Table of Contents
Defamation research is a good way to find out what others think about your company, product or services. This is especially true if you are involved in a lawsuit or if you are planning to file a lawsuit. It is also a good way to find out if you are on the right track. If you are not, it is a good idea to make some improvements.
Defamation claims are often complex, and require an effective discovery game plan. An effective discovery game plan requires a basic understanding of legal strategies and evidence rules.
The key to an effective discovery game plan is to understand what evidence is most relevant and most useful in your case. Most evidence for defamation cases will be gathered by interviewing witnesses, conducting legal research, and consulting experts.
The most common form of evidence for defamation cases is circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence is generally facts that indirectly prove another fact. An example is when a defendant owns a website and a witness testifies that he or she saw the site.
Testimonial evidence is usually offered by an oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Testimonial evidence can include lay or expert witness testimony.
There are also special defenses, or statutory privileges, enacted by state law. These special defenses are designed to identify specific statements and circumstances.
The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is a law that recognizes plaintiffs with little or no standing. This doctrine requires that the plaintiff be labeled as someone of “ill repute.” This type of defense is very uncommon in current jurisprudence.
Another defense to defamation is the wire service defense. This defense is generally used in the Internet age. This defense is a form of protection provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss
Defendants Culpepper and Sinclair filed a motion to dismiss which was swiftly and thoroughly denied in the name of the almighty dollar. As is par for the course, the motion was a formal business proposal which was accompanied by a long line of legal papers.
For starters, the court did not require Culpepper to file the documents of its choosing. It did, however, require that Sinclair file the documents in its name. As in any business, the equating document will likely be a long and winding road if it is to be achieved in a timely manner.
A more thorough examination of the motions revealed a number of nitpicks and pitfalls. Among the snags, the motion was a nonstarter for the reason of lack of discovery. A better resolution could have been achieved by obtaining the relevant information via the discovery route. In addition, the motion was not the most appropriate forum to engage in the litigation. After all, it is highly unlikely that the plaintiffs would be a willing participant in the proceedings. In short, the motion was a waste of a highly prized and expensive document.
The court also found it appropriate to award the plaintiffs a free bar tab in the guise of a fair shake. For the record, I’m not a Culpepper employee and, in my opinion, Culpepper did not deserve to be thrown under the bus for their efforts.
Earlier this week, the SOS Limited responded to a series of allegations by a group of short sellers, including Hindenburg Research. The allegations allege that SOS has misrepresented its mining rigs, as well as its principal executive offices. In addition, the group claims that SOS failed to disclose materially false and misleading statements.
The company’s shares have recently retreated from highs of nearly $16 in February. The stock has since fallen back to around $5.50, but is still in a volatile position.
Short sellers say that SOS has misrepresented its mining rigs and has failed to disclose materially false and misleading statements. In addition, the short sellers have raised concerns about the company’s regulatory risk. The company’s shares have also been subjected to a scathing commentary by Hindenburg Research.
In an effort to combat the short seller’s claims, the company released FAQs addressing several issues. It also announced that the company’s chief technical officer had walked through its mining facility. However, the company could not be reached for comment outside business hours in China.
SOS claims that its mining rigs are already producing Bitcoin. The company says that it is in the process of installing another 5,600 mining rigs in the near future. The company also says that it has a contract with a hydropower station in China. It also claims to provide solutions for emergency rescue services.