Defamation or libel?

[south]

Los Angeles

About 14 years ago a major leading newspaper published a story that a person I know was running a real estate scam had been arrested for scamming many people out of money had all his licensed and bonded offices shut down and was awaiting trial and anyone that had ever done business with the company to come forward for compensation. This was published before any trial.

Consequently the defendant was found factually not guilty by a judge and jury it turned out the entire case was a mistake by the Department of Real Estate omitting certain real estate law facts regarding real estate contracts to the City Attorney's office which showed the defendant had actually followed the DRE guidelines and had done nothing wrong and someone signing a contract is bound to it not just the broker.

Yes people did come forward as advertised but even though they were promised compensation when defendant was found guilty they still stuck up for the defendant which back fired on the prosecutor it turned out about 30 out of a 3000 customer database complained because they wanted out of their contract and did not feel a signing something made any difference if they did not want it any longer..... go figure.

Also the City Attorney had everyones phone number but all he could muster up was 30 people who's only statement on the stand was basically "I changed my mind and defendant would not tear up the contract" and yes I knew I signed a contract.

The major newspaper at the time ignored a request for a result or a retraction well it was a newspaper it ends up in the trash and is forgotten after a week or two so my friend moved on.

Well some years later search engines became more advanced and now any time my friends name is run on for example a Google search his name comes up at the top for being a scammer and running a real estate scam he now receives on average 5-10 contacts from people/customers/colleagues a week that either cancel business with him because of it or drill him about it.

The newspaper will not block the archived story from appearing in the search engines nor will they retract the story that was written by an independent and embellished by a self employed reporter.

The search engines cannot remove it they state contact the newspaper the newspaper actually laughs and finds it amusing and point blank refuse to block it remove it or at least take the name out.

Is there anything that can be done to force the newspaper to hide names or delete the story or at least block search engines from listing it? As this is defaming my friend effecting his personal life and hurting his business.





.

 

[quincy]

A fourteen year old newspaper article is showing up with a search of your friend's name? Hmmm.

There is nothing your friend can do at this point to get the article in the archived newspaper edited or deleted, if your friend has already contacted the newspaper and they will not do this voluntarily. Some papers, as a policy, will never edit or remove content once archived.

Perhaps your friend could flood the internet with positive stories about himself, moving the "scam" article to page two or three when a Google search is done of his name.

Your friend really should have handled all of this fourteen years ago.

 

[south]

RE: Your friend really should have handled all of this fourteen years ago.

14 years ago they did not have search engines let alone anyone expecting an old newspaper to be processed archived then propagated into search engines.

All ready tried your suggestion about posting stories with his name dozens of times to push down the article problem is because its a leading newspaper the search engines are giving it preference and a dominating spot and it just sticks at the top

 

[Proserpina]

14 years ago they did not have search engines let alone anyone expecting an old newspaper to be processed archived then propagated into search engines.

All ready tried your suggestion about posting stories with his name dozens of times to push down the article problem is because its a leading newspaper the search engines are giving it preference and a dominating spot and it just sticks at the top

*blink* I beg to differ!

I've been online since 1995 and although Alta vista, Lycos and the like weren't exactly Google, they were absolutely search engines!

(How do you think us earlier netizens managed to find..well..anything it is we managed to find?)

 

[south]

Emmm

Most people in the 90's did not even understand what the internet was let alone know the likes of google etc would be pulling old newspaper clippings and posting them in the future

 

[Proserpina]

Most people in the 90's did not even understand what the internet was let alone know the likes of google etc would be pulling old newspaper clippings and posting them in the future

I was very simply correcting the erroneous statement you made:

"14 years ago they did not have search engines".

That's all

 

[quincy]

If flooding the internet with positive stories is not moving the article to page two or three on a Google search of your friend's name, then perhaps your friend may want to consider publishing an "updated" version of the matter, using the facts that led to the final disposition on the case.

That way at least all of the information about the fourteen year old case is available for readers to view.

Other than that, there is little your friend can do after all this time. The newspaper (depending on the paper involved) may have considered redacting some identifying information early on, but now the archived article can remain legally in its original form. The newspaper is under no legal obligation to edit or delete the content.

 

[Tex78704]

Flooding the internet with positive things about an othewise nondescript person in an attempt to significantly shift the Google (and other search engine) rankings takes quite a bit of effort, with dubious effectiveness and long term results.

Then again, this person must be a heck of a real estate agent if "5-10 contacts a week" are reportedly taking the time to Google his name and cancelling business and giving him grief over it.

If there are only a couple of offending references that pop un on search engines, which is probably the case here, damage control can more easily be handled by creating a publication that will be parked "adjacent" to the offending article. This can be done by properly manipulating keywords both in the text of the article, in the title of the website page referencing this if needed, or in some instances the name of the website making the publication (which of course requires one to create a website for this purpose). Any of these requires periodic but permanent monitoring.

The intent of this is to do what Quincy suggested, and that is to create a highly visible article that sets the record straight on what really happened.

 

[quincy]

Here is one more suggestion which may (or may not) be effective. Your friend may wish to try this before creating any more stories.

I suggest that your friend contact, once again, the editor of the newspaper in question and, instead of requesting that the archived article be edited or deleted, request that the article have a note appended, which gives the final disposition of the case (perhaps with the case number and links to the court website included).

There is no guarantee that a newspaper will do this, of course - they are under no legal obligation to do so - but they are more likely to append an article than they are to edit or delete an article. They are also more likely to append an article if your friend can show that the article is showing up on a Google search of his name and, as a result, his personal and business reputations are being harmed.

