Slashdot Mirror
Virginia Woman Is Sued For $750,000 After Writing Scathing Yelp Review
First time accepted submitter VegetativeState writes "Jane Perez hired a construction company and was not happy with the work they did and alleged some of her jewelry was stolen. She submitted reviews on Yelp and Angie's List, giving the company all F's. The contractor is now suing her for $750,000. From the article: 'Dietz, the owner of Dietz Development, filed the Internet defamation lawsuit filed last month, stating that "plaintiffs have been harmed by these statements, including lost work opportunities, insult, mental suffering, being placed in fear, anxiety, and harm to their reputations."
Perez's Yelp review accused the company of damaging her home, charging her for work that wasn't done and of losing jewelry. The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices. According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.'"
Doesn't apply to defamation/slander.
I hate sigs.
Unless it's true!
Free speech doesn't mean no consequences. Libel and Slander are two very well known examples of situations where your speech has consequences.
This will hinge on proving that her statements (particularly about the stolen jewelry) were true. If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.
Correct, it has to both be false and malicious.
I hate sigs.
Maybe YOU haven't seen one.
"No consequences" is misleading.
"Free speech" means the government will not bring force against you for your speech. False and malicious speech, however, is a type of fraud: a different crime.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
I'm not a fancy lawyer or nothing; but this suggests that it could.
Specifically: "In Virginia, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:
(some irrelevant ones omitted)
hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade."
A nasty yelp review would reasonably seem to be something that would hurt a contractor in their profession or trade. However, in order to be defamatory, the statement has to be a false statement of fact. If what she says turns out to be substantially true, he can just go cry about it(and "Nasty yelp review upheld in court of law" probably doesn't help your PR any). If she is lying or terribly ill-supported, though...
If posting to Yelp is a huge financial risk, the site will quickly die.
So where are:
1. The complaint/lawsuit for restoration of damage to her house?
2. The complaint/lawsuit for the work that was not done (but apparently billed)?
3. The police report/lawsuit detailing the theft of the jewelry?
All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.
So WTF is this doing on /. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If they were, then she's protected by free speech.
Freedom of Speech has NOTHING to do with this case. Freedom of Speech applies only to the governments ability to restrict speech and doesn't apply to what you can say in an online forum. If what she said is in fact true then libel doesn't apply because truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
was the contractor convicted of the crime?
did she win a civil lawsuit for the home damage?
No? then she deserves to be sued. You can't bad mouth people and spread false information about them without being able to prove it
And if it's not, behold the dreaded Streisand effect.
The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices.
The first thing a lawyer will tell you to do when faced with a lawsuit is to keep your big mouth shut.
Don't feed ammunition to the plaintiff's attorneys.
Don't dig yourself in to a deeper hole.
This sounds like a S.L.A.P.P. suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Basically, if someone fucks you over and you speak out about it, they sometimes retaliate by suing you. The plaintiff gambles on the likelihood that the victim will just slink away rather than go through an emotionally-damaging (and expensive) legal battle and the bad guy basically wins. These lawsuits are weapons... it's not about justice.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
"two were high school classmates."
That's going to make for an awkward High School reunion.
There is no such thing.
Now HUSH!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To add: he's got to prove the damages to his business first, then the burden shifts to her to prove his business ripped her off.
Fortunately some of our laws were made during the brief time when the government was run by the people.
When was that? Or do you mean run by the people who were white male landowners who didn't pick the losing side in a recent war?
Fortunately some of our laws were made during the brief time when the government was run by the people.
When was that? Or do you mean run by the people who were white male landowners who didn't pick the losing side in a recent war?
Yep, those are the ones I mean.
A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.
That's far from the only "fact", there's at least three in the summary that are not opinion
Perez's Yelp review accused the company of
1. damaging her home,
2. charging her for work that wasn't done and
3. of losing jewelry.
Those are all matters of fact, not opinion the court could look into. Also, this is a civil case not a criminal trial so the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Can she offer any evidence she had the jewels? Did she file a police complaint? The court system won't just take her word for it, if she's just throwing out accusations without a shred of evidence he might not have to prove a thing and still win. After all, how could he prove that jewels that doesn't exist haven't gone missing?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.
