contingency.

Then I recommend that Brian try to find one that will take his case based on
getting paid an hourly fee. Good luck on your journey, Brian. Maybe that
will get you to stop posting back to Timmy.

Chuck

in article , dan at dancytronatyahoo.com
wrote on 8/26/03 4:27 PM:

You don't have to show damages if it is libel per se

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

I think saying there is a conspirousy to kill children in order to make
money selling kayaks would probably fit.

--dan

Hi John,

20+ posts later (and that's just counting this thread) and you have to ask?

The answer is: "Very stupid indeed!"

Don't you have anything better to do on Whidbey Island during the beautiful
weather we've been having than post to this thread?

On second thought, don't I have anything better to do? ;-)

Chuck

in article , John Q Adams at
wrote on 8/26/03 4:48 PM:

I keep hoping that someone, somewhere will tell us just how stupid we are.
Promises, promises.

On 26-Aug-2003, Charles Pezeshki wrote:

I suggest that Brian take his claim, with all the printed
e-mails, to a lawyer and see if he can find one to take his case based on
contingency.

Factor in the fact that timmy is in Canada, Brian's in the US.

Mike

What the hell are you talking about? I never said any such thing. I merely asked
if there were legal grounds for such an action. Take your smart-ass comments and
stick 'em where the sun don't shine, Chuckie!

Charles Pezeshki wrote:

Hi Dan,

Libel per se also depends on the credibility of the source, and the
credibility of the charges. If you were to go in front of a judge and argue
that you were libeled by Timmy's statements, the judge, upon considering the
record, would laugh his/her ass off-- and then sanction your lawyer.

Tell ya what, folks. Brian has already said he's willing to take a tort
claim against Timmy. Brian has already admitted to insanity by inference in
an earlier post. I suggest that Brian take his claim, with all the printed
e-mails, to a lawyer and see if he can find one to take his case based on
contingency.

Then I recommend that Brian try to find one that will take his case based on
getting paid an hourly fee. Good luck on your journey, Brian. Maybe that
will get you to stop posting back to Timmy.

Chuck

in article , dan at dancytronatyahoo.com
wrote on 8/26/03 4:27 PM:

You don't have to show damages if it is libel per se

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

I think saying there is a conspirousy to kill children in order to make
money selling kayaks would probably fit.

--dan