Libel suit against someone in another state

[oppressed]

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

I need to file a libel lawsuit against someone who lives in Maryland. How does that work? Do I hire an attorney in Arkansas? Do I have to travel to Maryland? Due to someone's libel against me, my life has been literally ruined. I was diagnosed with PTSD due to the attack which can be verified. I had to leave my job of 15 years and am having a hard time gaining employment as I believe they may be sabotaging my efforts.

 

[quincy]

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

I need to file a libel lawsuit against someone who lives in Maryland. How does that work? Do I hire an attorney in Arkansas? Do I have to travel to Maryland? Due to someone's libel against me, my life has been literally ruined. I was diagnosed with PTSD due to the attack which can be verified. I had to leave my job of 15 years and am having a hard time gaining employment as I believe they may be sabotaging my efforts.

Where you need to file your libel suit can depend on where the libelous statements were published. You generally have an option of filing in your home state (Arkansas) or in the state where the defendant resides (Maryland). Determining where to file often involves weighing pros and cons.

You will want to make sure that what was published about you is actually defamatory, so I recommend you see a defamation lawyer in Arkansas first and perhaps consider a Maryland attorney later.

A personal review of the statements that have been made, where they have been made, why they were made, and how your reputation has been affected as a result, will be necessary. My recommendation is for you sit down with an Arkansas lawyer well-versed in defamation law and go from there.

Good luck.

 

[Proserpina]

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

I need to file a libel lawsuit against someone who lives in Maryland. How does that work? Do I hire an attorney in Arkansas? Do I have to travel to Maryland? Due to someone's libel against me, my life has been literally ruined. I was diagnosed with PTSD due to the attack which can be verified. I had to leave my job of 15 years and am having a hard time gaining employment as I believe they may be sabotaging my efforts.

Oppressed, what is it you want to accomplish? Defamation suits are inherently costly in terms of both time and money and it's not likely to result in a money award you can actually collect. It also won't make the lies go away.

You said you had to leave your job. Without going into too much personal detail, could you please tell us a bit more about that?

 

[Proserpina]

Where you need to file your libel suit can depend on where the libelous statements were published. You generally have an option of filing in your home state (Arkansas) or in the state where the defendant resides (Maryland). Determining where to file often involves weighing pros and cons.

You will want to make sure that what was published about you is actually defamatory, so I recommend you see a defamation lawyer in Arkansas first and perhaps consider a Maryland attorney later.

A personal review of the statements that have been made, where they have been made, why they were made, and how your reputation has been affected as a result, will be necessary. My recommendation if for you sit down with an Arkansas lawyer well-versed in defamation law and go from there.

Good luck.

(Or, "what quincy said" )

 

[quincy]

(Or, "what quincy said" )

You added the important "cost" element. I was going to scare with that later.

 

[Proserpina]

You added the important "cost" element. I was going to scare with that later.

I truly am the Bad News Bear today.

 

[quincy]

I truly am the Bad News Bear today.

Yes, well, the fact that defamation suits tend to be extremely costly - especially interstate defamation suits - is something that had to be addressed sooner or later.

I imagine an unemployed worker with PTSD probably doesn't have a lot of excess money to spend on attorneys or lawsuits right now. Unfortunately, defamation lawyers are not often found in free legal aid clinics.

oppressed could potentially find a professor in an area law school who is willing to look over the published statements and who published them, and give an initial assessment of the merits of a suit. Depending on this assessment, and the financial resources of the possible defendant, oppressed might find an attorney willing to take the case for a reduced fee, or who will offer a payment plan, or who will work with a pro-se oppressed on an "as needed" basis.

Of course, it all depends on what was said.

 

[tranquility]

We need some type of FAQ on defamation that can be referenced to as most questions have the same issues. Many have to do with the elements themselves. Many others have to do with the core difficulties of prosecuting a suit at all. Expense, jurisdiction and damages are only a few facts that could be difficult. Rewriting the same thing again and again seems a bit of a waste.

Of course, here, the OP is not asking about defamation directly. He only asks how to prosecute a suit. I think all who know even a bit about defamation would love to hear more to see if there is any real possibility of success. But, we must focus on prosecution.