Nitpick: Since this is civil court, she doesn't have to "prove" anything. She just has to present enough evidence to show that her accusations are probably true. A "preponderance of the evidence", is a much lower hurdle than the "no reasonable doubt" standard of criminal court.
From the link you provided
To be “actionable,” the statement must be a false statement of fact.
A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.
The score is opinion and even if the contractor was the best in the world, she could review with a 1 star and it's all completely subjective and not debatable.
Her assertion that the contractor stole her jewelry is definitely objective and should be falsifiable. If it's false, and she did his with intent to harm, she's committed slander/libel.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Contractors are people you don't screw around with. Some states, like Texas, allow contractors (even auto repair shops) to put a lien on your property if you do not pay them. The fine print of some Mortgage Loans require that you notify them immediately if any liens are placed on the property. Failure to comply might allow the mortgage lender to force you to buy absurdly priced insurance (like 3x-4x market rate) from their selected insurer. Then you have all the hassle of clearing up the title and being unable to sell the property until things are properly cleaned up.
I've personally had a case where a contractor vanished but all his sub-contractors continued to work and deliver materials. The contractor didn't pay them so we had to. At least the sub-contractors got paid for the work they did do (which was quite excellent). We had to sue the contractor's company and get a judgement. There's nothing to collect, however, and the owner is now in prison. Not because of his dealings with us but because he decided to pretend to be a cop, lure "models" to a hotel, then sexually assault them while threatening arrest. Had to do a double-take on the evening news when his portrait was on the screen along with his full name.
For fraud it has to be malicious. For defamation it merely has to be false (incompetence counts).
Calm down I've already been told. I was wrong on the internet.
I hate sigs.
Yes, but you can easily make the case that objectively false statements (as were made in this case) on a website intended to guide people in choosing a vendor are inherently malicious. It's not a casual conversation; it's going to a place whose sole purpose is to drive business towards or away vendors, and making untruthful statements. The woman didn't just give her opinion, but make non-subjective statements that were false on a website that she knew was a basis for reputation. That meets the standard for malice in my book.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Unless it's true!
Truth isn't always a defense against defamation in all jurisdictions. The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" (let say for arguments sake that i really do think that). If I posted that somewhere and you were in a job that involved sheep and your job opportunities suffered because of it then it could be deemed to have defamed you without actually lying...
Correct, it has to both be false and malicious.
Close. It would have to be false, malicious, and a provable statement of fact. There are plenty of situations in which someone could express an opinion about you which was both defamatory and completely unprovable.
Funny. Exactly backwards. Truth is not a defense to libel in England. They even make jokes about it on southpark Tom Cruise: 'I'll sue you in England'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.
How do you know this? We know there was an earlier suit over unpaid bills. We know there was a review claiming damages to the home and lost jewelry. We don't know that she hired him again after the first lawsuit or that he accepted a second job. For all we know the bad review was a poor attempt at getting back at the contractor for the earlier lawsuit.
I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore.
You have no idea that they want to do business with each other anymore, so wondering why they want to is a bit premature.
The plaintiff is asking the government to force her to pay them money as a result of her speech.
You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.
Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases. The threshold of proof is different, though, with "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and "preponderance of evidence/balance of probability" for civil cases.
The default assumption going into the courtroom is that she hasn't done anything wrong - at least not at the level the court needs to intervene in. As the plaintiff in the case, the burden of proof is on him. He has to show the judge that there is "preponderance of evidence" that her actions are libelous ("preponderance" is somewhat loosely defined - any evidence at all might be considered a "preponderance", if the defense doesn't provide any countering evidence). That said, there may be a number of defenses available to her that would require her to prove something, but it would be incorrect to say that the defendant has the burden of proof in civil cases.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the defendant has the burden of proof in civil cases, but it might from confusing "civil cases" (as opposed to "criminal cases") with "civil law" (as opposed to "common law") legal systems. It is sometimes incorrectly said of civil law systems that they are "guilty until proven innocent" (i.e. burden of proof on the defendant). (I say "incorrectly" as because as I understand it, it more like that by the time a criminal case goes to trial in a civil law system court, the prosecutor has already shown evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in the equivalent of a grand jury, so for the trial proper it's mainly the defendant attempting to show where the "grand jury" got it wrong.)
