Rommie: Guilty? American Jurisprudence requires a preponderance of the evidence prior to judgement in an adjudicated civil cause of action for "libel". Quite the difficult cause of action to prove, as it allows the trier of fact (Jury/Judge in a non-jury trial) to weigh the veracity of the witness to which the alleged statement was uttered. Specificity helps. Won't bog you down with all the requisite elements of this tort that must be proven (the failure of any one element results in dismissal of the suit; but the counterclaim may still go forward for frivolous litigation),so jump to the damages component. Again, in light of your friend's tarnished reputation, which is discoverable and persuasive to prove there are no actual damages, how do you make the impossible leap in logic and conclude that Lord ZenInvestor is "guilty", when no legal action exists, no discovery has occured, no sworn depositions have been given, no testimony nor cross-examinations of witnesses has occured. And what about the required deliberations of the trier(s) of fact, which precede a judgement being "So-Ordered" by an American Court of competent jurisdiction?
Laughing out loud!
Rommie, you personally have proclaimed to the world you are not wearing any clothes!
Sláinte....
AI
