No joke, when I glanced at the lower option quickly, I thought the handwriting said threat. And I thought, is that a requirement here now?? Lol.
13 Likes
Me too!
2 Likes
You mean the civil claim against WTPD, which was dismissed? Yeah, that’s a great “source.” Unfortunately, for “trubandloki” civil attorneys have huge protections from making libelous claims. Trubandloki does not.
She did not say “this is what I heard.” Or, “I read somewhere that someone accused this.” Instead, she made a libelous statement -stated as fact. Pretty foolish move - especially now. She has zero legal protections (unless she hires a lawyer) during a time when subpoenas are literally being dispensed to numerous, numerous parties. Some have no clue they’ll be receiving one. Others are aware “it’s coming.” Still, directly before a criminal trial and various civil trials, is probably the exact wrong time to be making such bold and libelous comments. There will be people who will be called to answer for such libel - as I have always, always maintained. Nothing has changed. COVID slowed things down to a near glacial pace. That might’ve been the time to make such dangerous, foolish & defamatory comments. I may have forgotten some of things over the course of all these threads, or chosen to be pickier with certain screenshot libelous statements, when nothing much was moving along very quickly.
We now send/and or discuss new info everyday with both the state of NJ & our civil attorneys. Someone stating “Lk got in argument with X,” (even if it never happened) would likely be looked past and simply assigned as idiotic BS. Stating “LK SHOT AT SOMEONE,” (at anytime - EVER) is not going to be “passed over,” or overlooked. Especially, not at this juncture. I hope to god for “trubandloki,” s sake, her “source,” is not “this is what I read some civil attorney said.” Again, they have special protections from libel suits, whereas “trubandloki,” does not.
1 Like
Again, libel doesn’t apply if you believe it to be true. So if a person saw a post by say YOU in which YOU stated you shot a gun at something in anger, and then someone stated that, it would not be libelous just because YOU didn’t like that it was said.
A lesson to us all to watch what we post when it’s naughty in nature.
29 Likes
Does anyone know if the jury selection process starting on Monday will be available to watch online?
2 Likes
When you make these threats, all people hear is “Blah, blah, blah, blah…” Just like when you subpoenaed COTH.
You are the girl who cried wolf over and over again. Keep threatening.
39 Likes
Yes!
People write all kinds of things on social media.
People post “untrue” pictures of themselves on dating websites.
People threaten each other even on baseball fan sites or about vaccination policy or Mack policy.
Social media is just a bunch of nonsense….it’s certainly not evidence.
To be clear, however, it might be different if someone posted “I’m gonna kill John Doe next Tuesday at 1pm. Now that might be cited in a complaint as evidence of an intent to do harm.
But saying I was the prom Queen or I graduated from Oxford or I shot out the tires of my boyfriend’s motorcycle is just social media babble.
4 Likes
So says you. Other identified sources of law say otherwise.
13 Likes
To be clear, are you including posts on a public forum as “social media”?
3 Likes
And, saying you shot something on your social media account may very well be babble but it still qualifies as a statement and any reasonable person could not be legally faulted for believing it.
That’s why no sanction happened against Deninger and why no one will be sued over such saying that LK has fired her weapon into a bike/tire.
18 Likes
There is no such post made by me, claiming I shot at anyone- ever. So, there’s that. Then, there’s that pesky detail again, which allows civil attorneys to make whatever libelous claims they wish; so long as what is the standard “disclaimer,” of “upon information and belief,” precedes whatever libelous words/accusations follow that “disclaimer.” Is trubandloki a civil attorney ??? Nope. Is she protected from making such libelous claims?? Absolutely not. And, just a guess: that post (and select few others from trubandloki - and quite a larger amount more from other posters here) will not be & have not been “merely, passed over or overlooked.” Patience. All in good time. All in good time.
It would depend….obviously it’s a growing field of law. Even within Facebook private messages might be treated differently than public posts.
As for a public forum like COTH there’s certainly no requirement to be truthful….or at least no penalty under the law for intentional misstatements.
If I’m drafting a complaint I’d be careful to start every allegation with “upon information and belief” whether it was something I read or something my client posted.
I just think it’s wise not to make allegations or draw conclusions about statements not made under oath.
4 Likes
Who said anything about suing Deninger? Ed it in the same post as the Ruger?
His claim included multiple falsehoods about LK and RG .
The attorneys for the township were certain he’d appeal the dismissal of his claim. That hasn’t happened. Read into that what you will.
3 Likes
Ok.
1 Like
Is there a time period in which an appeal must filed?
I assume there is but honestly don’t know how long it is.
2 Likes
Except, that is not what “trubandloki,” said, was it??? **Trubandloki said, “**she fired her weapon AT SOMEONE.” If I, or anyone else, want to fire a weapon into a soda can, (as an example) in a legally sanctioned area for firing, it would mine & anyone else’s right to do so, provided the proper permits have been dispensed to fire the weapon being fired, to the person who is firing.
I know. Facts. They just get in your way and crush baseless claims to pieces! Darn that four letter word! F-A-C-T. There is an even worse word, especially when it comes to people like you and sadly, trubandloki. That word is “EVIDENCE.” Oh right. It’s all in your “vault.” Lmk when you locate the key.
3 Likes
30 days.
4 Likes
