false info

What is the name of your state? Ohio
I own a small business and have a competitor who continually puts out false and misleading information concerning my company. Example ... heard he's going out of business. Or, he lost a major account. Or, he screwed up that job.
Does this fit the description of defamation? If so, what constitutes proof I could use in a legal action? Actual letters, emails, witness to conversation?

Ohio business said:

What is the name of your state? Ohio
I own a small business and have a competitor who continually puts out false and misleading information concerning my company. Example ... heard he's going out of business. Or, he lost a major account. Or, he screwed up that job.
Does this fit the description of defamation? If so, what constitutes proof I could use in a legal action? Actual letters, emails, witness to conversation?

Click to expand...

My response:

Any, and all of that, could be used as your proof. If you have it in writing from that idiot, and published within your community, you'd have him by the cajones.

IAAL

false info cont.

I am collecting this proof in letters writiten to clients by the competitor, in writing to third parties (by the competitor), who would then encourage the third party offer what they "heard" to the client (so my competitor does not appear to be the source... when the client hears it from more than one source it seems to more reliable information).
But it has not been "published".
Is published a critical measure?

Also as a hypothetical .. with out the written proof, just knowledge of this activity from people in the industry clueing me in to this smear campaign ... do I have any recourse?

When you are talking about Libel, the word "published" simply means written. It is only necessary to tell a falsehood to ONE PERSON, to establish a libel.

Obviously, written evidence is best but if you have credible witnesses who are willing to testify to what they were told, and they were told a serious falsehood about you, you could still have a case.

Do a Google on "elements defamation" and on "civil conspiracy" and then read, read, and read some more to see if you have what you need.

MP wrote: When you are talking about Libel, the word "published" simply means written.

IAAL wrote: MY RESPONSE: Really, is that what it means from a "legal" standpoint? Wow. I guess I missed that in my years of practice.

MP wrote: It is only necessary to tell a falsehood to ONE PERSON, to establish a libel.

IAAL wrote: MY RESPONSE: Really, only "one person"? I guess I missed that too.

IAAL wrote: MY RESPONSE: Seriously, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Who filled your head with this bullsh!t?
Show me all of your "legal authority" for each of these so-called "elements" of libel or slander.

MP now writes: It seems you certainly have missed quite a bit during your many years of practice. Were you under the impression that you have managed to learn everything there is to know about every single area of law? If so, you have achieved something heretofore unheard of and someone should alert the media.

The bullsh!t that fills my head comes not from an individual, but from the Law Library.

I am not a lawyer and am not here to teach those who ARE in the profession. You seem to be unfamiliar with the most basic facts regarding defamation. If you don’t know the legal meaning of the word “publication” or how many people the lie must be communicated to, you need to spend ten minutes brushing up on the topic before you continue advising people.

meganproser said:

When you are talking about Libel, the word "published" simply means written. It is only necessary to tell a falsehood to ONE PERSON, to establish a libel.

Obviously, written evidence is best but if you have credible witnesses who are willing to testify to what they were told, and they were told a serious falsehood about you, you could still have a case.


**A: hahaha. This is a riot. There would not be a libel case at all in this instance.

********
Do a Google on "elements defamation" and on "civil conspiracy" and then read, read, and read some more to see if you have what you need.

Click to expand...

**A: you are definitely missing most elements in your brain.

Libel and Slander come under the same tort, but what I was saying was that if people had been contacted in writing, as the original poster says they were, and they no longer have the written evidence of those contacts but are willing to testify to having received them, the plaintiff will have sufficient evidence.

I was commenting on the following question from the poster: "If so, what constitutes proof I could use in a legal action? Actual letters, emails, witness to conversation?"

It doesn't really matter that much, whether the defamation was spoken or written, as long as the plaintiff can produce credible evidence that it was communicated to a third party.

You are correct that if all of the communication was verbal, the count would be for slander. The poster will figure out whether he has slander or libel claims when he does his research.

Yes, once in a while I'll take the bait...

Just for the fun of it.

Maybe if we go real slow, you can catch up. Here are the two posts I was commenting on:

Ohio Business wrote: “I own a small business and have a competitor who continually puts out false and misleading information concerning my company. Example ... heard he's going out of business. Or, he lost a major account. Or, he screwed up that job.
Does this fit the description of defamation? If so, what constitutes proof I could use in a legal action? Actual letters, emails, witness to conversation?”

IAAL answered the above post by writing: “Any, and all of that, could be used as your proof. If you have it in writing from that idiot, and published within your community, you'd have him by the cajones.”

Ohio Business then wrote: “I am collecting this proof in letters writiten to clients by the competitor, in writing to third parties (by the competitor), who would then encourage the third party offer what they "heard" to the client (so my competitor does not appear to be the source... when the client hears it from more than one source it seems to more reliable information).
But it has not been "published".
Is published a critical measure?

Also as a hypothetical .. with out the written proof, just knowledge of this activity from people in the industry clueing me in to this smear campaign ... do I have any recourse?”

MP then wrote: “When you are talking about Libel, the word "published" simply means written. It is only necessary to tell a falsehood to ONE PERSON, to establish a libel.

