Sued for: Defamation, Impersonation 528.5(e) & Unfair Comp B&P 17200 California

[Kohtu]

Sued for: Defamation, Impersonation 528.5(e) & Unfair Comp B&P 17200 California

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
CALIFORNIA

Being sued for:
Defamation
Impersonation Through Electronic Means 528.5(e)
Unfair Competition B & P Code 17200 et Seq

[EDITED]

Thank you for your time and attention to this topic!!

 

[PaulMass]

I guess the smartest thing is to share it with whoever engages in replies to this thread in PMs?

I believe the smartest thing to do would be to delete your post where you appear to admit to posting the information, and share your information with an attorney representing your interests.

 

[PaulMass]

I do not understand what "post" you are referring to?

If you read through the post (above) you would see that the defendant is not contesting the fact that there were ads posted, as that is a confirmed fact through IP address from CL & defendant's name provided by the ISP to the plaintiff.

The information provided by CL and the ISP is evidence that tends to show that the defendant may have posted the ads. It may also show that someone else who has access to defendant's computer may have posted the ads. It may also show that CL provided incorrect information.

In short, unless someone can testify that he or she watched the defendant type the ads into the computer, there is no direct evidence that the defendant typed the ads into the computer, only circumstantial.

Plenty of other defenses available.

 

[Kohtu]

You've asked only two questions:

I do have the court paper work with the defendant's name blacked out also pictured and hosted on a photo hosting page but I don't know if it is smart or permissible to post a link to that on here?
No, do not post a link.

I guess the smartest thing is to share it with whoever engages in replies to this thread in PMs?
No, that would not be a proper use of this forum.


I would suggest that your next step would be to ask a question...

What would be "proper use of this forum"?

 

[Zigner]

What would be "proper use of this forum"?

We don't give private advice in PM's. If your matter is so confidential that you feel the need to discuss it in private, then you will want to consult with an attorney.

ETA: You still haven't asked a legal question.

 

[Kohtu]

We don't give private advice in PM's.

What might be best in PM as the question was the paper work nothing else. I believe you yourself stated that I shouldn't post a link to it.
So no link but also not in PM?

If your matter is so confidential that you feel the need to discuss it in private, then you will want to consult with an attorney.

ETA: You still haven't asked a legal question.

Well that's why I wanted to share the paperwork but not 100% sure how to do so within the rules and guidelines of this forum. I can always remove the pictures later or/and the link to them but I would prefer to not post the name of the plaintiff so it can be found with search engines, that's all nothing more private than that.

Sorry if I was not clear enough sorry just trying to play by the rules of this forum and understand them at the same time.

 

[Zigner]

What might be best in PM as the question was the paper work nothing else. I believe you yourself stated that I shouldn't post a link to it.
So no link but also not in PM?



Well that's why I wanted to share the paperwork but not 100% sure how to do so within the rules and guidelines of this forum. I can always remove the pictures later or/and the link to them but I would prefer to not post the name of the plaintiff so it can be found with search engines, that's all nothing more private than that.

Sorry if I was not clear enough sorry just trying to play by the rules of this forum and understand them at the same time.

What are you trying to figure out? Personal review of documents is something best suited for your attorney. Really.

 

[Kohtu]

The information provided by CL and the ISP is evidence that tends to show that the defendant may have posted the ads. It may also show that someone else who has access to defendant's computer may have posted the ads. It may also show that CL provided incorrect information.

In short, unless someone can testify that he or she watched the defendant type the ads into the computer, there is no direct evidence that the defendant typed the ads into the computer, only circumstantial.

Plenty of other defenses available.

Well there is more than circumstantial evidence at this point unfortunately, the defendant tried to directly negotiate with the plaintiff with electronic communication whereby it was also confirmed that the defendant did the CL posts.

 

[Zigner]

Did you have a legal question?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

... business ... had a number of negative reviews on Yelp ...

... media (online newspaper) and Police ... discussed at length on this forum website ...

... a link to the ... newspaper ...

... altered the Yelp review links ... other ads ... more malicious and made up ...

