Just what is the threshold for slander? If someone makes
a few comments to one person about someone else, is
that slander? Would a lawyer take a slander case for a
percentage, as in personal injury case? (The person
who is threatening to sue for slander has no money).

Thanks!
Scott

Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F0F5890.B982A955@worldnet.att.net... Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis. -- Theodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Go away!

Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message news:<3F0F5358.5D45B456@uslink.net>... Just what is the threshold for slander? If someone makes a few comments to one person about someone else, is that slander? Would a lawyer take a slander case for a percentage, as in personal injury case? (The person who is threatening to sue for slander has no money). Thanks! Scott

The threshold is there has to be some real damages worth fighting for.
Hurt feelings are not worth money. Damage to professional, commercial,
or social reputation that actually costs a worthwhile sum of money is
needed.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think too many would take a slander case
not involving a considerable public figure on contingency, not unless
it was one so notorious that six- or seven-figure damages are in the
cards. Anything less would be uneconomic, because the chance of coming
away two years later with nothing or one dollar in damages for two or
three weeks or more of work is considerable.

--
Chris Green

cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0307112320.1e926b58@posting.google.com>... Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message news:<3F0F5358.5D45B456@uslink.net>... Just what is the threshold for slander? If someone makes a few comments to one person about someone else, is that slander? Would a lawyer take a slander case for a percentage, as in personal injury case? (The person who is threatening to sue for slander has no money). Thanks! Scott The threshold is there has to be some real damages worth fighting for. Hurt feelings are not worth money. Damage to professional, commercial, or social reputation that actually costs a worthwhile sum of money is needed. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think too many would take a slander case not involving a considerable public figure on contingency, not unless it was one so notorious that six- or seven-figure damages are in the cards. Anything less would be uneconomic, because the chance of coming away two years later with nothing or one dollar in damages for two or three weeks or more of work is considerable.


Not to mention what the builder's lawyer thinks you have that's worth
going for. If your net worth is like a couple of grand it won't be
worth their while. Also, it's very unlikely that this kind of
behavior will be considered covered by your insurer.

If your bruised sense of pride absolutely demands that you carry
through with this, stick to facts that are provable and supportable.
Don't say, "This builder builds ****ty porches." You're safer if you
say, "This builder built me a ****ty porch." and have the evidence to
demonstrate why it was.

BTW - what is the position regarding personal opinions and libel? is
there still a distinction between, "X is a degenerate." and "My
opinion is that X is a degenerate."?

FoggyTown

foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote in message news:<cb8d4013.0307140809.56a7e43a@posting.google.com>... cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0307112320.1e926b58@posting.google.com>... Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message news:<3F0F5358.5D45B456@uslink.net>... Just what is the threshold for slander? If someone makes a few comments to one person about someone else, is that slander? Would a lawyer take a slander case for a percentage, as in personal injury case? (The person who is threatening to sue for slander has no money). Thanks! Scott The threshold is there has to be some real damages worth fighting for. Hurt feelings are not worth money. Damage to professional, commercial, or social reputation that actually costs a worthwhile sum of money is needed. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think too many would take a slander case not involving a considerable public figure on contingency, not unless it was one so notorious that six- or seven-figure damages are in the cards. Anything less would be uneconomic, because the chance of coming away two years later with nothing or one dollar in damages for two or three weeks or more of work is considerable. Not to mention what the builder's lawyer thinks you have that's worth going for. If your net worth is like a couple of grand it won't be worth their while. Also, it's very unlikely that this kind of behavior will be considered covered by your insurer. If your bruised sense of pride absolutely demands that you carry through with this, stick to facts that are provable and supportable. Don't say, "This builder builds ****ty porches." You're safer if you say, "This builder built me a ****ty porch." and have the evidence to demonstrate why it was. BTW - what is the position regarding personal opinions and libel? is there still a distinction between, "X is a degenerate." and "My opinion is that X is a degenerate."? FoggyTown

There's still a distinction, but I don't think it falls between "X is
a degenerate" and "My opinion is that X is a degenerate." I'd say both
of those fall on the side of defamation: even if it's an opinion, it's
one that is ostensibly based on some fact about X.

The classic opinion-defense case is still Milkovich v. Lorain Journal
Co., in which the Supremes enumerated three questions for determining
whether a statement is an opinion:

Does it address matters of public concern; is it expressed in a manner
that isn't provably true or false; and is it incapable of reasonable
interpretation as conveying facts about the person?

To determine whether it could be interpreted as facts, ask whether the
language or overall tenor indicates that the speaker or writer is
seriously maintaining that the underlying facts are true, and whether
what he or she implies are suffixciently factual to be taken as true
or false.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

foggytown@aol.com (Mike Girouard) wrote:cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0307112320.1e926b58@posting.google.com>...
BTW - what is the position regarding personal opinions and libel? isthere still a distinction between, "X is a degenerate." and "Myopinion is that X is a degenerate."?FoggyTown

Like, for example if someone called you a billious puddle of
pontificating bilgewash, you're thinking it maybe would be libel,
but if they said that it was their opinion that you were a billious
puddle of pontificating bilgewash, then that would be like, ok?
Is that what you're trying to understand/explain?

-Merlin

Ted "Tire Iron" Kaldis wrote:
Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis.

Truth is an absolute defense against slander.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
starwars wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis. Truth is an absolute defense against slander. Which puts Ken Smith behind the 8-ball, because he and the truth seem to be strangers to each other.

