Anyone wrote:Abd wrote:Anyone wrote:Lowdown on the Lomax Latest
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.33.0.pdf
That document is being cited by some as if some sort of definitive demolition of my complaint.
If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer.
Much of the document seems to hinge on your alleged misunderstanding of Noonan v. Staples.
Would you agree that perhaps you've misunderstood the point of law this precedent raised.
I'll agree that IANAL and thus misunderstanding is possible. However, I see no precedent that shows such a misunderstanding.
What is more accurate is that a company investigation found errors in his expense reports. Noonan denied that they were deliberate. Yes, that element is missing from the WMF situation, the difference of treatment. However, what is more significant here is that the company claimed "truth" as a defense. The WMF is saying that they published the "truth," that they had banned me. Many have claimed, commenting on this, that "truth is an absolute defense," but then, a statement may imply to a reasonable reader something that is untrue and defamatory. That would depend on circumstances and is a question of fact, not of law.I mean, Noonan did indeed pad his expense account and was fired in accordance with company rules / regulations. But Staples "maliciously" defamed him in a manner they'd not done previously with other employees who had also abused expense accounts.
You claim that they did not, and policy does not dictate whom they ban. The policy actually indicates that there must be a serious violation of the ToU or serious hazard. So a ban does have meaning, even though they deny there is any meaning to it. Again, there are factual issues here.Citing this case strikes me as misjudged. The WMF did NOT publish your block maliciously, and in fact did so in accordance with a straightforward policy they'd adhered to on all prior occasions.
First of all, I claim that their routine practice is routinely defamatory, against all the Office banned users. Not just me. I'm just the first to challenge it, AFAIK. They claim it is not appealable. Legally, yes, I can't appeal the ban (unless they consent), but I can claim that the publication was defamatory. I also claim that the ban was an action taken as part of a conspiracy, and what the WMF knew and did not know is unknown. "Actual malice" is a term in common law and it can include culpable negligence. Again, question of fact.
Massachusetts still follows the old common law of defamation, where non-public figures are involved, not the much stricter standard normal in the United States because of the First Amendment, and the First Circuit accepted that. Staples made noises about appealing, but never did.
Secondly, if I had an attorney, and the attorney did not raise the two Noonan cases, it would be legal malpractice. In the first case, a jury trial was needed to determine if there was actual malice or not. Remember, this was after discovery. The jury in Noonan 1 found the evidence of malice to be insufficient. However, there was then Noonan 2, because an officer of Staples shot off his mouth and claimed that Noonan had stolen from them. In that case, the court found that "stolen" was a permissible opinion. It is not clear that this judgment would have withstood appeal. However, again, the court ruled that a thin reason to suspect actual malice in the statement was enough to go ahead, so Noonan 2 was headed for trial. And then Noonan withdrew the case. What happened? Well, my opinion is that Staples finally realized that they had cost Noonan millions of dollars for what was a relatively minor offense -- possibly. And it was going to cost them much to fight the second case. And they might lose. So they settled.
At least that's my opinion. I do not need to prove malice at the complaint stage. I must plausibly allege it.
The WMF also asserts that Doe v. Amherst is not apposite. In Doe, what was found was that the school had investigated a rape charge and thus the report to other schools of the investigation and its result was not defamation. Perhaps. I don't remember all the details. But in the end, what happened was that evidence came to light that the investigation had been incompetent, and so suddenly, it appears, Amherst was eager to settle with Doe. Making a statement that defames based on your own incompetent investigation is not protected by "truth." (I.e., the truth that your investigation found X, which it did.)