My job pulled my contracts and sent letters to clients

[steveE]

What is the name of your state? Texas

I was arrested on drug charges. I am an entertainer. My agency sends letters to all my clients stating that i was CHARGED with an offence and that it would be in there best interest to obtain another entertainer from there company since i was fired and i no longer work there. This is after i told them about it and they got wind out it thru the news media.
This agency pulled around $40,000 in signed contacts.
This agency said in the letter to me that they called and/or wrote letters to all my clients stating that i was arrested and CHARGED with a felony.
I have been an entertainer for 20 years. Ive not had a problem til now except with jeliosy from my boss who is an entertainer as well.
Ive been with this agency for 15 years.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM!
This happened 4 months ago and im still not charged!
I have an attorney but i want other opinions on this.
This is my full time job.

Also a little more information. After my attorney asked for the letters. The word CHARGED was replaced with ARRESTED. So the agency is already altering records to save there backside.
I HATE the word SUIT but what should i do.
I also signed a non compete so im in a bad situation especially raising 4 kids.

 

[moburkes]

What is your question?

 

[JETX]

What is your question?

See his other post on this same issue...

 

[quincy]

See Arrests, Searches, Warrants and Procedures.

SteveE - I will answer your libel question on the Arrests site, since most of the information on your case is posted there.

 

[HomeGuru]

not an issue, no case.

 

[quincy]

There could potentially be a libel action taken, if the letters were sent saying "charged" instead of "arrested".

 

[las365]

Sounds like an honest mistake on the former employer's part. Doesn't there have to be intent or malice? I think since it is true that he was arrested, proving that he was tremendously damaged by the former employer saying "charged," instead of "arrested," would be difficult to impossible. Most lay people do not make a big distinction between the two. His arrest was covered in the media, apparently.

Since his termination wasn't illegal, and he had signed a noncompete, it isn't as if the clients could hire him (even if they wanted to if they knew he had "only" been arrested instead of charged). He has no damages.

 

[quincy]

An honest mistake doesn't excuse libel, if it damages a reputation.

An example: A police officer arrests a man on suspicion of rape. The man is taken to jail. The police officer may have arrested this man, perhaps, with the intent of having the prosecutor charge him wth rape. A newspaper reports this man was charged with rape (or an acquaintance of the man notifies this man's clients he was charged with rape). The prosecutor, on the other hand, decides there is not enough evidence to charge the man with rape. The charges are dropped. Or perhaps they are changed to assault. Big difference. The man has already been labeled by the newpaper and by the acquaintance as having been charged with rape. Man sues. Newspaper is out big money.

The newspaper can report, as can the acquaintance, that the police arrested this man, not for rape, as that implies guilt, but in connection with a rape, if that is what the arrest record says. Generally a newspaper will hold off identifying the man until charges are brought, however, although, legally, they can report the man's name as well. But by jumping the gun and saying the man has been charged with rape when the prosecutor has not charged him - that is a risk most newspapers will not take.

As for malice, public officials must prove that a libelous statement was published with actual malice (with a reckless disregard for the truth), but an ordinary person only needs to prove that a libelous statement was published with neglience or without due care. And certain libelous statements (that someone is a rapist, or a prostitute, or a drug dealer) assume injury - no damages need to be proved.

 

[las365]

I dunno, Quincy, in this case I think the OP has admitted in his other thread that he is a drug dealer. I think the former employer used poor judgment in putting any information about the criminal matter in the letter, but I'm having a hard time seeing this particular "victim" as being damaged by it.

 

[quincy]

I agree, las365, that SteveE does not appear to be the most admirable of people, however he can still be libeled. Very few people are truly libel-proof (Usama/Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein may be two). And, I can imagine from what SteveE has posted, that charges could very well be forthcoming. However, they have not been brought yet, and to say he has been charged for a crime that he hasn't been charged for is potentially libelous.

Right now he has merely been arrested. Police arrest people for crimes they did not commit - maybe not frequently, but it certainly happens - and I, for one, would be very uneasy about printing a false statement. In fact, I wouldn't (or good-bye job ).

Just because someone has raped once, does not mean he has raped again, for instance, even though the police may arrest him, suspecting he has raped again. To conclude in advance that there is enough evidence for charges to be brought, and to print that, is careless and negligent. Many people are picked up and questioned, even arrested on suspicion, and later released.

I like to think our system of justice, and the media, protects even those that seem unquestionably guilty.

 

[moburkes]

I have a question. How do we know that the letters that were sent out actually read "Charged", instead of "Arrested", and that the company simply made a mistake on the letter that was sent to OP?

OP never says that they did send the wrong letter, only that they told him they sent the letters with "Charged".

This agency said in the letter to me that they called and/or wrote letters to all my clients stating that i was arrested and CHARGED with a felony.

 

[las365]

Good catch, Mo.

After my attorney asked for the letters. The word CHARGED was replaced with ARRESTED. So the agency is already altering records to save there backside.

True, the letters produced to OP's lawyer apparently said "arrested." OP hasn't said he has proof that the letters were altered, just that he thinks they were.

 

[fairisfair]

personally, I don't even see a big difference between the words charged and arrested. Neither indicates guilt. Now if they had said CONVICTED. . . .

 

[quincy]

As for the letters, I was taking SteveE's word on them. I guess I am not yet as suspicious, as some of you other members tend to be, that what the poster says may not be true.

Also, I just discovered on the other SteveE thread that he has, in fact, been charged for the felony, as Texas operates differently than Michigan does. Technically he has been arrested and charged, even though "formal charges" have not been brought yet. Sooooo, he really doesn't have a libel action, afterall, since what was written was true. He was, indeed, arrested and charged.

And fairisfair, we editors are an anal bunch, and there is a difference between being arrested and being charged - one can be on suspicion only (and the suspect can be released without ever being charged), the other assumes enough evidence exists to tie a suspect to a crime. It is the difference between publishing a falsehood and a fact. And falsehoods get us in a LOT of trouble, so we try to avoid that.

 

[moburkes]

It wasn't even that I didn't take him at his word. It was just that, the very first time I read it, I noticed that he didn't say that he KNEW they did it, only that they told him they did it, and that what they presented was different than what they told him, so it could have simply been an error in the original letter, not an alteration, like he claimed.

Someone here in his state, with the information that he provided, should be able to figure out who he is. I wish they'd post that information.