And Perez has the burden of proof. So far I'm not on her side.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
False, my wife was sued for libel and lost, despite her statements being completely true. In fact, the court seemed totally uninterested in whether it was true. It was a jury trial, if that matters.
The important part is that the reviewer is being sued. This is the way this stuff is supposed to work. Too often we see stories here on /. where the online service provider is being sued.
Kudos to the plaintiff in this case for not suing Yelp and Angie's List...regardless of who's in the right, the right two parties are in court.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Almost. It doesn't have to be malicious unless the person in question is considered a public figure -- I doubt that this contractor would qualify as a public figure. He would, however, have to demonstrate that she knew or should have known it was false (or spoke in reckless disregard of the truthfulness or falsity of the statement). Because she accused him of a crime, it qualifies as defamation per se if it's false. (At least, that's how defamation law works in California -- I assume it's about the same in Virginia, as this isn't one of those torts that tends to work differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).
Lawyers in the UK aren't free, and there are plenty of lower-cost lawyers in the US. It is true that court costs have been going up as government funding for the courts goes down, creating barriers to access to justice for plaintiffs and defendants alike -- perhaps somewhat ironically, this is in part because the courts are an easy target due to the blithely-swallowed meme that America is particularly litigious, and/or that civil litigation is some kind of ticket to easy street. And it is certainly also true that big fish sometimes play dirty tricks like burying the other side in paperwork to strong-arm a settlement, but, again, that's not inherent to the US system, and a clever lawyer can find cost-effective ways to protect his or her client's interests.
But perpetuating the meme that there is no real justice in the US is precisely the sort of thing that allows the politicians to get away with undercutting the justice system. The public doesn't trust judges or lawyers, so the politicians have an easy target when it's time for budget negotiations, and the entire civil justice system suffers for it. So funny enough, by disparaging the US court system (without offering any actual facts, statistics, or comparative surveys of US versus UK litigation, naturally), you're perpetuating the ignorant, unfair stereotypes about it that eventually result in actual harm to overall justice. But hey, what do you care -- not like you're an American who's gonna be hurt by it, right?
The fact that it isn't IMPLICATED by defamation laws does not mean it doesn't APPLY. The First Amendment most definitely applies to defamation laws; it's simply that defamation laws that fit within certain guidelines of acceptable restrictions on speech have been held not to run afoul of the First Amendment. Same thing with obscenity laws, laws against incitement or fighting words, etc. The First Amendment applies to everything to do with speech -- it's just that it applies differently to different things, because the First Amendment does not actually protect any and all speech.
(1) First Amendment applies to states, too, so if you're focusing on the word "Congress," you're focusing on the wrong part of the Amendment.
(2) The pertinent part of the Amendment is "abridging the freedom of speech," and when you give a group of academic nerds like the Supremes an excuse to analyze and pick apart a juicy bit of text like that, you wind up with all kinds of interesting and detailed legal opinions delineating VERY SPECIFICALLY just what those five words mean and what their required effect is -- and you STILL wind up with all kinds of nebulous regions and margins where the application is not wholly clear a priori.
Bottom line is, Constitutional law is not simple, it shouldn't be simple, and anyone who claims it is and/or should be has about as much business writing and interpreting law as a three-year-old has voting for president.
Well done, my reply would have been much snarkier.
Let's play a game: name an inspirational figure from history, and lets all find a way to tear them down.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Since Slashdot launched there have been hundreds of articles dealing with conflicts over speech.
And each article usually has a couple of dozen people explaining what 'freedom of speech' means in the context of law and government.
And yet the same asinine "But it's freedom of speech!" comments pop up every single time.
Do these people read the summary, post, and then never read a single comment therefore remaining ignorant of what it is they're wrong about?
