- CreatorTopic
- June 19, 2012 at 6:34 AM#6881adminParticipant
More public documents will be posted as they become available:
- June 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM #42746
JoshuaParticipantIf this group was truly Christian then they would follow the Bible when dealing with others that claim to be Christians.
June 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM #42747
SimonParticipantHow does the Bible say to deal with false prophets. False prophets or not that is how WMC would be logical to deal with you as that is what they believe or teach they believe this website to be run by.
June 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM #42748
JoshuaParticipantYou test the false prophets using scripture. When they prove themselves to be false prophets by doing things like prophesying the return of Jesus and it not happening, then they are to be dismissed and never listened to.
June 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM #42749
SimonParticipantlol that wasn't what I meant
June 19, 2012 at 5:21 PM #42750
SimonParticipantreading the document it is a bit weird if it is true that she posts under a psuedonym. Not that it would validate anything but it would still be weird…
June 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM #42751
SimonParticipantas far as I can see that is about parody and free speech not libel and slander
June 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM #42752
SimonParticipantfreespeach is elsewhere defined exclusive from Libel and slander`
June 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM #42753
SimonParticipantHolding:
Parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, even if intended to cause emotional distress. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
June 19, 2012 at 7:47 PM #42754
SimonParticipantNow if it is libel or not would be a completely different topic which is the responsibility of the lawsuit to prove the libel. If it were not permissible even if it were libellous it would be thrown out or an argument that this website could make.
June 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM #42755
SimonParticipantif the statements were untrue it would be libel.
June 19, 2012 at 9:09 PM #42756
justasitisParticipantMy first reaction on reading the documentation of the lawsuit was just "Phew!" Why would they be doing this? What can possibly be gained and by whom?
Can someone please clarify for me – Does this wmscog have to prove that what they think this website is saying about them is untrue? Does the wmscog have to prove that what they say are the negative outcomes for them, as a result of the acitivity on this site have actually happened? And then demonstrate that these negative outcomes are a direct result of what appears here? Or does this website have to prove that they haven't done what the wmscog is accusing them of? Or maybe both?
I wish I had the funds to make the expertise available to you to contest and defend this suit. Do you have to contest it? What would happen if you did nothing?
June 19, 2012 at 9:14 PM #42757
SimonParticipantIn the United States it is always on the one attacking the defendent to prove their case. They have to prove the claims are made (easy enough) AND prove the claims are lies (not so much doable) and they also have to prove damage from the claims (again possible but if the claims are true not relevent)
June 19, 2012 at 9:20 PM #42758
EmilyParticipantshimon wrote:
reading the document it is a bit weird if it is true that she posts under a psuedonym. Not that it would validate anything but it would still be weird…
Why do you think it's weird? Is "Shimon" a pseudonym or your real name?
June 19, 2012 at 9:29 PM #42759
justasitisParticipantShimon – If you are right, and the plaintiff(wmscog) has to prove that the claims are not lies (and prove subsequent damage),. then my common sense says this has to be a fantastic lawsuit to defend. Perhaps not such a good one for the wmscog to have brought. I cannot see how 'the truth' will not come to the fore.
June 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM #42760
SimonParticipantEmily wrote:
shimon wrote:
reading the document it is a bit weird if it is true that she posts under a psuedonym. Not that it would validate anything but it would still be weird…
Why do you think it's weird? Is "Shimon" a pseudonym or your real name?
It is my real name
justasitis wrote:
Shimon – If you are right, and the plaintiff(wmscog) has to prove that the claims are not lies (and prove subsequent damage),. then my common sense says this has to be a fantastic lawsuit to defend. Perhaps not such a good one for the wmscog to have brought. I cannot see how 'the truth' will not come to the fore.
I dunno maybe they think they can use brain washing tactics on a jury or a judge? Or maybe they will only attack certain more denfendable claims.
June 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM #42761
EmilyParticipantShimon, who thinks "they can use brain washing tactics on a jury or a judge"?
June 20, 2012 at 5:25 PM #42762
SimonParticipantEmily wrote:
Shimon, who thinks "they can use brain washing tactics on a jury or a judge"?
WMC theoretically.
June 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM #42763
justasitisParticipantI'm not saying that any kind of "brain-washing" techniques would be used by wmscog, but wake up people! Anyone is susceptible to manipulation by these methods! Judge, jury, just about anybody. It's why the methods are so effective. We all need to be ever alert and vigilant. Use the God-given reasoning and intellect that is one of the attributes of our species. Please.
June 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM #42764
Sueno MaruyamaParticipantInteresting comments by Shimon. I don't know the legal arguments in detail but I can predict confidently that [removed for rules]…..
June 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM #10617
SimonParticipantactually he only has to prove it or.fail to
[removed for rules] reasonable doubt on every charge is needed for him to lose the case but you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.