ProTek Capital Inc (PRPM)

[Soapboxmom]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-power-rankings-yankees-astros-may-be-running-away-with-things-but-rest-of-league-is-primed-for-battles/

https://www.thebusinesslitigators.com/the-defamation-proof-plaintiff-doctrine.html

The “Defamation-Proof” Plaintiff Doctrine

The fundamental purpose of defamation law is to compensate for harm done to one’s reputation. What happens though when a plaintiff’s reputation is already so sullied that it would be impossible to inflict further harm? Such a person is referred to in libel law as a libel-proof plaintiff (also referred to by some courts as being defamation-proof or slander-proof).

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine traces its roots back to the Second Circuit’s 1975 opinion in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc., which involved the question of whether the plaintiff, a lifelong criminal who at the time of the lawsuit was serving 21 years in a federal penitentiary, could sustain a defamation claim concerning statements in a book entitled My Life in the Mafia accusing him of committing various crimes. The book, written by a purported mobster, contained several claims that the plaintiff participated in specific crimes. The plaintiff denied having participated in those specific crimes, though admitted to and was convicted of participating in numerous other crimes. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case because it “consider[ed] as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof.” Given the plaintiff’s unquestionable reputation for being a criminal, the Second Circuit reasoned that false statements accusing him of committing crimes could not further injure his reputation.
What does it mean to be libel-proof?

As we have discussed elsewhere on this website, a defamation claim requires (1) a false statement; (2) about the plaintiff; (3) that is published to a third party; and (4) that harms a plaintiff by lowering that person in the eyes of the community. If the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, an additional “actual malice” element is required to state a claim. Being libel-proof means, quite simply, that the plaintiff’s reputation is so bad that any false statement could not lower that person in the eyes of the community any further. The thought is that such a plaintiff’s claim must fail because that plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of the false statement. Courts that have applied the doctrine often limit the finding that a plaintiff is libel-proof to a particular topic or set of topics.

The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is itself the outgrowth of another defamation law doctrine known as the “incremental harm” doctrine. The incremental harm doctrine holds that if the defamatory statement does no more harm than the true statements about the plaintiff, then there is no actionable claim for defamation. The incremental harm doctrine has been has been discussed and embraced by the Seventh Circuit in cases such as Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. where the court famously wrote that “falsehoods which do no incremental damage to the plaintiff's reputation do not injure the only interest that the law of defamation protects.”

Eddie Vakser whining about being defamed would make a great comedy special! Except for a few boneheads and the toxic investors still running loose, Eddie Vakser has armies of investors / shareholders that he victimized writing really angry, derogatory and scathing posts about him and his numerous scam tickers. The team of the defrauded investors are the ones that demand justice be done and the law enforcement agencies will listen to them!