[QUOTE=showjumpers66;6516517]
It is absolutely crazy to me that you are defending Jill in this matter as it is the pot calling the kettle black. Jill is hands down the worse person I know for using the internet social network to spread rumors and untruths to hurt other people and/or their businesses. I do have proof that she has done this to our business as well as several others. Check out this thread - http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240534 - and look at the posts by posters that were banned from posting. Guess why they were banned …
On another forum, she tried to spread the rumor that we were lying about Apiro having fractured his hock and that we were hiding the fact that he had a disease called DSLD. I had never heard of it before, so had to look it up! :lol::lol::lol: http://dsldequine.info In response, I posted the radiologists report and I invite anyone who questions our honesty to come see Apiro any time.
She has contacted our clients as well as potential clients in an attempt to try to perpetuate the above rumors.
Jill has also copied and used items off our website word for word, such as our breeding discounts. I could go on and on …[/QUOTE]
Don’t give legal advice, am not an attorney, don’t play one on T.V. … and I didn’t read enough about Perry’s case to understand the specific nature of her defamatory comments and how they related to what was true about the plaintiff, but I would think that would be important to do before citing any case as precedent for what might happen to posters on this thread.
There are all sorts of cases that could be of value to plaintiffs and defendants alike. I worked for an attorney who was very publicly defamed, both libel and slander (i.e. in a speech before a large group of people, and in a magazine article). The comments were unequivocally false, they were communicated to a third party (thousands actually) and they were defamation per se (defamatory on their face).
The attorney sued for defamation.
The defendants conceded the defamation. In part of his pleading my boss mentioned that he was well known across the country… and that he had offered his expert advice from time to time on topics related to a specific hobby/sport.
When all was said and done, the court found that he was “a public figure” and therefore he had to prove that the defendants were acting with malice (which is essentially a state of mind). He could not prove the state of mind of the defendants and the case was dismissed. Each side was responsible for their own legal fees (hundreds of thousands of dollars). The defendants would almost have to have admited that they acted out of malice for my boss to have won his case. Oddly enough, they were unwilling to do so. 
Go figure.:lol:
The famous case that set this precedent was New York Times v Sullivan.
Over the years we (Arthur and I) have been the victims of defamatory statements made here on COTH about us. These statements have been false, defamatory per se, and without question they have hurt the value of our business (i.e. we have damages). I suppose we could have sued, but it seems to me that a whole lot of posters here (including us) are - by and through their own actions - public figures. We all are… or claim to be experts on the subject matters we post about, and many of us post thousands of times (across various forums). I am pretty sure that regardless of who sued, if they have posted on this COTH breeding forum more than 100 times, it is likely that at some point they have defined themselves as “public figures” whether they intended to or not. For example, standing high profile stallions and giving breeding reccomendations, and/or giving advice on any forum (any where) about EVA, (even if you are dead wrong and arguably hurting others) would qualify.
Just a thought.
As for plopping down $70 and filing against someone, it’s true that anyone can sue, regardless of what is true and the merit of the claims. My feeling about being sued is this: I sort of favor this approach. “I am a peaceful person… if you leave me alone, I will likely do the same. However, if you come at me with a stick, I’m going come back at you with an axe, preferably between the eyes. Your first shot had better be a clean kill, because I will return fire. And win loose or draw, you will spent hundreds of thousands and be in court for years and years and years. That’s just the kind of person I am.” :winkgrin:
Seems to me that a lot of people would step up if they felt there was some injustice done, based upon this thread.
And, for what it’s worth, based upon what I’ve read on this thread, Apiro’s owner may have a cause of action, and anyone holding an NSF check has a cause of action, but beyond that I haven’t seen much that is actionable. I certainly haven’t seen malice, quite the opposite really.