1. You cannot do it on your own. You need an attorney.
2. Attorneys like getting paid for their work. Either you front the money for the suit or you must convince the cost/benefit--contingency offered is worth the attorney's time.
3. Yes, it will be a hassle to prosecute a suit across state borders. There will be technicalities that make it even more necessary to have a knowledgeable attorney. At some point you will have to go to the other state. With a good attorney, probably not that much.
4. Sure, sometimes people win. But, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people who feel they have been defamed get no satisfaction under the law.

The first step is to find an attorney in the state that's courts have jurisdiction over the person you claim defamed you. (Those who know, know that sentence is FAR more complex than it seems. To be safe, Maryland. Again, attorney.) Then, you try to prove as best you can the other party caused you great damages from false statements that defamed you. I say that because you are not going to pony up the tens of thousands (Or, more.) required to prosecute the suit. If he does not buy with a contingent arrangement (Look out for "costs".) you agree. Call another. Repeat until agreement.

 

[quincy]

We need some type of FAQ on defamation that can be referenced to as most questions have the same issues. Many have to do with the elements themselves. Many others have to do with the core difficulties of prosecuting a suit at all. Expense, jurisdiction and damages are only a few facts that could be difficult. Rewriting the same thing again and again seems a bit of a waste.

Because defamation laws and case law vary from state to state, and the elements needed to support a defamation claim vary from state to state, and the time within which an action must be filed vary from state to state, a "frequently asked questions" sticky note will not really work for defamation (or, at any rate, be that helpful).

The advice offered in this section of the forum will almost always include seeing an attorney for a personal review, and that is advice that should be given in ALL areas of the forum. That said, although it might seem sometimes as if the same thing is written over and over again, if you review threads from the past in this section of the forum, you will see that there is great variation - in the states, the statements, the circumstances and the needs of the posters - and the information and advice provided them as a result.

Of course, here, the OP is not asking about defamation directly. He only asks how to prosecute a suit. I think all who know even a bit about defamation would love to hear more to see if there is any real possibility of success. But, we must focus on prosecution.

No, we don't have to focus on prosecution. We can wait for more information.

1. You cannot do it on your own. You need an attorney.
2. Attorneys like getting paid for their work. Either you front the money for the suit or you must convince the cost/benefit--contingency offered is worth the attorney's time.
3. Yes, it will be a hassle to prosecute a suit across state borders. There will be technicalities that make it even more necessary to have a knowledgeable attorney. At some point you will have to go to the other state. With a good attorney, probably not that much.
4. Sure, sometimes people win. But, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people who feel they have been defamed get no satisfaction under the law.

Well, I can't argue with most of that - although there have been pro se's who have posted here who have managed to work their way through lawsuits with the help of a few of the members here, one poster even working his way to the Michigan Supreme Court (where, unfortunately but not surprisingly, his suit met an early demise).

The first step is to find an attorney in the state that's courts have jurisdiction over the person you claim defamed you. (Those who know, know that sentence is FAR more complex than it seems. To be safe, Maryland. Again, attorney.) Then, you try to prove as best you can the other party caused you great damages from false statements that defamed you. I say that because you are not going to pony up the tens of thousands (Or, more.) required to prosecute the suit. If he does not buy with a contingent arrangement (Look out for "costs".) you agree. Call another. Repeat until agreement.

The first step is to find a defamation attorney to personally review the publication. There might not be any need for an attorney after that.

When/if oppressed returns, perhaps he can disclose what exactly was said about him, and why. Then we can expand on what has been offered so far.

 

[tranquility]

Because defamation laws and case law vary from state to state, and the elements needed to support a defamation claim vary from state to state, and the time within which an action must be filed vary from state to state, a "frequently asked questions" sticky note will not really work for defamation (or, at any rate, be that helpful).

The advice offered in this section of the forum will almost always include seeing an attorney for a personal review, and that is advice that should be given in ALL areas of the forum. That said, although it might seem sometimes as if the same thing is written over and over again, if you review threads from the past in this section of the forum, you will see that there is great variation - in the states, the statements, the circumstances and the needs of the posters - and the information and advice provided them as a result.



No, we don't have to focus on prosecution. We can wait for more information.



Well, I can't argue with most of that - although there have been pro se's who have posted here who have managed to work their way through lawsuits with the help of a few of the members here, one poster even working his way to the Michigan Supreme Court (where, unfortunately but not surprisingly, his suit met an early demise).



