W.S. Exclusive. Cindy A. Tells Websleuths Owner Her Lawyer Is Taking On Websites!

[PassTheMotrin]

I'm really stunned!
Cindy has an opportunity here in her communication with Tricia, the owner of Websleuths... and what does she say, what does she do? She so gently attempts to intimidate Tricia!
She has nothing to pass along to the many people here from all over the country, all over the world actually! ???
If she indeed has clues, or tips, why not tell us?
No thank you for Websleuths effort to keep Caylee at the focus of this nightmare!??

I think that can be classified as an "Inopportunity." :smilie:

 

[Samijeansg]

Cindy seems more worried about slander about her family than finding Caylee. She could fight those battles later if that is what she really wanted to do. All of her energy should be going to efforts on finding Caylee, whether that is dead or alive.

One more thing, I believe in order to fight slander, defamation of character she has to actually prove that the things said about her or Casey are proven to be false. Kind of hard to prove things like that false when Casey herself is proving them to be true on a daily basis.

 

[DuchessJules22]

Holy Mother of WOW!

It's official - CA has gone off the deep end. Shouldn't she be out trying to find her grandchild or trying to convince her daughter to tell the truth instead of surfing the web?

 

[aprilshowers]

Ya'll are telling her to find Caylee ... but if she KNOWS she's dead, there's no looking, because to find the body, is to provide information to send her daughter to prison.

ETA: Which may very well be, why she's not looking.

 

[Dr. Pennypacker]

Scary Crazy Lady

 

[whiteangora]

Protect Casey from other children. Geeze - we don't want them disappearing around her too.

And did ya'll hear Padilla say last night that the Anthony's ARE NOT receiving any tips as to the whereabouts of Caylee?? So what are you doing Cindy? Other than stirring things up and making yourself look more pathetic and stupid???

LOOK FOR YOUR FREAKING GRANDDAUGHTER FOR CRIPE'S SAKES. Don't tell us to look, we didn't lose nor are we responsible for her....but yet we are the only ones looking.

Everytime I hear/read that phrase, "lost our grandaughter" - as in misplaced, it reinforces just how strange this case really is.
How many people have you ever heard say that they misplaced an
other human being?
Kinda like saying, "please hand me that piano"- George Carlin.
Sorry for OT, but if this isn't twilight zone material I don't know
what is. jmo

 

[strach304]

This is what they are spending their time and money on? They are paying Baez for this? What happened to trying to find Caylee and the babysitter?

I just watched Baez's PC and am shaking my head. Seems like he is assuring Casey and the Anthony's that LE is harassing her. Not the case since they do have probable cause that she did commit these crimes. LE hasn't said this is a murder investigation, but Baez just did. I would think the chloroform evidence would come in to a murder investigation. Just because he hasn't seen that evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Those leaks may be for Casey to get a clue.

 

[Fandy]

What a complete waste of time. What people are saying about them should be the least of their worries. Why should it even matter to them what people think? And if I must remind you, Cindy, you are the one who painted yourself in the negative light. Nobody targeted you or set you up. You did it all yourself, dear, and a darn good job of it too.

Cindy, most people put up yellow ribbons on their property when a loved one is missing, not yellow crime tape. You had my sympathy with your 3rd 911 call, but you are purposely muddying the waters.

 

[Friptzap]

i read a blog by a lawyer and his site gets shut down a lot due to slanderous remarks he makes, and the site is always back up pretty quickly. he is after all a lawyer and knows how to word things so he does not get premanetly shut down. as someone else stated about scientology going after people, they have had the site i read shut down the most...
as long as what people are saying is not slander and not violation TOS on that website, i cant see this going anywhere. i do know that if you do say "bad things" about someone and report it to myspace, they will shut u down quick.

Affiliate of ABC lol so I can see why they cave so easy...

 

[JulieR]

I thought they said they spend their time on the web and phone looking for Caylee??? Is what goes on in Chat Rooms or message boards really a top priority while your 3 year old daughter & granddaugher is missing???? :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

LOL you said it...........I can't believe they are so worried about what everyone is saying, and not looking for Caylee.
PS I really think we should all pitch in and get Trica a new laptop!!!!

 

[Friptzap]

I copied the following from another website to explain some of the legal bits involved:

Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend against a defamation lawsuit. If you don't feel like being on the frontier of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense. Add on these concepts:

Avoid the impression of malice.

State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.

All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, judgmental ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy – getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism – but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.

What defamation is not.
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.

Quoted from here in case anyone wants to read more on this:
http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel.shtml

Free info btw so I ain't breaking any copyright laws.

