I wrote TFP, and I can tell you that this appeal was not conducted differently in any way from the original hearing. The only difference was that I had a lawyer who spoke instead of me; but he was still asked not to provide any legal arguments. What kind of appeal does not allow you to argue the law?
The blog does refer to the fraudulent journalism of Lee Kaplan--but it does not do just that and walk away. If you read through some of the articles we've written, you will find that we have indeed caught this writer in lies. For example, check out this story where I show him to have lifted photographs from another website and then claim he obtained them another way, and that they are of something that they are not.
You raise a number of very important points. Small claims court has its purposes. I don't think a defamation case is one of them. Evidence is everything in such a case, and having lower standards simply opens up the vulnerability for abuse. My entire point is that the plaintiff introduced "bad/false/misleading evidence," as you put it, and the burden of disproving it was on me. This is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish, especially during a hearing with, really, no rules except the judge's discretion. I had three witnesses with me, for example, and none were allowed to testify.
This sort of "appeal" is simply a re-trial with a different judge. Normal appellate rights do not exist. The entire premise of an appeal is that you argue against what the first judge decided. But how can you argue against an opinion that is unwritten and unknown in the first place?
Well, thanks for pointing that out--I always wondered what the spelling way was. I always appreciate somebody who has an eye for correct grammar and spelling, but it'd be much more reassuring if my spelling mistake was not what outraged you the most on this page.
Well, I am the defendant in this case. Though I've been a slashdot reader for at least 8 years, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post a comment, let alone create an account. I've looked over some of the comments above and it looks to me like one thing that the summary misses completely are the merits of the case. I suppose it is partially my fault because I haven't written about that yet, though anybody that looks through the court documents can see what is going on. I would advise people to please take a look at the court documents and consider the content of the blog before jumping to conclusions. A note for those who think the website wrongs in focusing on Lee Kaplan: the title is a parody of the group CampusWatch, with which Lee Kaplan was once affiliated, if he is not today.
I will not respond to some of the other ridiculous things people have said above regarding politics and terrorism.
Here is a brief summary that I think Slashdot readers especially will find illuminating:
1) On the defamation charge
Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he presented them knowing that.
My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links.
The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source.
For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.
2) On tortious business interference
Lee Kaplan alleged that e-mails I sent to his webhost complaining about defamatory material he posted about me (alleging I was a member of the US Nazi Party) were actually e-mails sent to his employer. QuantumMedia is listed on every page on his websites; I had every reason to believe this was his webhost and I had every right to file an abuse complaint.
Later, Kaplan claimed that after my e-mails, the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise to hire him as the editor for a sports blogging website called SportsBlogger.com. In my opinion, the likelihood of such a job existing at all is slim--I still believe the story to be entirely fabricated, and I think that that is a reasonable conclusion given that: 1) I have never seen, or been able to find, any sports writing by Lee Kaplan; 2) SportsBlogger.com did not exist last summer, and it does not exist this year either. What Kaplan showed in court as evidence of a passworded website-in-development was simply the standard default page for a new blog, populated with Latin text. 3) Lee claims he lost a $40,000 job offer, but sued e for only $7,500 in small claims court. 5) In an e-mail to me, Haim Kamer wrote that he had not spoken to Kaplan in 5 years. One month later he wrote a letter to the court under oath contradicting that statement. 6) There was no contract ever presented in court proving that such a job offer ever even existed. 7) if you really think about it: what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, s
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote TFP, and I can tell you that this appeal was not conducted differently in any way from the original hearing. The only difference was that I had a lawyer who spoke instead of me; but he was still asked not to provide any legal arguments. What kind of appeal does not allow you to argue the law?
The blog does refer to the fraudulent journalism of Lee Kaplan--but it does not do just that and walk away. If you read through some of the articles we've written, you will find that we have indeed caught this writer in lies. For example, check out this story where I show him to have lifted photographs from another website and then claim he obtained them another way, and that they are of something that they are not.
You raise a number of very important points. Small claims court has its purposes. I don't think a defamation case is one of them. Evidence is everything in such a case, and having lower standards simply opens up the vulnerability for abuse. My entire point is that the plaintiff introduced "bad/false/misleading evidence," as you put it, and the burden of disproving it was on me. This is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish, especially during a hearing with, really, no rules except the judge's discretion. I had three witnesses with me, for example, and none were allowed to testify.
This sort of "appeal" is simply a re-trial with a different judge. Normal appellate rights do not exist. The entire premise of an appeal is that you argue against what the first judge decided. But how can you argue against an opinion that is unwritten and unknown in the first place?
Well, thanks for pointing that out--I always wondered what the spelling way was. I always appreciate somebody who has an eye for correct grammar and spelling, but it'd be much more reassuring if my spelling mistake was not what outraged you the most on this page.
Well, I am the defendant in this case. Though I've been a slashdot reader for at least 8 years, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post a comment, let alone create an account. I've looked over some of the comments above and it looks to me like one thing that the summary misses completely are the merits of the case. I suppose it is partially my fault because I haven't written about that yet, though anybody that looks through the court documents can see what is going on. I would advise people to please take a look at the court documents and consider the content of the blog before jumping to conclusions. A note for those who think the website wrongs in focusing on Lee Kaplan: the title is a parody of the group CampusWatch, with which Lee Kaplan was once affiliated, if he is not today.
I will not respond to some of the other ridiculous things people have said above regarding politics and terrorism.
Here is a brief summary that I think Slashdot readers especially will find illuminating:
1) On the defamation charge
Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he presented them knowing that.
My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links.
The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source.
For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.
2) On tortious business interference
Lee Kaplan alleged that e-mails I sent to his webhost complaining about defamatory material he posted about me (alleging I was a member of the US Nazi Party) were actually e-mails sent to his employer. QuantumMedia is listed on every page on his websites; I had every reason to believe this was his webhost and I had every right to file an abuse complaint.
Later, Kaplan claimed that after my e-mails, the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise to hire him as the editor for a sports blogging website called SportsBlogger.com. In my opinion, the likelihood of such a job existing at all is slim--I still believe the story to be entirely fabricated, and I think that that is a reasonable conclusion given that: 1) I have never seen, or been able to find, any sports writing by Lee Kaplan; 2) SportsBlogger.com did not exist last summer, and it does not exist this year either. What Kaplan showed in court as evidence of a passworded website-in-development was simply the standard default page for a new blog, populated with Latin text. 3) Lee claims he lost a $40,000 job offer, but sued e for only $7,500 in small claims court. 5) In an e-mail to me, Haim Kamer wrote that he had not spoken to Kaplan in 5 years. One month later he wrote a letter to the court under oath contradicting that statement. 6) There was no contract ever presented in court proving that such a job offer ever even existed. 7) if you really think about it: what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, s