Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

Over and over to specific charges against you and Joy for defamation per se, where the only defense you could legitimately offer is that you were telling the truth, you and Joy admitted you didn't even have that defense and couldn't even submit any evidence or proof of the defamatory accusations you had made, as you were admittedly just repeating hearsay from anonymous sources, but were hoping to go phishing during discovery ( in a lawsuit Joy admits he was salivating for and eagerly pursuing, and which you both keep trying to prolong now) to find some kind of justification for your slanderous and libelous activities, after the fact...

How many times do we have to address this one before the lie keeps getting repeated? The standard for journalism and the standard for court are different. It is unconstitutional to impose the Federal Rules of Evidence upon the press. If a reporter can corroborate the information from his source, he can break the story. But in court the bar is higher, and so of course discovery would have to be conducted in order to establish the truth of the points made.

If the logic of Simpson and you held sway, then the press in the United States of America would largely shut down.

When the story about Monica Lewinsky broke, could the reporters prove the truth of it in court, without further discovery?

[Cindy]

Over and over to specific charges against you and Joy for defamation per se, where the only defense you could legitimately offer is that you were telling the truth, you and Joy admitted you didn't even have that defense and couldn't even submit any evidence or proof of the defamatory accusations you had made, as you were admittedly just repeating hearsay from anonymous sources, but were hoping to go phishing during discovery ( in a lawsuit Joy admits he was salivating for and eagerly pursuing, and which you both keep trying to prolong now) to find some kind of justification for your slanderous and libelous activities, after the fact...

How many times do we have to address this one before the lie keeps getting repeated? The standard for journalism and the standard for court are different. It is unconstitutional to impose the Federal Rules of Evidence upon the press. If a reporter can corroborate the information from his source, he can break the story. But in court the bar is higher, and so of course discovery would have to be conducted in order to establish the truth of the points made.

If the logic of Simpson and you held sway, then the press in the United States of America would largely shut down.

How long are you going to hide behind that "freedom of the press" excuse while remaining clueless and crying 'foul" because you were sued.? *If* you and Joy wanted to function as reporters and the press, you should have educated yourselves about journalism and reporting ethics before doing so. Read on...you only violated every single guideline below repeatedly, and got exactly what you deserved for posting and publishing so unethically and irresponsibly.

How to Avoid Libel

The Associated Press Stylebook gives a complete and easy explanation on libel and how and why newspapers face libel charges. New journalists should be educated in proper, ethical reporting methods, and any time you have questions on whether something you write is libelous, check with your editor. If you are an editor, check with the publisher, the editorial board or the paper's legal counsel.



 Libel 101
      About Libel

Webster's dictionary defines libel as: (1) a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt; (2) defamation of a person by written or representational means; (3) the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures; and (4) the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel. By law, libel comes under the umbrella of defamation. Defamation when written or in the form of a representation such as a photograph is considered libel; when defamation is spoken, it is slander.

Instructions

      Step 1

      There are some general guidelines reporters and bloggers must follow to avoid libel. It starts with the three A's: According to, allegedly and apparently. Newspapers, TV, radio, Internet--it makes no difference. They are all media outlets, not courts or judges. Headlines and stories should never convict a person, instead leave that for the courts and judges. Stories or headlines also should never draw conclusions that the facts don't prove. That's where the three A's come in. When reporting on crime or alleged wrong-doing by a politician, for example, always source the information. Don't write, "The man shot and killed three people before stealing a Camaro and speeding away." That statement shows a bias against the suspect. Instead, write, "Police said the man shot and killed." This statement provides a source and meets the burden of absence of malice on which courts base libel decisions.
 

      Step 2

      Source every statement, conclusion or fact, unless that fact is in the realm of common knowledge. Examples of common knowledge are that the sky is blue, ice is cold and fire is hot.


      Step 3

      When sourcing, do not draw conclusions. Use statements such as "According to police" or "According to multiple sources."


      Step 4

      When quoting information from unnamed sources, detail the nature of the source. For example, "According to a firefighter that arrived on the scene 10 minutes after the accident," or "A source in the Justice Department" or "According to a senior government official."
 