Your friend should be aware that, even if the newspaper agrees to append the article, there is no guarantee that the appended version will be the one the internet databases pick up and store.

 

[The Occultist]

I wonder...does the article actually state that your friend is a scammer? or merely that charges had been brought against him for being a scammer? There is a huge difference between the two.

Oh, and since you posted your question in the Defamation forum, I do wish to ask: is your friend suffering any damages as a result of the article?

 

[south]

I wonder...does the article actually state that your friend is a scammer? or merely that charges had been brought against him for being a scammer? There is a huge difference between the two.

Oh, and since you posted your question in the Defamation forum, I do wish to ask: is your friend suffering any damages as a result of the article?

RESPONSE:

Yes the article actually states he was running a scam and anyone that has done business with him should come forward this was prior to any trial which also the article stated he had plead not guilty the story went into detail about how he had scammed people out of money all found not to be true.

NOTE: This was 14 years ago due to the article in search engines today some people are actually contacting City Attorney and DRE on him.

Yes he is suffering a lot of damages in business and personal relationships he is literally being labeled a convicted scammer as of 2010 no matter how much he tries to explain its not true it falls on deaf ears the article is spreading around the area and in the industry.

The paper has been shown it comes up the top the majority of editor contacts at the paper agree it looks bad and wish they could take it out problem is everything has to go through legal and instead of legal saying yes remove it because it is unfair and damaging they choose to look at it as if to say no one can force us so it stays. (No one is trying to force just a simple robot txt block from search engines)

And yes to remark on the other quote from the other poster Yes he is well known no he is not a Realtor he is a financial real estate investor

 

[Hot Topic]

And I suspect that "he" is you, or you wouldn't be so upset about the situation.

 

[south]

And I suspect that "he" is you, or you wouldn't be so upset about the situation.

Haha what difference does it make if it was me or not the subject is not guess who its find a solution carry on CSI the whodunnit boards are not here.

 

[quincy]

I can almost guarantee, if this was indeed a "major leading newspaper" as you say, that your friend was not called a "scammer" in the article unless he had already been convicted of scamming others or the "scammer" comment was a direct quote by the prosecutor or someone else involved in the case. Major leading newspapers have editorial staffs that screen crime stories very carefully so that no claims make it to print that are not true.

You say that the paper "ignored a request for a result or a retraction" when your friend asked for one fourteen years ago. If, in fact, your friend was called a scammer in the article (and I find that hard to swallow), and the paper refused to publish a correction or retraction to the story, your friend should have contacted an attorney and considered a defamation suit at that time.

But by waiting fourteen years to deal with the article's content, your friend has effectively eliminated all legal remedies. It is too late to do anything legally about any defamatory statements made in the article. With a one year statute of limitations for filing, it is well past the time for thoughts of a defamation suit.

If he hasn't done this already, he could try to contact the paper's legal department and speak directly with the general counsel or, better, he could contact an attorney and the attorney can speak with general counsel. The attorney may be able to put pressure on the paper to append the article. Again, however, the paper is under NO legal obligation to do so.

If your friend has contacted the proper editors at the paper and has tried without success to get the archived article edited or deleted or appended, and flooding the internet with other stories has not worked to move the offending article to page two or three, and a "like story" using the key words from the original article does not work to offset the effects of the original by providing an accurate update with the final disposition in the case, and contacts with general counsel or his own attorney does not bring results, then your friend will probably have to learn to deal with the fallout from the fourteen year old news coverage, and he can kick himself for not dealing with mess when he should have.

My final suggestion: He can change his name.

 

[south]

I can almost guarantee, if this was indeed a "major leading newspaper" as you say, that your friend was not called a "scammer" in the article unless he had already been convicted of scamming others or the "scammer" comment was a direct quote by the prosecutor or someone else involved in the case. Major leading newspapers have editorial staffs that screen crime stories very carefully so that no claims make it to print that are not true.

You say that the paper "ignored a request for a result or a retraction" when your friend asked for one fourteen years ago. If, in fact, your friend was called a scammer in the article (and I find that hard to swallow), and the paper refused to publish a correction or retraction to the story, your friend should have contacted an attorney and considered a defamation suit at that time.

But by waiting fourteen years to deal with the article's content, your friend has effectively eliminated all legal remedies. It is too late to do anything legally about any defamatory statements made in the article. With a one year statute of limitations for filing, it is well past the time for thoughts of a defamation suit.

If he hasn't done this already, he could try to contact the paper's legal department and speak directly with the general counsel or, better, he could contact an attorney and the attorney can speak with general counsel. The attorney may be able to put pressure on the paper to append the article. Again, however, the paper is under NO legal obligation to do so.

If your friend has contacted the proper editors at the paper and has tried without success to get the archived article edited or deleted or appended, and flooding the internet with other stories has not worked to move the offending article to page two or three, and a "like story" using the key words from the original article does not work to offset the effects of the original by providing an accurate update with the final disposition in the case, and contacts with general counsel or his own attorney does not bring results, then your friend will probably have to learn to deal with the fallout from the fourteen year old news coverage, and he can kick himself for not dealing with mess when he should have.

My final suggestion: He can change his name.

Thanks for responses folks consensus is he is up the creek with out a paddle.

He would have dealt with it 14 years ago but there was no relevance or any knowledge that in the future the story would be dragged out have the dust blown off it and regurgitate itself in a future thing called a search engine. At the time it was deemed as a local paper good for a few days then trashed for ever.