Why don't those 'wrongfully' accused sue?

I doubt that when Rob Balsamo (johndoeX) threatened to sue nick7261 and Caustic Logic for their comments about P49T’s work he had any serious intention of following through with it. But it did raise an interesting point. Reputation is everything, and when it is damaged by others in a demonstrably false manner, those affected will often take action to protect their good name.

Anyone who has spent time on discussion boards will know that many accusations of complicity in the 9/11 attacks have been levelled at members of the government, as we as the media and corporate worlds. Some of the language used to describe Larry Siverstein’s alleged participation, for example, is just extraordinary. I won’t repeat or link to them here, but I’m sure you’re all familiar with the sort of thing I mean.

These accusations won’t have gone unnoticed by the accused. So why haven’t any of them sued?

Is there a legal impediment to their taking action or are these allegations simply not serious enough to warrant their attention? Alternatively, are we seeing something akin to what happened here in the UK when a national newspaper openly accused five men of murdering Stephen Lawrence (these men having already been acquitted) knowing that if the men sued for libel, the paper would have the opportunity, in court, to prove that they were indeed murderers?

An excellent post! I suspect they are too busy with other things if they DID know, to bother. Whilst this is a forum, and serious allegations have been made, it is sometimes easier to just ignore it than pursue it, although you do raise a very interesting point.

If these same allegations were printed in a newspaper of one kind or another, then I think you'd see something done about it.

I'm not sure how much of the fact that this is a CT type site has anything to do with it? There are many people leveling equal allegations in blogs. AFAIK none of them have yet been legally challenged.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

It would be a tough case to sue someone when both parties are engaged in a conspiracy forum where many claims are made. It is a very difficult thing, I think there is a lot of passion and that proves that both people are interested in presenting the truth but sometimes other things get in the way, misunderstandings happen.

Originally posted by coughymachine
I doubt that when Rob Balsamo (johndoeX) threatened to sue nick7261 and Caustic Logic for their comments about P49T’s work he had any serious intention of following through with it.

In my experience usually when people threaten to sue, especially like Balsamo did when only questions were raised, it usually indicates that the person doing the threatening wants to stop further scrutiny.

From a legal standpoint, I think the burden is very high. First, it is my understanding that you have to prove intentional malice and intent to harm the other person. Second, I think you have to actually prove there was tangible harm done. And third, you have to prove that the allegations were baseless and made up.

Balsamo's tantrum is even more interesting since it is Balsamo that's taken the inititiave to make unprovable allegations, and then threatens legal action when people question his motives or lack of evidence for his claims.

One more thing...

If Balsamo would sue anybody, it would have to start with ATS for publishing the alleged slanderous comments about him. Good luck with that.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by nick7261]

I understand what you're saying, nick - I was only using that 'threat' as a way of introducing a broader observation.

One other forum, which I won't link to, has some, fankly, disgusting personal attacks wrapped up in the allegations made by some of its members against alleged perps such as Larry Silverstein. I mean, they are truly outrageous. Silverstein, or his people, will be fully aware of this, I'm sure. There is no question they cross the line and could easily be used to convict, IMO. The question for me is why haven't people like Silverstein tried? Could it be that by bringing action they fear that at trial they would effectively have to prove that Silverstein wasn't a co-conspirator in order to prove he'd been libelled?

Due to the accused being innocent until proven guilty. The defendant only has to ask the following questions: Has harm been done by my statement? Is my statement false? Was my statement intended to harm? The questions sound easy enough but the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.

In this example proof of loss of sale would need to be proven. That the disbuted material is indeed true and accurate. That the false claims were intended to harm. Proving intent to a jury is very hard to do. As a result most slander and libal cases are settled out of court rather than face the legal bills.

In the case of PentaCon, I think the sales figure potential would be the hardest to prove due to the limited promotion compared to say Loose Change sales figures, an Alex Jones DVD or even CNN Remembers 9-11.

Originally posted by AhabstarIn this example proof of loss of sale would need to be proven. That the disbuted material is indeed true and accurate. That the false claims were intended to harm. Proving intent to a jury is very hard to do. As a result most slander and libal cases are settled out of court rather than face the legal bills.

I may have been misunderstood here. I'm not interested in the P49T/nick & Caustic debate - I just cited that as an example of someone threatening legal action. However, it is largely irrelevant to the real point I was trying to make.

There are accusations of participation in 9/11 against people like Larry Silverstein, which can only harm his reputation, IMO. I find it hard to believe he simply doesn't care if people stand outside his offices in New York day after day, week after week and openly accuse him of being a mass-murderer. I find it hard to believe he doesn't care if people endlessly express the same sentiment on-line, with added personal attacks for extra flavour. Nor if, as has happened recently, those attacks and accusations have been broadened to include his family, who we're now told were also instructed to stay away on the morning of 9/11.

