Re: Curiouser and Curiouser :^) (was Re: TRUTH ABOUT EUGENE INGRAM - 2)

In <3sauu7$187@covina.lightside.com> cmiller@lightside.com (Chris Miller) writes: >Now I have to prove that I didn't defame someone. Sounds like the
>Napoleonic style of justice if you ask me.
I don't recall anyone on this group ever asserting that you had an adequate grasp of the U.S. justice system.

Here's the way "innocent until proven guilty" works in the matter of libel:

1. The accusation against you is that you made a statement which was defamatory and false. 2. Here's where "innocent until proven guilty" comes in: The prosecution would have to show that you made the statement, and that it was defamatory. 3. I think we can all stipulate that you made a defamatory statement regarding one or more members of this group. 4. Therefore, your positive defense is to show that the statement you made, while defamatory, is in fact true, and therefore not libelous.

Since your accusations would seem to involve matters of public record, it ought to be trivial for you to post a good defense. However, you've seemed quite unwilling to do so, which just doesn't look good. It implies that you do not, in fact, have a defense against the claim, nor do you have any proof of your allegation.

Perhaps someone with more legal experience could assist me on one point: Since Mr. Miller's allegations involved deception of Federal agencies, am I correct in reading that if Mr. Miller's allegations are false, he could be liable under 18 USC Sec. 1001, regarding false statements in matters under Federal jurisdiction? (Reference available online: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html</a> -- --Rob Levandowski Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]