This isn't about the government restricting freedom of speech. This is an individual making a statement, and being sued by they object of that statement. This is speech with consequences, not censorship. The court will then decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant are in the right.
In both criminal court and in civil court, the plaintiff, not the defendant, has to prove his case. It's still known as the "burden of proof," regardless of whether the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal proceeding or in civil court where the standard is usually preponderance of the evidence. To have a prima facie case, the plaintiff has to establish all the elements of a defamation suit by the preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff can't do that, case dismissed.
Of course, neither standard of "proof" is anything like proof in the mathematical sense. So to that extent, you could conceivably claim that nobody ever has to "prove" anything in any court of law. Except for Math Court.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.
That's what I like about this story. I don't know the facts of the case, I don't know which side is in the right. But if they disagree with the review then they're right to sue her frankly, and there will most likely be one of two outcomes. Either she wins, and she gets to change her review to say that her claims have been upheld, or she loses and has to remove the review and face a penalty. At this point, with how little I know about the case, I'm OK with either outcome.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Truth (based on facts, not opinions) is an absolute defense to libel. (I am aware of the ruling in Noonan v. Staples that attempted to limit this.)
The judge should have heard the guilty verdict, then directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered.
Then why is it that every time I announce my intention to commit murder against someone (president, wife, children), I'm arrested before I can complete the act?
Learn to love Alaska
True, you can do that with pretty much every great historical figure. See:
Churchill - racist.
Thomas Jefferson - racist.
Hitler - so-so painter.
You are arguing theory against reality. Most of the time the respondent must prove their innocence, or they lose.
Learn to love Alaska
Instead of addressing the issue and making sure the work was done and that nobody had stolen the jewelry, he instead sues her and then it makes the front page of Slashdot. So is this the Streisand Effect? If he ignored it, or dealt with it better, it wouldn't have gotten so bad? Didn't the contractor just make this worse for him now? Freedom of speech does not apply, it is only protection from the government. He has to prove her statements are false and she knows they are false and that she meant to defame him. If the statements are true, well sucks to be him.
Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases.
You're certainly wrong in the UK. For libel the plaintiff has to prove they have been financially damaged by the statement. It is then up to the defendant to show that what they wrote was true. If they can't show it was true, the plaintiff wins.
In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.
It's not up to the person that has been defamed to show they are not true.
Hitler - so-so painter.
...and vegetarian.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
When you ask a court, i.e., the government, to require someone to pay you money for having said something, you are asking the government to punish someone for having spoken, based on the content of that speech -- in other words, PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment addresses
Not.
The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not limit your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't have to buy airtime or a printing press to make your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't have to pay damages to another entity if you make a fraudulent or damaging statement using your powers of free speech.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No, she doesn't. The person bringing the suit (the construction company) has to prove that what she said is false.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
Yes, we all know it. It's for criminal law, not civil law. Libel is civil law.
That's not entirely true. Truth is a defense in England it's just not a complete defense. If you say something that is false you're screwed, but something true also has to be the intended audience's business, at least as far as I understand it(the law here in Oz is similar). So if you were to post on the internet that you're next door neighbor is a transvestite, you could be sued for libel, even if it's true because it's no one's business that he's a transvestite. Essentially just because something is true doesn't mean you should say it. Libertarians like the creators of South Park tend to see this as a travesty of freedom, and it certainly can be if the court takes it that way, but it does provide some protection for privacy which US law simply does not provide. There are the usual exceptions for public figures and politicians (if your member of parliament cheats on his wife it's considered in the public interest where the same information about Joe Blogs from down the street isn't). It's actually quite a reasonable approach to the law IMHO.
That said of course in this particular case, while IANAL, I would guess that this woman's situation would be the same in the US and the UK as in this context she'd most likely have a right to share this particular information(the performance of a service provider is the business of people interested in hiring said service provider). She'd simply need to prove that her statements were true(most of them anyway, property damage and an incomplete job would probably cover her even if she obviously can't prove the jewelry loss).
Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!
Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)
Both gay.