I feel sure that if I were a businessman with millions of sqft of office space to let and similar accusations were made against me I'd take action - assuming I was innocent.

Okay, in the case of Silverstein he would have to acknowledge that these claims are credible enough to do him harm. I don't have any real money so I could go out of the street corner and yell that Silverstein is pedophile, for example, all I wanted. Pedophilia is a very serious subject and me shouting from the street corner shows intent. But does not prove harm unless he lost a business deal due to it. Now if it was say Rush Limbaugh who does have money, and does have influence through his audience saying he was a pedophile and was serious about it. Then Rush can expect to be sued for slander.

Here is where it becomes tricky. Silverstein is now a public figure, so things can be said in jest or absolute satire. jerry Falwell sued Larry Flint for libel in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Because Falwell was a public figure, Flint had First Ammendment rights of Free Speech to make him a subject of satire.

Now if you want to make a case for double standards. Every CDL holder has what is called a DAC report. This agency that produces this report is exempt from libel even if a driver's DAC report contains errors and outright lies that prevents the driver form obtaining a job with another company. The agency will not remove any information based on a driver's protest or petition. Only the original author of the information can change or remove it. If that author has died or can not be found, the information remains for 10 years on the DAC report.

No court case to date has been able to remove the DAC report as a condition of hire despite the validity of the data contained. The system could brought to the general laborer as well. Imagine that when you apply for a good job that Insubordination could follow you if you told the McDonalds manager that this job sucks when you were 17. Or that you abandoned a truck (in their parking yard) if you did not give what someone felt was enough notice when resigning or couldn't be talked into taking another load in the wrong direction.

Let's turn instead to President Bush. Let's put the personal accusations to one side for now since whatever applies to Silverstein presumably applies to Bush. But what about more widely?

This is how Bush charaterises conspiracy theorists and, more importantly, the part conspiracy theories (and conspiracy theorists) play in effectively helping terrorism. Bush sees combating conspiracy theorists as one of the critical parts of a wider counterterrorism strategy. So why no action against those who accuse him, members of his administration and members of the corporate world of having planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?

The source of the following is the NSC's 'Strategy for Winning the War on Terror'. Original emphasis except for highlighted (red) text.

The terrorism we confront today springs from:

...

• Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

......

Defeating terrorism in the long run requires that each of these factors be addressed. Effective democracy provides a counter to each, diminishing the underlying conditions terrorists seek to exploit.

...

• In place of a culture of conspiracy and misinformation, democracy offers freedom of speech, independent media, and the marketplace of ideas, which can expose and discredit falsehoods, prejudices, and dishonest propaganda.

......

Over the short term: Four priorities of action

...

Prevent attacks by terrorist networks. A government has no higher obligation than to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. The hard core among our terrorist enemies cannot be reformed or deterred; they will be tracked down, captured, or killed. They will be cut off from the network of individuals, institutions, and other resources they depend on for support and that facilitate their activities. The network, in turn, will be deterred, disrupted, and disabled. Working with committed partners across the globe, we continue to use a broad range of tools at home and abroad to take the fight to the terrorists, deny them entry to the United States, hinder their movement across international borders, and establish protective measures to further reduce our vulnerability to attack.

...

• Propaganda operations, which are used by terrorists to justify violent action as well as inspire individuals to support or join the movement. The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe. Besides a global reach, these technologies allow terrorists to propagate their message quickly, often before an effective counter to terrorist messages can be coordinated and distributed. These are force multipliers for our enemy.

We're waiting for Lloyd England to file suit.

That would be one hell of a trial!

Seriously, is he threatening to sue you guys?

Originally posted by coughymachine
Seriously, is he threatening to sue you guys?

Oh hell no.

I wish!

Bush is a public figure, so he is open game. I really don't feel that the Truth Movement in whole or in part has really done much in the way of political damage. Out of the 300 million US citizens my best guess is that maybe 750,000 are a part of any organised truth group. That is .0025% of the population. Even if 12 million think he did it, that is only .04% of the population. No matter how vocal, it would hard to prove they had any impact on his approval rating.

If you think those numbers are too low then consider this, I received a mass mailing U2U from ATS today for all 3824 members that have been on ATS in the past 15 days. There are well over 100,000 registered members, less than .04% have been on in the last 15 days.

Small precentages in the over all scheme of things. Rather than give any credence to their claims, it is easier to ignore them. That and taking time out of his job to deal with a personal attack, true or not, would not look too good. Compare the limelight Clinton had over Monica and the blue stained dress. Realistically, Bush has bigger fish to fry.

But consider the converse. If anyone had enough evidence for a conviction, there are plenty of lawyers out there that would love their name in the history book for taking down a president. Many of them would do it for the fame over the money as they can make that up in public speeching afterwards.