 

[boogiebear]

Tricia, First off I think you did a wonderful job, and I admire you talking straight(exactly what you think, feel, and know) to CA.
I love this website. One reason I love it is because I can come here, and not have to worry about getting flamed, or reading language I would rather not read. I can express my opinion here freely, in a way I feel totally comfortable, and more importantly I can develop ideas in stages in a safe way. If I do change my mind about something(which I do as more information comes in), no one will verbably attack me for it.
That being said, I am an adult. I started on computers when a Tandy had a built in seat, and under that seat is where you put a floppy disk almost as big as a sheet of paper. The screen was orange and black. If I wanted to go to another site, that happens to also discuss the Anthony case, and they allows all types of words in a free, but heated exchange that is my choice as an adult human being. If I wanted to type that someone was a ..tirade here of obscene words about loose morals, pants zippers, social standings... poopy head, then this is American and I am free to type that, read that, or even promote that. I will fight for all people to have the right to have their opinion, even if I think they are very very sick. CA thinking she has the right to stop people from calling her daughter a horrible word describing not being able to control your sexual self, is very very misguided. She would do better talking to her daughter about controlling her sexual behavior, or better yet finding her Grand-daughter she swears is alive. It would seem if she truly believed that, she would not have time being the word police online. I only hope she will not be using the "Help Find Caylee" fund for this policing.

 

[therese]

Let's see if we can sell Tricia on this idea then, if you think it will fly !! We also need someone to do a cool design

Me, TOOOOOOOO!!!! I love that Idea. I was part of the Nuts to CBS for jericho campaign (a TV show I loved dearly) any hoot we used cafe press a lot to design t shirts and mugs and what ever else. I know how Tricia is adamant about receiving money from us but if she did it this way by "merchandising" I think it is more than justified for all the websleuths has done!
Im IN!!!!!

 

[polis]

I copied the following from another website to explain some of the legal bits involved:

Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend against a defamation lawsuit. If you don't feel like being on the frontier of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense. Add on these concepts:

Avoid the impression of malice.

Actua

State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.

All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, judgmental ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy – getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism – but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.

What defamation is not.
Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.

Quoted from here in case anyone wants to read more on this:
http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel.shtml

Free info btw so I ain't breaking any copyright laws.

Actually it's not libel if you're giving your opinion such as, I think Tricia was too soft on the mom that I believe is protecting her lying daughter who is allegedly involved with her disappearance.

 

[Macushla]

Personally, I don't think Cindy is spending her time trolling the internet looking for people who say bad things about the family. On the other hand, Casey isn't doing much of anything lately - and this is something she could do while she is at JB's office and they take a 'break' from working on the timeline that is going to be part of the defense's game plan. I mean, what else does she have to do?

 

[polis]

Not really. If I say "In my opinion, person X robs banks" it's NOT an opinion because whether or not the person robs banks can be proven true or false.

Here is a good reference, but be aware that just adding the words "in my opinion" to a statement does NOT make that statement an opinion!

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Actually in the example i gave, i didn't use in my opinion and what i said would be okay nonetheless though.

Study more on the law.

 

[Waddles]

I missed this thread yesterday. I read it with interest today. Tricia has good things coming her way because she has given to other unselfishly. Good people reap good things. What you put out is what you get back. In her case she will be blessed beyond her wildest beliefs just because of all the random kindness she does.

I want to let Cindy and others like her know that you can never do anything about what people say about you or your family. No matter how much damage control you try to do or how many lawsuits you threaten with people are going to talk.

What you can do is life your life well, treating people with respect and kindness and overlooking offenses. When you live your life this way you teach a better sermon with your life then with your lips.

The slanderous lies people tell about others are silenced by just being a good person.

I once counseled a woman whose family had been accused of terrible things and most of them were true. I told her to turn the other cheek. Hold her head up high and forgive them. She began to do that and it turned her situation around.

Uncontrolled actions and tongues fuel gossip. Ignoring the things said and doing what is right turns things around.

Curiositycat, your words really touched me, I've always pushed on like this as I learned from my parents' own actions, it's sometimes hard to do the right thing faced with some tough people but your words inspire me to just keep at it

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

 

[Macushla]

Don't know who first came up with the idea of T shirts, coffee mugs, etc. But that should really be it's own thread - and I think a whole big bunch of us would be interested in accquiring 'licensed WS products'

 

[krimekat]

Personally, I don't think Cindy is spending her time trolling the internet looking for people who say bad things about the family. On the other hand, Casey isn't doing much of anything lately - and this is something she could do while she is at JB's office and they take a 'break' from working on the timeline that is going to be part of the defense's game plan. I mean, what else does she have to do?

A WS poster claims to have been in email contact with Cindy & notified her of this site . . . Tricia explains in the original post.