THINK! It's patriotic
It's called an affirmative defense. It works the same way that self defense does in a murder trial. They prove you committed the act, you have to prove you had a right to.
Reasonable doubt is the level of proof in criminal cases. In civil it's preponderance of evidence.
How on earth was she supposed to prove it? Let me give the context for this. My wife and I met with a certain kind of medical professional after our first son was born. This person said things to us that we found profoundly disturbing. After deliberating about it, my wife decided to file a complaint with the board which certifies people who work in this profession. It wasn't like badmouthing somebody on the Internet or in the newspaper, it was this formal process. Now obviously, when you file a complaint you have to describe what happened, which my wife did.
The board apparently studied our complaint and took some kind of action against this person (something mild, I don't remember exactly, but we got something in the mail about it). A couple of months later my wife was served with the lawsuit.
At the time, we had very little capacity to pay a high-priced lawyer. The person was asking for $150,000! So on a long shot we called our homeowner's insurance company and it turned out they would defend the case under our insurance policy. I have no idea if the attorney sucked, didn't care, or if something else went wrong but the jury found in favor of plaintiff for $5k. Our insurance company paid, but it was a disgusting experience.
I found out later that this woman has a history of serial lawsuits. Not long after our case ended, she sued the board which had sanctioned her. I know this, because she fucking subpoenaed me as a witness in that case. Did I mention she was representing herself? She asked me a bunch of nutty questions for two hours which I had no idea about -- like asking me to tell her what I thought some email meant, which I had never seen before (it had nothing to do with me or my wife).
I don't know what happened after that. What a terrible shitty thing it was. Makes you scared to speak up when somebody is abusive to you. We got slimed.
Honestly, Ghandi slept in the nude with young girls, and had an very intimidate relationship with a woman who was not his wife. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html Mother Teresa supposedly squandered the money that people donated to her on various things not related to the orphans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa
Best Godwin Evar!
John
You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER. You may as well not show up and lose by default, at least then you don't have to pay the lawyer.
It's not just a meme.
There's no link to the actual yelp post, but the FA says she accused them of "losing" jewellery. It will come down to whether she said:
1. "they lost it", or
2. "they stole it".
1. is an acusation of incompetence, - possibly libel, hard to prove.
2. is an accusation of a crime. Libel if she can't prove they did steal it.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Truth is a defense in England it's just not a complete defense.
I don't know why Slashdot seems to think that truth is not a defense for defamation in English common law. It's been quite a few years, but if I remember correctly, when I studied English law (I come from a jurisdiction that inherits it), truth was a "complete" defense -- and particularly there really is no "intended audience business" crap.
Your transvestite example may hit some privacy or antidiscrimination laws or hate crimes or that kind of thing (I have no idea), but as far as English common law of defamation goes, you're clean if you can prove it's true.
Reference: my crappy memory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Justification
Don't quote me on this.
Citation needed. I saw no evidence in TFA that the homeowner's statements were false.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER. You may as well not show up and lose by default, at least then you don't have to pay the lawyer.
Ahhhhhhh, now I get it. Here I thought you were just an ill-informed, disgruntled anti-lawyer type, but now I see that you're actually a big firm lawyer trying to justify your ludicrous rates. I used to work in a big law firm with lots of people like you. Even thought I liked it, didn't want to get laid off when the recession hit. Years later and working for a small firm that charges actually affordable rates, pays me a lot less, and lets me have as much of a life as I want, I realize now how completely fucking miserable I was in biglaw, as were the vast majority of the other lawyers I worked with.
If there's any part of you that can still be gotten through to, please listen, friend: it's never too late to get out. I promise you, it's not as scary out here as you think it is. There is life on the other side of the thousand-pound billable hour, and it's pretty goddamned good.
You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.
>
well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
'allegations on matters of fact' are all that defamation is concerned with. if its not an assertion of fact, its an opinion, and therefore protected as free speech. And as to the great civil versus criminal distinction, well that's not terribly relevant. just replace innocent with not liable and guilty with liable, and you're good. The point is that the person asserting the legal claim (plaintiff in a civil case, the state in a criminal case) has the burden of proving their case, regardless of defenses offered by respondent/defendant. If a plaintiff can't show by a preponderance of the evidence that the supposedly defamatory statements were false, then his case fails, even if the respondent offers no evidence on the subject at all.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Hitler - so-so painter.