First, whoever the defendant is, he needs an attorney to help him with his defense. I recommend he see an attorney well-versed in defamation law and he should do this sooner rather than later.

Linking to defamatory material spreads defamatory material to others. Republishers of defamatory statements can be found as guilty of defamation as the original publisher of the defamation. Falsely stating or implying someone has committed illegal acts, or linking to information where such false statements or implications are made, not only can get a person sued, the person could easily lose the suit.

There is obviously a lot for the business owner to use as support for his lawsuit, with the impersonation and the unfair competition claims. These along with the defaming of a business and the defaming of a business owner can result in an extremely high award of damages, should the business owner win his suit (and, from what has been posted, there is a good chance he can).

Again, the defendant needs an attorney. This is not the type of lawsuit he should on his own attempt to defend against.

Thank you, by the way, for not posting any links on the board. They would only be reported and deleted.

 

[Kohtu]

Thanks

Quincy,

I'd like to thank you for the respectful and enlightening reply.

I guess my question in this then would be what can be called defamation?

 

[Zigner]

Quincy,

I'd like to thank you for the respectful and enlightening reply.

I guess my question in this then would be what can be called defamation?

Please consult with an attorney. Really.

 

[quincy]

Quincy,

I'd like to thank you for the respectful and enlightening reply.

I guess my question in this then would be what can be called defamation?

Defamation covers any false statement or false implication communicated to a "third party" (someone other than the speaker and the speaker's subject) that causes harm to the reputation of a business or a person.

When no privilege exists, and if communicated with negligence, a person who falsely states or implies that a business or business owner is involved in any criminal activity has defamed that business or business owner. The falsehoods have caused harm to the reputations of both.

There can be defenses to defamation (truth, opinion, fair comment and criticism). It may be harder to defend against the linking of the new company to the old, which negatively affects once again the business and business owner.

It appears from what you have posted that the business owner has more than one person he can name as a defendant in a lawsuit and several claims against each. The defendant who is the subject of your post needs an attorney to personally review all of the facts and postings about the business and business owner, and then help the defendant work on defenses to the claims being made.

This stands to be a costly lesson for the defendant (and any others that may be named) on what is and is not "protected" speech.

 

[Kohtu]

Quincy,

Thanks again for your respectful reply.
The plaintiff is under the impression that there is only one guilty defendant out there. Though I guess that's not totally true either since there are a number of "does" on the lawsuit too still without any names added yet (according to the case online). Chances are the other does were smarter and didn't use their own home IP.

Defendant is actively talking with an attorney but nevertheless wants to comprehend all the legal details the tie to the topic.

 

[quincy]

Quincy,

Thanks again for your respectful reply.
The plaintiff is under the impression that there is only one guilty defendant out there. Though I guess that's not totally true either since there are a number of "does" on the lawsuit too still without any names added yet (according to the case online). Chances are the other does were smarter and didn't use their own home IP.

Defendant is actively talking with an attorney but nevertheless wants to comprehend all the legal details the tie to the topic.

Although I can appreciate a defendant wanting to know as much as possible about the lawsuit that names him as a defendant, I caution him against posting too much about his situation on a public forum. Whatever he posts can find its way back to the plaintiff in the case, especially if the facts of his case can identify him sufficiently. That is just one reason why we report and edit posts on this forum that include personal identifying information - it is (often) for the poster's own protection. And, if the defendant is speaking with an attorney already (which is smart), the attorney would not want his client posting about the case online.

If there is only one named defendant in the suit and several "Does," it could mean that the ISP has not released the account information yet. Perhaps a Doe or two or three have moved to quash subpoenas which would lead to the disclosure of their account information. What it doesn't mean is that these Does will not at some point in time be identified, though (unless they wind up being dismissed from the suit for some reason).

Good luck to the defendant. He should now rely solely on his attorney for information and advice so he doesn't compromise his case by inadvertently saying anything publicly that the plaintiff can find and use against the defendant. It seems the plaintiff has gathered a lot of that sort of stuff already.