Did you or did you not say these things:

Subject: Re: Another Blast from Teddi-Beer, AFBL's Resident Racist (was Re: Chretien: 'No need for war'....
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:46 -0600
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.politics.british,aus.politics,alt .fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Absolutely. Chretien has 2 strikes against him. #1: He's a frog. And #2: he's Canadian. And Canadians aren't exactly noted for their leadership on the battlefield. Gadzooks! Now, he's crackin' back on CANADIANS!!!

Ted's just bummed because he can't think of a proper derugatory term for
'em. . .

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

Courtesy: moemcal@mail.cswnet.com (Moe)


Or to dig up an old post of your in your own words:
*************************'
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Feb.15.19.31.46.1990.400%40traffic.rutgers.ed u

hwere he uses the word we in terms of the incident

From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu)
Subject: Re: "Rolling Queers"
View: Complete Thread (17 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.flame, soc.singles, talk.politics.misc
Date: 1990-02-16 16:48:04 PST


In article <1990Feb16.063828.13266@agate.berkeley.edu>
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
Theodore A. Kaldis: a) This incident happened a very long time ago and should be properly viewed as a manifestation of youthful indiscretion. When you posted this story, I wondered if you were making it up to see what kind of reaction you would get.

When I first posted this story, it was in response to the suggestion
that I would be inclined to go "fag bashing". I originally intended
to post a straightforward account about how a naive youth was cajoled
by some miscreant acquaintances (the proverbial "bad company") to
reluctantly accompany them on an expedition aimed at acquiring funds
through a procedure that this youth considered to be of EXTREMELY
dubious merit (to put it mildly), and that how this youth was
EXCEPTIONALLY horrified at the events that subsequently transpired.

But seeing as the sort of activity that occurred that evening has
recently been defended as an expression of constitutionally protected
freedom of speech, I decided to play a few games with the story.
Unsurprisingly (and rightfully so), no one has come to my defense.
Also unsurprisingly, I have since become a raving sociopath (due to,
doubtless, the fact that I espouse a position that is absolutely at
variance with the officially accepted politically correct view) -- on
the basis of a rudimentary account that no one here has a
comprehensive conception or understanding of.
Since it looks like you really mean it, I can only say that you are apparently a borderline sociopath.

Excuse me, a BORDERLINE sociopath. Declared to be so by Gene Ward
Smith, an erstwhile sociopath in his own right of exemplary
credentials, in an absolutely serious posting (I don't know if this is
a USENET first, but it is certainly a first for me) posted to
alt.flame (among other places). (It takes one to know one.)
You brag to the net about your violent, antisocial proclivities, which is another sign of a borderline personality disorder.

I brag about nothing. The account I posted was perhaps wry (it was
meant to be, in order to reflect the nature of life), but it was by no
means comprehensive. For the record, the only reasons these *ssholes
wanted me along was because I had the car. Me and another individual
managed to evade the police primarily for the reason that we were
unarmed. (This is the guy I have lost track of -- a number of years
subsequent to this incident. He too went straight and managed to stay
out of trouble with the police for the years that I knew him.) The
guy in jail and the guy who OD'd were the instigators, the active
participants, and the ones who were apprehended by the police. The
cops should have properly thrown their hind ends in jail, and I
afterwards told them so to their face in essentially those words.
It's the sort of thing rapists and muggers will sometimes do.

Of which I am neither. As I said, I was absolutely horrified at what
went on. Have you ever seen anyone get mugged? It's not a pretty
sight. In order to effectively do it, one has to be an absolute, cold
sadist. Part of the ritual is to make the victim squirm like a
cornered rat. This is what Goetz was talking about in his confession
tape to the New Hampshire police when he turned himself in, and it is
this that caused him to become so enraged as to shoot his assailants.
Anyone who has ever witnessed this knows what he's talking about. All
you liberals who haven't are just blowing out your *ss.

Moreover, I had to give the junkyard a buck to replace my tire iron,
and these chumps never reimbursed me like they said they would.
By the way, I thought you claimed that in your misspent youth you were a flower child?

No, not a flower child. A long-hair anti-war demonstrator, yes; a
"freak", yes; but never a "flower child".
As a self-proclaimed Christian, you should instead feel shame and a desire to change, by the way.

It should have been obvious that this incident occurred prior to my
Christian days.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis | "Perhaps we
may
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | frighten
away
email: kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu | the ghost of
so
UUCP: {...}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!kaldis | many years
ago
U.S. Snail: P.O. Box #1212, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 | with a
little
ex-Ma Bell: (201) 283-4855 (voice) | illumination
.. . ."

*************************

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: starwars wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis.
Truth is an absolute defense against slander.
Which puts Ken Smith behind the 8-ball, because he and the truth seem to be strangers to each other.
Did you or did you not say these things:
[elided]

Those were all taken out of context.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: starwars wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Something uttered by Ken Smith about Ted Kaldis.> Truth is an absolute defense against slander. Which puts Ken Smith behind the 8-ball, because he and the truth seem to be strangers to each other. Did you or did you not say these things: [elided] Those were all taken out of context.

You keep forgetting, Ted: I HAVE the context....

NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:34:00 -0600
Message-ID: <3E49A665.F5AC197B@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:41:57 -0800
From: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net>
Organization: TransPacific Transit Corp.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: What About the Cute Little Hindu Chick?
References: <20030211150929.05561.00000611@mb-mp.aol.com> <3E498AB9.C5F340FF@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 5
X-Trace: sv3-7jrVqnyHPU1YfeQ3JZ73XtOIisrLMWN0TZ+VbDulrS5Vy+pVTs HtLz7tPp1g+qmJAQibcbiBXy13VQc!xWJyUGVwOUU0qFYDIup5 1MoYQaSDl7SVWMMlXENTDV/2YCODumlk1VTH
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1


What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs.
I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net