Knowing Mykalai and his co-horts, they will probably respond with “We consult our lawyer, not the internet” (as they have done previously — and of which I have proof in writing that they contest labor information found on a government website). Anyway, I felt it important to give everyone a little legal lesson. This info is true because it’s the same info I got in my Business Law class last year.
Here we go:
————————————————————-libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one’s occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.
————————————————————-
As you can see, I am free and clear from any possible lawsuit. The above text claims that Mykalai: a) Can not sue me for slander as the allegations were written and not spoken; b) Would have to prove that my claims are false. Since he can not do that (and I can, actually, prove that they are true), then I automatically win and the case is dismissed.
I feel much better now (not like I was previously worried).
Oh, and just for the hell of it, I have one more charge against Mykalai (that I can prove true — again!). It’s that he has written payroll checks to employees that have bounced. I know of atleast one offense. This means that Mykalai has committed a misdemeaner and could be subject to a penalty. If he’s done it more than once, it’s more severe and he can even face criminal prosecution. I admit this last possibility is considered rare, but I wish it were to happen in this case. Mykalai is so dishonest that he deserves to be caught “with his pants down” on something big and actually be forced to spend some time in jail. Maybe then he’ll actually realize that he’s not a decent human being.
I think I’ve bored everyone with my legal mumbo-jumbo enough. I will keep you updated if anything new takes place.