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