I'm not sure of the differences in British as opposed to US law and no doubt there are differences. I'm not an attorney but as a business owner I pay close attention to what constitutes a valid law suit.

In the US there are a number of things in play. First and foremost is the "Freedom of Speech" issue. If a person is a public figure they are pretty much open game. Accusations actually tend to make them richer rather than causing them harm. The more controversy the more money.

With politicians; if they are seen to be litigious it does not go over well with most voters. Especially if the person making the accusations is not of reasonable sensitivities. Attacking someone who is delusional or mentally ill is a career ender.

Another factor is a Supreme Court decision in 1998 (if memory serves). Our opinion is always protected. You can say anything as long as it is qualified with "In my opinion". No winnable suit will ever happen if it is a persons opinion.

For those in other countries who have never been here; the picture you are getting of the US is not really accurate. Conversely what we get about other countries here is skewed as well. When I had my first conversation with an unbiased, reasonable Russian my entire view of them in general changed dramatically. The same would happen if many of those with warped perspectives about the US would have the opportunity to live here for a while.

A great example of wrongful notions about Civil Actions is the famous Lady who spilled the hot coffee in her lap. She never received a dime for that outlandish, fabricated law suit. It was thrown out (laughed out might be more accurate) of court on appeal. Frivolous suits seldom succeed and since the press only reports the outcome of the first trial, with a jury that has been manipulated through their own bias, people think these nuts really get the money when they don't.

It would cost me about $50,000 to defend against a false suit. If I can settle for under that out of court; that is exactly what I'd do. When this happens the person who has successfully extorted money using the threat is made to sign a non-disclosure agreement and can never reveal the outcome. That is not done to hide anything. It is to ensure that someone else does not read about it and attempt the same thing. Fortunately most suits never make it to court.

Some of these people may have been sued. They would never admit to the out of court settlement and you would never know it happened.

Originally posted by coughymachine

These accusations won’t have gone unnoticed by the accused. So why haven’t any of them sued?

Good hook to get me interested CM. I'm tired today, but I'd venture 1: the hardest points have probably been made by anonymous posters,
2: ummm, maybe they like to keep things untried, unproven, and open, give our skepticism and speculation a million rabbit holes to drain down into. One or two or three may lead to the real truth, the rest to dirt. If you sue and prove a charge fase, it might close up a false hole and help us narrow the field. Dig?

I recall Henry Kissinger too attacking Hitchens vehemently as an anti-Semite, etc. but never actually suing him over the charges. This is the other side... they'r afraid of what might actually be revealed. FALSE and INJURIOUS. We got the second. To prove the first 9/11 inside job tactics would be on open trial.

Hey coughymachine.

I wish I could U2U you, but I can't even read my U2Us anymore, as the U2U option is now no longer even available to me so I can read my messages.

I tried to reply to your message.

Pleas email me.


xxxxxxxxxx [I just deleted my email addy]

Natasha

Though we disagree I count you a friend coughymachine.


[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

Welll whadayaknow.

My U2U icon mysteriously reappeared, just moments ago, and I can even send message now!

Thanks to whomever fixed that.

Natasha

OK then.

Things have been set aright.

So the Law Suit is off now ATS.

Natasha

PS

Odd how a champion of liberty, even willing to impose democracy by force world wide, such as Mr. Bush, has made it so those who really do have grounds to sue large corporations, now find it extremely difficult if not impossible to do so.

Gee wiz, I just don't understand, and yet who am I to question The Decider?

Hells Bells, I sure don't want to get sued.

ps ps

I just realized, the U2U icon only appears, when one gets a new message, and I can access my U2U box anytime through the member center. Oh my, people I can be so stupid, and I but take small comfort knowing that I am aware of this.

I imagine I was unable to reply, to coughymachine's message last night, because I still had less than 20 posts.

My sincere apology.

sigh

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

Originally posted by coughymachine


Anyone who has spent time on discussion boards will know that many accusations of complicity in the 9/11 attacks have been levelled at members of the government, as we as the media and corporate worlds. Some of the language used to describe Larry Siverstein’s alleged participation, for example, is just extraordinary. I won’t repeat or link to them here, but I’m sure you’re all familiar with the sort of thing I mean.

These accusations won’t have gone unnoticed by the accused. So why haven’t any of them sued?

Serious accusations regarding 911 complicity including HIGH TREASON and mass murder, made against people both in government and the media, have appeared many times in print, books magazines and newspapers, and also on both MSM TV and radio, Rosy O'Donnell is a perfect example, and there have been no lawsuits threatened except by Trump against Rosy regarding personal slander.

Why hasn't Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powel, Tenet, Silverstein, Rupert Murdoch and other media moguls, threatened lawsuits against those accusing them of high treason and mass murder?

Well they don't, for the same reason that they refuse to reopen the 911 investigation, even though many surviving 911 victim family members have long demanded it.