      Step 5

      Apparently is the second of the three A's. Use "apparently" when there are no facts or sourced available, but observations are. "The shots apparently came from the third floor of a book depository" or "The mayor apparently thought no one would find the accounting error as he allegedly used the missing cash to renovate his home."
 

      Step 6

      When there are charges, as in the example above about the mayor, always use alleged or allegedly. Again, the charges remain allegations only until a court convicts the person.
 

      Step 7

      Look at and consider your sources. Even Woodward and Bernstein had named sources throughout their Watergate investigation. Always question anonymous sources as to motives and why they want to remain nameless.
 

      Step 8

      Libel is extremely difficult to prove in court. However, that should not act as an open invitation to write just anything. Always check facts, get confirmations on anonymous tips and above all remain objective.



Tips & Warnings

    *       Never guess. If you have any questions whether something you write would constitute libel, check with your editor, publisher or attorney.
    *       Courts define journalistic objectivity as an "absence of malice." It is vital to always look carefully at your selection of adjectives, especially when writing about a person. Descriptive words can often betray a bias for or against someone or something.

[Bob Pickle]

And in what way did we "violate[] every single guideline below repeatedly"? Be specific. Back up your unsubstantiated and defamatory assertions.

[Cindy]

And in what way did we "violate[] every single guideline below repeatedly"? Be specific. Back up your unsubstantiated and defamatory assertions.

I am not going to argue with you about what I see as obvious, Bob.

Anyone else wishing to see for themselves if you published ethically or not only has to look at the list above and then examine your posts here and your website in that light. I have no problem with folks deciding that for themselves.

[Bob Pickle]

Then let it be clear to all that you refuse to give a single example of where we ever violated any of the above guidelines. Thus, readers will not be out of line to conclude that you are unable to do so.

[Mary Sue Smith]

EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.

[anyman]

EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.

In fact very few do and they and RJP/GAJ are on our church's prayer list.

[Bob Pickle]

EXCUSE ME? Are you unable to read? Ian said plainly people can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence of what you have been writing on here and on your website. People are able to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions--not everyone follows you blindly.

Since you, anyman, and Junebug are unable to give any examples, then people who do think for themselves and come to their own conclusions, and who don't follow you blindly, will naturally come to the conclusion that you folks probably don't know what you are talking about.

I'd still like to know why you have such a hard time stating the simple and ethical truth that whether a minor is consenting makes no difference whatsoever. Someone who can't state such a simple and obvious thing despite their profession of high standards would likely find it difficult to acknowledge that payments by Remnant to Danny for sales of Danny's PPPA booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks.

[Cindy]

Well at least we know you can still be counted on to drag up old and warped accusations and to turn everything said into new accusations and to try and change the subject whenever your own words or actions are called into account.... Not a good thing imo, but you make those choices...

[Little Grasshopper]

Well I disagree with both you and Bob.

Well, that's a surprise.

One thing he has never comprehended is that his right to freedom of speech is not absolute. In other words his rights end where 3abn's and Ds' begin.

No, one person's constitutional rights don't necessarily end simply because another person exercises their own rights. 

A relevant case is being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court right now.  The Westboro Baptist Church wants to picket funerals with their hateful, anti-gay banners and noise-making (citing freedom of speech).  However, since a funeral is often a private religious service, the Supreme Court is being asked if the people having the funeral have a legal right to conduct a religious service without interruption (freedom of religion). 

He can't violate their rights or anyone elses and claim it's his legal right to do that. He and Joy have no " freedom of speech" defense which any court would ever take seriously, as you will see.

A wise trial lawyer told me that any client never has better than a 50/50 chance in court.  There's no sure bet, Ian.

So put down your kool-aid for a minute and try digesting this.

Sorry,  I don't drink Kool-aid, and certainly not the stuff they might serve at some offshoot, historical cult in Indiana that probably meets in somebody's basement.

Freedom of speech is not a license to slander or libel and attack others as Pickle, Joy and you all do. And consider this also, from the beginning your little group has been saying well look at all this smoke that must mean there is a fire, but all your ugly emissions mean no such thing. Your smoke and mirrors and claims of "fire" is NOT "free speech" The U.S. Supreme court ruled long ago that shouting "fire fire!" to a crowd when there is no fire does not fall under the right to free speech which the U.S. Constitution safeguards.

