[Vision2020] Email and Libel

[Bob Hoffmann]

Donald, I'm guessing that you're not an attorney.  That's OK; I'm not 
either.  But I'll disagree with some of your statements below.

At 03:19 PM 6/25/2003 -0700, Donovan Arnold wrote:

>Bob,
>You Stated:
> >"To sustain this charge in court, you must prove:
> >
> >1. The defendant knew that the statements were false (whereas the
> >defendant in this case could probably get off with a credible
>
> >insanity defense)"
>
>There is no insanity defense in the State of Idaho, doesn't exist.

In a civil trial, I have no doubt that insanity could be used to claim that 
the defendant could not be held accountable for his statements.

>">2. The statements were believed by the public (no sign of that
> >here), and"
>
>It only takes one person to believe it. There is no lack of stupid people 
>on the internet.

Again, I'm guessing you're not an attorney, and you presume your (first) 
statement to be true.  I presume your statement to be generally false (see 
exception below).  We are in agreement on the second statement.

>">3. The statements resulted in some injury, damage, or loss to the
> >maligned party (again, no sign of that here)."
>
>Actually, he accused someone who is in charge of children of using them 
>for sexual purposes. If one parent withdraws or decides not to enlist 
>their child under his care for fear of those charges being even slightly 
>true, this causes him financial damage.

Here you are presumably correct.

> >Of course, to sue, it helps if the defendant has property or income,
> >and is not, as is the case at hand, a vagrant."
>
>This doesn't matter, you can place a lean against someone on future 
>earnings. This means that if he ever makes money in the future he can 
>never claim it. This guarantees him poverty for most if not all his life.

As I said, it helps.  Under your scenario, someone would have to pay 
attorney's fees out of pocket, as there would be no hope for the attorney 
to recover expenses within a reasonable period of time.  Given a judgement, 
it would also be the plaintiff's obligation to monitor the finances of the 
defendant.

>You also forgot to mention that slander doesn't usually count if it is 
>against a "public" figure, such as a celebrity or elected or appointed 
>public official. Which his accusations are not. We can slam on Clinton, 
>Bush, and Michael Jackson all we want.

Wrong here as well.  Typically, the stature of the figure has to be 
evaluated against the forum in which the statements were made.  The 
statements in question were not made on national television; they were made 
on a local list serve, where a local preacher has made himself a very 
public figure.  And I assure you and him that the allegations will not 
likely be repeated on CNN, ABC, or MTV.

I'll make a prophecy.  No lawsuit will result from these utterances.  No 
money will be collected.

And if I am correct, then I will have a perfect record of prophecies, which 
will put me far ahead of the Rambler in question.  I also hereby issue the 
prophecy that the madman will continue ranting, will never gather more than 
one disciple at a stretch, will establish no credibility in this community, 
will continue to make false and misleading accusations, will continue to 
claim that he has a direct line from God, will continue to lie to the 
uninitiated to obtain favors, accommodations, and sustenance, and will 
continue to jerk people's chains online and off, until he is fully ignored 
and seeks another community where he can garner attention.  Or until 
someone buys him a ticket to Connecticut.

Bob Hoffmann
820 S. Logan St.
Moscow, ID  83843

Tel: 208 883-0642