The first step is to find a defamation attorney to personally review the publication. There might not be any need for an attorney after that.

When/if oppressed returns, perhaps he can disclose what exactly was said about him, and why. Then we can expand on what has been offered so far.

I am sure you buy lottery tickets every week. I have no problem with a person being silly on his own. Giving advice to others to be silly, isn't quite right.

Perhaps you should give some stats to compare those who think they were hurt to those who the courts found they were.

unfortunately but not surprisingly, his suit met an early demise

"Unfortunately"? I don't know. But, certainly not surprisingly. (By the by, FAQ are for basic generalities. Certainly states differ. But, don't most states (Even LA) require something false? What other things can be included?)

 

[quincy]

I am sure you buy lottery tickets every week. I have no problem with a person being silly on his own. Giving advice to others to be silly, isn't quite right.

Perhaps you should give some stats to compare those who think they were hurt to those who the courts found they were.

"Unfortunately"? I don't know. But, certainly not surprisingly. (By the by, FAQ are for basic generalities. Certainly states differ. But, don't most states (Even LA) require something false? What other things can be included?)

Well ... Massachusetts for one has a state law that allows for a defamation claim even when the statement is true so, no, not all states require that a statement be false for it to be defamatory.

With a Frequently Asked Questions there could certainly be added after each statement that "This may not apply to your state" or "There are notable exceptions." That does not seem to be of much benefit to anyone, though.

Again, generalities are fine. We could post them in every section of the forum (and we could post a link to the tax code to eliminate many of the tax questions or a link to a tax expert). But I am not sure the forum was intended to work that way. People come here for individual attention.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

One of the biggest obstacles for OP is even if they found a lawyer who thought they had the best case in the world, they might not want it on a percentage because even if they got a judgment, then the attorney would need to try and collect it.

 

[tranquility]

Well ... Massachusetts for one has a state law that allows for a defamation claim even when the statement is true so, no, not all states require that a statement be false for it to be defamatory.

Has anyone won on such a seemingly unconstitutional law yet?


Noonan v. Staples 556 F.3d 20, 1st Cir. (2009)

[7] This exception to the truth defense is not constitutional when applied to matters of public concern. Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., 427 Mass. 129, 691 N.E.2d 925, 927 (1998). In the rehearing proceedings, Staples has suggested that this exception to the truth defense may never be constitutional. But this argument is not developed now and was not raised in the initial briefing. Accordingly, we do not consider it at this time. See Johnson v. Mahoney, 424 F.3d 83, 96 (1st Cir.2005).

 

[quincy]

One of the biggest obstacles for OP is even if they found a lawyer who thought they had the best case in the world, they might not want it on a percentage because even if they got a judgment, then the attorney would need to try and collect it.

One of the factors a defamation attorney will look at when approached about a defamation action is the financial resources of the defendant.

Regardless of how defamatory a published statement might be or how much reputational injury has been suffered or how much the defamed plaintiff wants to clear his name by publicly showing the statements published were lies, a defamation lawsuit is really about monetary compensation. If there is no money to be had, a defamed person is unlikely to attract much interest from an attorney, unless there is something unique about the case.

tranquility wanted statistics on defamation suits. My concentration is now and has always been on the news media. I have relied in the past on the Media Law Resource Center, which offers 50-state survey publications. For those so inclined, here is a link to MLRC's resource page: http://www.medialaw.org/about-mlrc

As to the Noonan/Staples case, it was obviously an odd one. I published a link to the case in a recent thread in this section of the forum and have published it several times in the past. Here it is again: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7352477566130127331&q=Noonan+v.+Staples&hl=en&as_sdt=2002

The fact remains that the odd cases are out there, which makes a personal review of facts and research into case law necessary before telling someone they have no defamation claim to pursue.

 

[tranquility]

tranquility wanted statistics on defamation suits. My concentration is now and has always been on the news media. I have relied in the past on the Media Law Resource Center, which offers 50-state survey publications. For those so inclined, here is a link to MLRC's resource page: http://www.medialaw.org/about-mlrc

I think we'll agree that against public figures or of things of public interest the statute has been held to be unconstitutional. As to the statistics for private individuals, at least one site claims the statistic is .000 .