...and vegetarian.
Untrue. His doctor occasionally put him on a vegetarian diet in an attempt to cure flatulence, but he was very find of German sausages. Goebbles pushed the vegetarian to make him look saintly.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
If the settlement doesn't require your silence, then name the person who wrongfully sued you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not sure what this has to do with nerd news, but I'm pretty sure the solution to all this is to arm the two parties and face them off at 10 feet rather than utilize my taxes and plug up my courtrooms that have more important issues to deal with than controlling the financial activities of two random submorons.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Bad grammar!
Who would think it?
To ask who would have thunk it, is to inquire about the identity of the party responsible for testing ripeness of watermelon.
Just sayin...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Mother Teresa was responsible for many more deaths than lives she helped. Her fanatic opposition to birth control (yeah, I know she was Catholic) combined with her fame, political power, and control over funding meant that she was able to completely block even the most basic birth control use, condoms. The result was spread of disease (esp. HIV) and many unwanted pregnancies, largely causing the overpopulation, poverty, malnutrition, and early childhood death that she was supposed to be so committed to stopping.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
So, if you read the WaPo story, it mentions that the defendant is from Fairfax and the contractor/plaintiff is from DC itself. Fairfax, for those who don't know, is in the Northern Virginia area agglomeration of "cities" along I-66 where people who work in the District and don't want to deal with the clusterfuck that is DC live. (Then they only have to deal with the clusterfuck that is commuting to DC, but they can at least live in jurisdictions with saner laws and have decent schools to send their kids to.)
I have lived in DC for a year, and a relative has lived here for many years. She recently wanted to have some work done on her house, and caught the contractor shooting speedballs (heroin/cocaine) in her bathroom, then running up and down the stairs and onto the roof while under the effects. This didn't surprise me, really, at all; given how much of *that* goes on, I don't doubt the allegations are true.
This town is a shithole, and it's a shithole full of people who will sue anyone at the drop of a hat for anything, or really take any opportunity to get ahead at someone else's expense, fair or not. "Slit Grandma's throat for a nickel" isn't just an exaggeration around here. The phone books have a "You could sue a doctor and make a pile of money! Call us!" ads on the spine; there are ambulance-chaser billboards all over; etc.
Unlike writing a review saying a game is "bad", it's often far easier to define "bad work" in construction in any of several categories. In a sense construction is one of the more notorious fields that shysters can lurk in, and this has resulted in some basic protections for both sides. So let's say she wanted a room painted, if anything the construction company did wasn't up to code, BOOM, it's "bad work". Or, presuming they did their contracting process right, it may be valid work, but if they didn't actually use the right grades of materials and tried to save a buck, it's breach of contract.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
An "allowable defense" is not the same thing as an "absolute defense", nor is it a "barrier to litigation". Also, that's civil--under some circumstances truth is not even an allowable defense for criminal defamation--or it was, if you google you'll quickly find a 2011 article in The Guardian about proposed changes to British defamation law to bring it more in line with the rest of the civilized world, but no follow-up as to whether the changes ever happened.
In the US for civil suits alleging libel the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In the UK it is actually on the defendant. In general the US is pretty liberal regarding freedom of speech - winning a case of libel is not a trivial matter unless it is pretty blatant.
I'd be hard-pressed to think of examples of civil actions brought by private parties in which the burden of proof lies with the defendant.
There certainly are cases where regulations require a company to maintain certain records for inspection at any time, and violation could result in either a civil or a criminal action. In such a situation the only real burden of proof on the government is for them to say that they asked for the defendant to produce the record and they failed to do so. That gets close to a situation where the burden of proof is on the defendant, but that is really only the case because the laws/regulations are fairly strict to begin with (simply failing to maintain a record is a crime - the government does not need to prove something bad happened as a result).