• Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.

    DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:

    [email protected]

For example, a statement ascribing a criminal history to an innocent person was ruled to be defamatory per se in Wisconsin

A

archive_bot

‎
‎
Forum Clout
5,871

For example, a statement ascribing a criminal history to an innocent person was ruled to be defamatory per se in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin Defamation Per Se​

Defamation per se, sometimes referred to as ‘libel per se’ or ‘slander per se’, refers to certain types of statements which are considered so inherently inflammatory and defamatory that a defamation plaintiff need not prove damages (or economic losses). The reason defamation per se exists is to ease the burden of actually having to prove damages when there’s clearly significant damage done.
Wisconsin defamation law dictates that slander (spoken defamation) per se and all printed libels (written defamation) are actionable and compensable without proving actual monetary loss or other special damages.[efn_note]Teff v. Unity Health Plans Ins. Corp., 2003 WI App 115, ¶ 40, 265 Wis. 2d 703 666 N.W.2d 38 (citing Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp., 15 Wis. 2d 452, 113 N.W.2d 135 (1962)).[/efn_note] Slander will be classified as ‘per se’ when the statement in question alleges:
  • ▪ A criminal offense
  • ▪ A loathsome disease
  • ▪ Unchastity
  • ▪ Statements regarding plaintiff in his or her business or profession [efn_note]Bauer v. Murphy, 191 Wis. 2d 517, 530 N.W.2d 1, 3–4 (Ct. App. 1995).[/efn_note]
Do note that even if a statement constitutes slander per se in Wisconsin, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she fails to allege reputational harm flowing from the statement.[efn_note]Janusz v. Olen, 234 Wis. 2d 149, 610 N.W.2d 511, 2000 WI App 71, 2000 WL 136313, at *2 (unpublished opinion).[/efn_note]
For example, a statement ascribing a criminal history to an innocent person was ruled to be defamatory per se in Wisconsin. Teague v. Schimel, 2017 WI 56.
Defamation per se actions will give rise to “presumed damages,” as the libel or slander plaintiff need not prove damages after all. We will walk you through Wisconsin’s defamation damages in greater detail in Section 5.
If you’re curious about the flipside of the defamation per se coin is, look no further. Below, let’s take a look at defamation per se’s opposite – defamation per quod.
Click to expand...
09876543.png
 
Mike Glyer

Mike Glyer

Rick is Persona Non Grata on File 770
‎
‎
Forum Clout
14,069
quasi101

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
‎
Forum Clout
77,895
Sink Inspector said:
HOW protected is speech from a court filing? Say a very obese man lies in an application for a TRO. I know they have some level of immunity but are there limits?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean. from defamation? Pretty well protected. You can't really defame someone in a court filing as far as I know. But there's other torts or criminal issues. Perjury is one, but since the TRO was rejected Dan has a good case for either malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

Here's the jury instructions for malicious prosecution in Wisconsin :
1) A criminal proceeding was brought against (plaintiff).
2) (Defendant) was actively involved in instituting the criminal proceeding
(prosecution) against (plaintiff).
3) The criminal proceeding was terminated in favor of (plaintiff).
4) (Defendant) acted with malice in instituting the criminal proceeding (prosecution).
5) The criminal charges were made without probable cause.
6) (Plaintiff) suffered damages as a result of the criminal proceeding (prosecution)
on those charges.
Click to expand...




And abuse of process

An abuse of process occurs when a person uses a legal process against another
primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. In this case, (defendant) (state
the legal process used, e.g., caused a subpoena to be issued to plaintiff; commenced an
involuntary commitment proceeding against plaintiff; etc.) The purpose of (a
subpoena)(involuntary commitment proceeding) is (state purpose).
To establish an abuse of process, (plaintiff) must prove that:
1. (Defendant) had a purpose other than that which the process was designed to
accomplish; and
2. (Defendant) subsequently misused the process to accomplish a purpose other than
that it was designed to accomplish.
Both elements must be proved to establish an abuse of process. The process must be
used for something more than a proper use with a bad motive.
Click to expand...

 
quasi101

quasi101

the $83,736.99 fugitive
‎
Forum Clout
77,895
Abuse seems like a bit of a stretch , but it depends what's in that document Danno never paid for due to this
"(Defendant) subsequently misused the process to accomplish a purpose other than
that it was designed to accomplish."

But malicious prosecution seems like it checks all the boxes.
 
Uncle J’s Sink Emporium

Uncle J’s Sink Emporium

Enjoy prison, Y’munkoke
‎
Forum Clout
32,007
admin said:
Abuse seems like a bit of a stretch , but it depends what's in that document Danno never paid for due to this
"(Defendant) subsequently misused the process to accomplish a purpose other than
that it was designed to accomplish."

But malicious prosecution seems like it checks all the boxes.
Click to expand...
You mean like tweeting out to the world that the point of a lawsuit wasn’t to collect damages but instead to unmask someone so that you can go after their careers and reputation?
 
G

guest

Guest
Unchastity
Click to expand...
Sososososo you're saying I can be sued for saying that Tommy Tomlinson put his kids through school by working the glory hole at the Milwaukee Rodeo in the 80s and 90s?

If I'm gonna be completely fair to Dan as a non-lawyer, it's going to be extremely difficult to prove that any damage was done from "malicious prosecution" with the TRO even if he wins that case as he didn't even know about it until it had already been dismissed. As for the defamation, Pat went on numerous podcasts and falsely claimed that Dan was the person doing the "Yours in Christ" contact form trolling, accused him of stalking and other specific crimes, etc. Jackie Singh contacted his employer multiple times, and Dan could easily use that as evidence that Patrick's false statements about him had a tangible negative impact. We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top