Board Meeting - 6/26

Post removed

 

Tom,

Neither of us accused anyone of anything other than what I considered to be blackmail. The events described and the interpretation of those events are opinions based on the facts given. I will contact Carole and discuss what to do with our very legitimate concerns. If the facts are not as we interpret them the board is free to set the record straight.

John

 

FYI, I wondered the same thing…

Could the board or a single board member sue an individual(s) for libel?
False statements on social media:

• A social media post falsely accuses someone of misconduct or dishonesty.

Libel is a form of defamation expressed in a written or permanent form, such as in print, writing, or through digital media, that harms a person's reputation. To qualify as libel, the statement must be false, cause injury to the subject's reputation, and be published or communicated to a third party.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Key Elements of Libel:

• Defamatory Statement: The statement must be false and capable of damaging the subject's reputation.
• Publication: The statement must be communicated to someone other than the person being defamed.
• Identification: The statement must identify the person being defamed, either by name or by other means.
• Falsity: The statement must be untrue.
• Harm: The statement must cause harm to the subject's reputation, such as exposing them to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or injury in their business or profession.
• Causation: The statement must be the cause of the harm to the reputation.
• Fault: In some cases, the person making the statement must be shown to have been negligent or reckless in publishing the false information.

H’mmm?

 

As a quick follow up, when I post, I do not reference any name, only title or position. Nothing stated was false, The post I made was true to the best of my knowledge and understanding. The statements made are in context of a public figure which has different definitions versus a private person.

The statements are made based upon knowledge gained from reading the statements made by others. This would be information gathered by hearsay which carries a different burden of proof.

• A social media post falsely accuses someone of misconduct or dishonesty.

The actions that occurred are documented in video evidence. There exists video evidence that the events occurred in real time. The sending out of emails to a specific group of individuals using their political position in order to benefit from their position is not an ethical action and is a violation of ethics for a director.
There is nothing fake about anything I wrote. It is documented in video as having occurred.
I will no longer entertain the idea this is acceptable behavior, not when there are clear guidelines for fiduciary duties.

 

Group defamation is a complex legal topic that touches upon the delicate balance between freedom of speech and protecting individuals and communities from harmful falsehoods.

Yes, groups such as businesses and corporations can sue for libel in Arizona:

• Businesses: Can sue if false statements harm their reputation or financial standing
• Corporations: Can sue if they can show that the corporation itself was defamed, not just its officers, agents, or shareholders

Group defamation, group libel, or group slander, refers to the act of making false, damaging statements about a group of people or a class of individuals rather than targeting a specific person. The ability of a group or class of people to sue for defamation varies depending on the jurisdiction.

In some states, group defamation is recognized as a distinct category of defamation, allowing groups to sue for false statements directed at the group as a whole and causing harm to its members. In other states, however, only individuals can file suit if they can show that a false statement specifically targeted them.

**Disclaimer, I do not claim to be an attorney.

 

So, with all of the various statements made over the years about the choices and decisions made by a specific governing body, my statements are the worst? I repeat that I never mentioned a specific name. To bring charges against those who have made statements about the RCSC and its policies and behaviors would be a grand task.
While the tone of my comment was caustic, I apologize for that. Yes, that bell was rung and I can’t take it back. The context of the post in regards to the use of power as a director is still an open question.
Disclaimer: I started heavy medication yesterday for a bad infection. I will refrain from posting until I have this stuff out of my system,

 

EO -

Thanks for the legal advice. What is your opinion of the law concerning public figures? Hmm. As I stated, I consider Jim Rough's threatening to expose confidential emails to publicly embarrass me if I do not withdraw my application for consideration for membership on the LRP to be blackmail. Perhaps you disagree? I welcome your opinion. Preston Kise sending out copies of confidential committee emails seems wrong to me. Again, I welcome your opinion. As you are a member of a committee, I must assume you are speaking on behalf of the RCSC, and I have to consider your posts to be passive aggressive threats of litigation against me and or Carole.
If that is your intention, I think this matter is better suited for a court.

 

GUILTY: Explore & Research possibility of Libel.

“… accusations made against certain people, I fear that there's an opportunity the whole thing can backfire and the accuser becomes the accused???”” - FYI

That’s All Folks!

 

Enough already, everyone! I missed one or two of the posts that were deleted, but let's quit these threats about lawsuits against each other, please! I lost count of them!

 

Look folks,

I am OK facing bullies. Always have been. The bigger the better.

My sense is this. EO and SC want to come after me for speaking the truth. Carole may be intimidated but I am not. If EO was trying to bait me for expressing what we know to be true, let her do it. That's not all folks.

What EO has failed to explain in her legal opinion is that truth is an absolute defense against defamation. I welcome the truth. And so should members.

I do not wish to have my face in a video or have any one of my favorite amenities granted board favors. I spent the last few days with my grandson and then looked myself in the mirror. If I don't stop this who will.

So here is the deal. I have contacted law firms with the following proposition: I will front the first $50,000 of legal fees and solicit 39 other members to file a good faith derivative suit against the RCSC board and its individual members. If successful, I get the money spent on legal fees back first and those that join the suit as plaintiffs will split the money with the law firm on some acceptable basis. I would ask that those that might receive monetary awards consider their neighbors who may have outlived their resources.

PM me if you want to be a plaintiff. And yes, the corporate attorney will say he is confident RCSC will prevail and be awarded costs. However, that has yet to be the case, and I consider this to be an intimidation tactic. If you don't stop this, who will?

John

 

Sorry Janet, That was not a threat. John

 

EO - Guilty? I can handle the truth. John

 

Janet, Sorry but these are no longer threats. John

 

Count me OUT!

 

Thanks Janet - I am 100% in if there are 39 other members who feel as I do.