She told reporters that"I received an threatening anonymous untraceable E-mail from the HMHS" and when she was asked to produce it as proof she was unable. Then the story changed, She then said that it was non-threatening but had some obscene comments in it... And she was still unable to produce the document...
Wingman:Defamation has as its elements:1) A statement which is factually untrue;2) Which causes $$ damage or is about employment, commissionof crime, unchastity in previously chaste woman, or attribution of loathsome disease,3) If about a public figure, is done with knowlege of falsity or reckless disregard of same.4) Is released, or published, to someone other than the defamed person and the speaker.She knows the contents of the email. If it wasn't threatening, and she says it was, then it probably meets the test, if it alleges a crime, or results in $$ damage. As to who sent it, she knows what it says. If it PURPORTS on its face to be from HMHS, that may be enough, if content is as she first said (but if so, why the change in what she said?). Likewise, if she made a first statement as to content which was untrue and didn't make it to papers, there is liability for that one, even if the second is not defamatory.If the email doesn't exist at all, she is totally done. Likewise if it was sent by someone known to her, for effect.
rockpond -When I wrote earlier that unanswered allegations are assumed to be true, I wasn't thinking of AMG readers. I was thinking of the many more people whose news is primarily the one-sided affair of reading the daily newspaper, watching the local t.v. news.skf
For all you liberals who are so concerned about losing your first amendment rights. What are you going to do when some government agent sticks his gun barrel in your mouth and tells you to shut the f*** up. The first amendment doesn't mean squat without the means to keep it. The only means you have to keep it is by keeping the second amendment.
mars100...you are sounding like a patriot...great another outlaw,welcome aboard!
First Amend ain`t worth **** without accountability, i.e., honor/integrity on the part of those who make statement. The First amendment is about FREEDOM OF SPEACH, not the spread of corrupt damaging hearsay and rumor.
Charlien, Prudent, frugal, and most of all, accurate use of semantics.
I don't know where all this pen is mightier than the sword comes from. I do know that the pen only has any power if those with the swords allow the pen to write. see my previous post about when your tasting the cold steel of a gun barrel. The first amendment means squat. The pen will always be necessary and I'll admit it is always preferable to the sword but without the sword the pen is just a small pointy stick.
Mars, It's sad that people just dont understand that without the right to keep and bear arms there is now way to keep any basic right intact... Your first post should have been a good slap in the face to wake people up but, those who think that the goverment will take care of us will never understand. A REAL American you are!
As I see it: The pen authorizes and protects the right to possess the "sword", absent the "sword" the pen will prevail.
This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years back with some "Earth Folks".we were discussing What if,The country went into Chaos.The "earth folks" told me they were organic gardners and would be able to grow their own food.They asked me what good a gun would do. I replied that I could come over and take their food with my gun,But they couldn`t take my gun with there cukecumber.The first admendment only exists because of the second.
The pen neither authorizes or protects the right to possess the â€œswordâ€ Our right to self defense is given to us by our creator. Governments do not grant rights. They can merely infringe upon them. Our Bill of rights is not a grant by our government of any right per se. It was written in recognition that certain rights pre existed any form of government. Hence the phrase they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Also in amendment 9 â€œThe enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.â€ The authors understood that the could never hope to pen all the rights of a free man. The wording of the amendment makes it very clear they were not granting anything they were merely reenforcing commonly accepted thinking and what common law had held for centuries..
Did Mars100 stutter? I understood everything.
It was very clear to me also...
Only understood by Patriots,and outlaws....
I'm surprised that we haven't heard a cry for more "gun control" out of all of this.Defensive fire by someone on the aircraft could have saved "thousands of lives".
To not born yesterday:I assume you don't know what creator means. To me it means god,allah, jehovah ect. I'm going to make the assumption that you probably think that the belief in a higher power is foolish. You have that right. However I may be foolish for the 80 years I am on this earth if there is no god, but you will be foolish for eternity if there is a god. I'll take my chances. I also hope I am right because I known the god I worship has a special place in Hell for those Bastards that killed our countrymen.
I just saw this old item from 2001, before most of us knew that Bill Randall was stripped of his right to hunt for assaulting a man who caught him hunting on posted land. What an arrogant, unrepentant, self-important criminal he is!!