Thank you Sam, for doing your thing. We will never forget.

 

Thanks for the new avatar

 

no reason for that! this is great!

cigcrazy cannot be this busy on a sat??? where the f*** is he?

 

I'd bet he's out for a ride on the S.S. Failure with Mr Lamotta.

 

did we ever figure out who is taking all the pics of them out on the boat?

 

I'm gonna hazard a guess that the 15-year-old has more of a life than everyone else in this thread . . .

 

In!

 

Fun while it lasted. I am sure it won't take long for CigCrazy's brain to vomit out another moronic thread.

As far as Yoo's post goes, you seem to be worth every penny of the $16.45 you charge an hour.

 

Hahah you're probably right.

 

I also call shennanigans on this email. It is a joke.

Legally, it has too many holes in it. It claims that we have defamed Mr. LaMotta and his property. You cannot defame property - only a person. Next, it is not DJ's responsibility to remove defamatory statements. He merely provides a meeting place for us and then we - as individuals - are responsible for our own statements. Besides, you have not proven that any statements are defamatory yet. So don't try to bully DJ. You simply have no power to do so.

Now that we have that cleared up, let's look at the rest of this farce.

First, truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. Plaintiff - in this case Mr. LaMotta - must prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement and that each of us individually - the presumed Defendants* - knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the defamatory statements were false.

So, if we reasonably believed what we said was true, then it can't be defamation. For example, say I make the following statement: "Mr. LaMotta likes to hang out with 15-year old boys." The many pictures of Mr. LaMotta with Sammy are enough to lead a reasonable person to believe that such a statement is more than likely to be true. Even if it isn't true, it can't be defamation if we had a reasonable basis for assuming its truth. The pictures and Sammy's statements clearly provide that.

Furthremore, opinions are protected speech and cannot be held defamatory. This is especially true if the speaker made the statements with an element of humor or sarcasm such that no reasonable person would take them seriously. The test is whether the language is loose, figurative, or hyperbolic, which would negate the impression that we were seriously maintaining the truth of the underlying facts. In other words, opinion is linked to context. Think about the context of our discussion? Does the location and tenor of this discussion - e.g., its context - support an "opinion" defense? For example, if I were to say "I think Mr. LaMotta looks like the Queen of England and has the hots for the Tooth Fairy," I am merely expressing my opinion - which is protected speech and cannot be defamatory. Furthermore, any reasonable person can tell that I likely don't really espouse that opinion. And even if I did, as I said above, truth is a perfect defense to defamation. And finally, we are in an Internet forum - the primary purpose of which is to share our opinions with each other. Get the drift?

Then there is the most difficult hurdle - the Plaintiff would have to prove that the Defendant's statements have actually harmed his reputation. This is a very difficult thing to prove. First, the Plaintff must show that he actually has a reputation held in high enough regard that it could actually be tarnished. Once the Plaintiff asserts the quality of his reputation, the Defendant can bring up the Plaintiff's already tarnished reputation as a defense. If you already have no positive reputation, you can't claim that I made it any worse. This is why defamation cases are so rare - if you are going to claim harm to your reputation, you had better be squeaky clean, because I get to look into every corner of your life to see if your reputation is worth what you claim. For some reason, I don't think Mr. LaMotta wants us dusting his closets during the discovery phase of a defamation trial.

Remember, unfounded threats of litigation or other types of legal action are also a form of defamatory speech. After what you say above, I think each of us may have a pretty good case against you. Or was it just your opinion?

Are you starting to see a pattern???

*An action against TeamSpeed would be procedurally deficient because, as an entity, TeamSpeed has not made any "statements" about Mr. LaMotta. A "statement" is the first element of any defamation claim. A statement is defamatory if it tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation. TeamSpeed has made no statements, so that element is missing here. As a result, you would likely have to move against each of us individually in our own states and/or countries of residence. I hope you have a nice war chest - this is gonna get pricey!