IAAL seems to have some issue with MP’s given definition of the word published. MP begs IAAL’s forgiveness for not printing the entire list of definitions for “publish”. The poster obviously thinks the term “published” has to do with media publication. MP thought it sufficient to let the poster know that as long as the false statement is on paper and has been shown to ONE PERSON other than the plaintiff, the publication requirement for libel has been met.

IAAL recently wrote: “No, Dufus. There MUST be a communication that would cause the receiver to "believe" the communication; it must cause some sort of damages; e.g., loss of job, being shunned in the community, etc.

MP writes: No kidding?

IAAL gets a clue and writes: “ - - UNLESS you're trying to explain slander or libel "per se". But you didn't mention that.”

MP writes: No, I didn’t mention that, because if this poster can prove any libel, it will be libel per se.
IAAL wrote: “All you said was that "slander" or "libel" had to be a communication to "one person" to complete the tort. Remember that? "One Person"?”

MP writes: No, I don’t remember saying that. I remember saying this: “It is only necessary to tell a falsehood to ONE PERSON, to establish a libel.” Again, the point of my statement was to assure the poster that he needs only one witness to a libelous publication. I didn’t bother to explain everything else that the poster needs to know, because I already suggested that he research the requirements for a tort.

IAAL wrote: “All because someone says something "nasty" about you, but no one believes that statement, then there is NO tort.”

MP writes: NOWHERE is there a requirement that the plaintiff prove anyone believed the libel. If the libel was directed at a private person, that person can claim damages for mental anguish and such. If directed at a business, it would be libel per se, and there may be presumed damages or punitive damages.

IAAL wrote: “Wow, according to you, I must have wasted my Stanford Law degree, and the past 25 years of active law practice.”

MP writes: My, aren’t we dramatic? No one said you have wasted anything. At the same time, I don’t care what your credentials are, you can not be an expert on every single area of law. Do you claim to be an expert on all law?

IAAL wrote: Oh, and "publish" in the legal sense doesn't just mean "written". A publication in the legal sense also means spoken; e.g., "While giving his speech to the 300 people in the auditorium, Mr. Jones accused Ms. Smith of being a liar." That's an oral or verbal "publication".

MP writes: Here is what I said: “When you are talking about Libel, the word "published" simply means written." The legal definition of “publish”, as the word relates to libel, does NOT include oral or verbal publication. It does include pictures, drawings, and any other form of communication on paper or computer.

My response:

Do you recall me saying to you:

"Show me all of your "legal authority" for each of these so-called "elements" of libel or slander."

You still haven't.

You don't even know what slander or libel per se means.

You're just too stupid for me to continue with you in this dialog. It's difficult to discuss relatively simple concepts with someone who's brain dead, like you.

IAAL

>My response:

>Do you recall me saying to you:

>"Show me all of your "legal authority" for each of these so-called "elements" of libel or slander."

>You still haven't.

I recall telling you that I'm not here to teach you and you obviously do have a lot to learn on this particular subject. Go look for the legal authority yourself because you are in desperate need of a refresher course in defamation.

>You don't even know what slander or libel per se means.

You don't even know how to read.

>You're just too stupid for me to continue with you in this dialog. It's difficult to discuss relatively simple concepts with someone who's brain dead, like you.

You don't "discuss" things with anyone who challenges you. You make wild, baseless claims and muddy the water by talking about aspects of the case that were not even in question.

It must be very boring to close your mind to the possibility of learning anything from other people. I suppose that is the price you have to pay to keep your inflated ego in tact.

Whatever. Please feel free to have the last word if you like...I'll not bother you any further.

meganproser said:

>My response:

I suppose that is the price you have to pay to keep your inflated ego in tact.

**A: the word is spelled intact. Not that you would know, since you have no tact,
**********

Whatever. Please feel free to have the last word if you like...I'll not bother you any further.

Click to expand...

**A: does that mean you will be doing us all a favor and will be leaving this website?

HG wrote: A: the word is spelled intact. Not that you would know, since you have no tact,

MP writes: WOW! Few things impress me as much as a person who knows how to SPELL!!! Maybe your name should be "Spelling Guru" so that EVERYONE can know about your skills. You are not wasting your time practicing law when you could be an editor are you?

>Whatever. Please feel free to have the last word if you like...I'll not bother you any further.

HG wrote: A: does that mean you will be doing us all a favor and will be leaving this website?

MP writes: Nooo, I was offering the last word in this thread only, to IAAL.

I'm curious as to why you would object to my presence here. All I did was answer the guy's question about "publication". IAAL felt the need to object to my response, evidently because I failed to include every possible meaning of the word.

IAAL also seemed a bit flustered because I indicated a libel only needed to be communicated to a single third party. Evidently, this was news to him and what with his credentials and all, he seems to assume that there is nothing left for him to learn. This prompted him to deem my information incorrect, which left him with his foot stuck firmly in his mouth. As anyone secure enough to admit they were wrong about something will attest, the foot in mouth thing is embarrassing. You probably wouldn't know anything about that though HG.

Anyway, I'll be hanging around misspelling things and acting like I'm brain dead, just for my own amusement. How can one not laugh at the constant sight of educated adults acting like they are in third grade? It's just not something one sees in the real world very often and it's a wonderful reminder that you can dress someone up with education but you can't necessarily take them out.

Please advise of any spelling errors in the above, as I live to learn.