You know, when it comes to shouting "fire" I sometimes think of plaintiffs who file lawsuits, and then, never seriously planning to go to court, have the judge dismiss their lawsuit.  That's what I call yelling "fire, fire."  That is where I see the smoke and mirrors, Ian.

That's all I have to say to you for now, have a good day....

Let me write that on my calendar,  March 10, 2010 -- The Day Ian Did Not Have Any More to Say.

[childoftheking]

http://www.webgripesites.com/

[Cindy]

One thing he has never comprehended is that his right to freedom of speech is not absolute. In other words his rights end where 3abn's and Ds' begin.

No, one person's constitutional rights don't necessarily end simply because another person exercises their own rights.

That's not quite what I meant...  ---> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The constitution does not grant those rights it only safeguards them. It isn't necessary to protect them, or to assert your own rights in reaction to someone else words or acts unless your rights are being trampled on or violated. IMHO, as Christians,  we should understand that God never gave us any rights which would cause harm to another or cause them to have to exercise their own rights in defense, for if that is the case we are in the wrong. Being that Pickle and Joy have claimed to be doing the righteous thing and are acting on God's behalf, imo, they have no excuse for not understanding that.. This did not begin with 3abn filing a lawsuit. It began with the public attacks and public accusations published by Pickle and Joy.

He can't violate their rights or anyone else's and claim it's his legal right to do that. He and Joy have no " freedom of speech" defense which any court would ever take seriously, as you will see.

A wise trial lawyer told me that any client never has better than a 50/50 chance in court.  There's no sure bet, Ian.

More pertinent imo would be if that same trial lawyer also told you that any argument or defense has a 50/50 chance in court..

So put down your kool-aid for a minute and try digesting this.

Sorry,  I don't drink Kool-aid, and certainly not the stuff they might serve at some offshoot, historical cult in Indiana that probably meets in somebody's basement.

o...kay... well good for you, I guess...

Freedom of speech is not a license to slander or libel and attack others as Pickle, Joy and you all do. And consider this also, from the beginning your little group has been saying well look at all this smoke that must mean there is a fire, but all your ugly emissions mean no such thing. Your smoke and mirrors and claims of "fire" is NOT "free speech" The U.S. Supreme court ruled long ago that shouting "fire fire!" to a crowd when there is no fire does not fall under the right to free speech which the U.S. Constitution safeguards.

You know, when it comes to shouting "fire" I sometimes think of plaintiffs who file lawsuits, and then, never seriously planning to go to court, have the judge dismiss their lawsuit.  That's what I call yelling "fire, fire."  That is where I see the smoke and mirrors, Ian.

Understood, you look with your eyes and we look with ours...

FACTS
This case arises from a lawsuit by Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network,
Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton (collectively referred to as “3ABN”) alleging trade
infringement, dilution of trademark, defamation, and intentional interference with
advantageous economic relations against Pickle and Joy. (Docket #1).1 The allegations
in the Complaint were that Pickle and Joy had been operating a web site that used the
“3ABN” moniker or logo to attract viewers and then bombarded them with disparaging
and defamatory statements about 3ABN. When Joy filed for bankruptcy protection,
3ABN acquired the offending web site from the bankruptcy trustee and shut it down. It
soon became apparent to 3ABN that no further relief could be obtained by continuing the
litigation. Pickle and Joy controlled no other web sites and had no apparent assets from
which a judgment could be paid. In addition, as their appeal to this Court reflects, they
had an apparently inexhaustible taste for litigation even though they were the defendants
and had asserted no counterclaims.

Therefore, on October 23, 2008, 3ABN moved to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) because it believed that it had obtained all tangible relief
that could have been gained through this lawsuit by other means and that the lawsuit
could not achieve additional meaningful relief. (Docket # 120, 121). The district court
accepted the evidence and argument in support of the motion and dismissed this case on
October 30, 2008. (Docket #129).

[childoftheking]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/0321105581.shtml

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/07/goldman-backs-down-in-legal-battle-with-blogger.html

[Bob Pickle]

Sounds like Goldman was wiser than Danny Shelton. Goldman backed down, Danny et. al. still hasn't, not really.

How long did it take Goldman to do the right thing?

[childoftheking]

Looks like the whole thing took 2 or 3 months start to finish.