After winning an unprecedented jury verdict for damages in 2006 ($11.3M), the defendant attempted to have her judgment set aside. It was strongly denied not only by the judge, but also in the Court of Appeals she lost again.
So for 2009 - the collections process will start. Although the defendant has continually states she is a victim of Hurricane Katrina - which prevented her from her legal obligations, this is not 100% truthful. Yes, she may be from the New Orleans are, but she sold her house in LA (court proven documents) about a month prior Katrina. Furthermore, she attended at least 2 depositions with her attorney's after Katrina.
Read more.
Remember free speech is still here, but it won't condone defamation!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Dozier Internet Law: $11.3 Million Sue Scheff Defamation Judgment Confirmed on Appeal
Dozier Internet Law is constantly battling the scofflaws of the web. On the one hand, the Internet as a whole opens up the world to everyone. On the other hand, it opens up the world to, well...to everyone. Defamation laws and related judicial interpretations evolved historically at a time, and in an environment, in which there were inherent protections that served as a filter of sorts. Today those protections are lost to the ability to distribute attacks to millions overnight. Want to physically picket a business? You have to invest time and disclose your identity if you are going to coordinate and show up at a business. Want to print and distribute flyers, or take out an advertisement or run a commercial? Expensive, of course. And newspapers and television wouldn't print, even as ads or commercials, alot of the outrageous claims and statements being readily distributed online.Once in a while, Dozier Internet Law sees comments encouraging such illegality from what might seem to be credible sources. But the application and interpretation of laws dealing with disparagement and defamation and other lawlessness will eventually catch up with the online scofflaws, and defending misconduct by claiming you saw a blog by a lawyer saying it was legal is not a defense.
On October 15, 2008 the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida just rejected an appeal from the Defendant and confirmed a JURY judgment on behalf of Susan Scheff in the sum of $11.3 Million, of which $5 Million was for punitive damages (on behalf of Susan Scheff and her very small business), against an individual who took it upon herself to publish allegedly defamatory statements online.
Read the plaintiff's comments by Sue Scheff about "free speech".Online defamation and product disparagement is a huge issue, of course, and businesses are under attack. This judgment is just another example of the legal system catching up with online misconduct. And instead of a real attempt to establish standards and self police and self regulate, one blogger organization has started selling insurance to bloggers. It strikes me that insurance coverage is a wonderful thing for the businesses under attack.
At Dozier Internet Law we hear from dozens of victims of online blog attacks each week, it seems. The possibility of insurance coverage is great. Online defamation promises to be a growth industry for trial lawyers. Another example, I surmise, of an unanticipated and unintended consequence...but this time of mammoth proportions.
On October 15, 2008 the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida just rejected an appeal from the Defendant and confirmed a JURY judgment on behalf of Susan Scheff in the sum of $11.3 Million, of which $5 Million was for punitive damages (on behalf of Susan Scheff and her very small business), against an individual who took it upon herself to publish allegedly defamatory statements online.
Read the plaintiff's comments by Sue Scheff about "free speech".Online defamation and product disparagement is a huge issue, of course, and businesses are under attack. This judgment is just another example of the legal system catching up with online misconduct. And instead of a real attempt to establish standards and self police and self regulate, one blogger organization has started selling insurance to bloggers. It strikes me that insurance coverage is a wonderful thing for the businesses under attack.
At Dozier Internet Law we hear from dozens of victims of online blog attacks each week, it seems. The possibility of insurance coverage is great. Online defamation promises to be a growth industry for trial lawyers. Another example, I surmise, of an unanticipated and unintended consequence...but this time of mammoth proportions.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Sue Scheff - Victorious Again - $11.3M Jury Verdict Stands Firm
Back in September 2006, I was awarded over $11.3M jury verdict for damages. They were defamatory and false statements about my organization, myself and my family.
I fought back, and won! The defendant attempted to have the judgment set aside - although she was firmly denied in July 2007, she filed an appeal.
Today, it is official - she loses again in the appellate court, and the $11.3M judgment stands firm!
Free speech is still in tact, but it will not condone defamation.
Remember, think before your post - sometimes keystrokes can be costly!
I fought back, and won! The defendant attempted to have the judgment set aside - although she was firmly denied in July 2007, she filed an appeal.
Today, it is official - she loses again in the appellate court, and the $11.3M judgment stands firm!
Free speech is still in tact, but it will not condone defamation.
Remember, think before your post - sometimes keystrokes can be costly!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Free Speech vs Internet Defamation - Caution - it could be costly!
Read through this Blog and you will see that free speech is still in place but it will not condone defamation.
Blogging is fun, the Internet can be educational - but remember, what you post today can come back to haunt you tomorrow. And could be costly to you!
Bloggers Test the Limit of free speech: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS/809140333
Blogging is fun, the Internet can be educational - but remember, what you post today can come back to haunt you tomorrow. And could be costly to you!
Bloggers Test the Limit of free speech: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080914/NEWS/809140333
Friday, August 15, 2008
The INTERNET -Is it being used as a WEAPON?
Since winning my unprecedented lawsuit in September 2006 - with a jury verdict for damages done to my family, my organization and myself - over $11M - I am contacted on a daily basis from other victims of Internet Harassment, Abuse, Slander and Defamation.
This is a growing problem with today's expanding Cyberspace and more and more businesses being rated online. It has been stated that many time that many clients, when they seen negative posts on someone or a business, will usually not take the time to find out if it is Internet Gossip or fact.
I have heard from small business owners who have filed bankruptcy, struggling professionals that had one client or former employee take revenge with the keypad, as well as potential job applicants not getting a job after a firm did an Online Search. This is becoming a serious problem and needs to be addressed.
For those that believe that free speech will condone defamation, think twice - and read about my case. This is not about free speech - this is about people intentionally and maliciously destroying others with a few keystrokes in what is being called E-Venge.
I continue to answer as many emails as I can hoping to give others the support in the fact they are not alone.
This is a growing problem with today's expanding Cyberspace and more and more businesses being rated online. It has been stated that many time that many clients, when they seen negative posts on someone or a business, will usually not take the time to find out if it is Internet Gossip or fact.
I have heard from small business owners who have filed bankruptcy, struggling professionals that had one client or former employee take revenge with the keypad, as well as potential job applicants not getting a job after a firm did an Online Search. This is becoming a serious problem and needs to be addressed.
For those that believe that free speech will condone defamation, think twice - and read about my case. This is not about free speech - this is about people intentionally and maliciously destroying others with a few keystrokes in what is being called E-Venge.
I continue to answer as many emails as I can hoping to give others the support in the fact they are not alone.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Internet Defamation Can Be Costly
Since winning my unprecedented lawsuit in September 2006 - with a jury verdict for damages done to my family, my organization and myself - over $11M - I am contacted on a daily basis from other victims of Internet Harassment, Abuse, Slander and Defamation.
This is a growing problem with today's expanding Cyberspace and more and more businesses being rated online. It has been stated that many time that many clients, when they seen negative posts on someone or a business, will usually not take the time to find out if it is Internet Gossip or fact.
I have heard from small business owners who have filed bankruptcy, struggling professionals that had one client or former employee take revenge with the keypad, as well as potential job applicants not getting a job after a firm did an Online Search. This is becoming a serious problem and needs to be addressed.
For those that believe that free speech will condone defamation, think twice - and read about my case. This is not about free speech - this is about people intentionally and maliciously destroying others with a few keystrokes in what is being called E-Venge.
I continue to answer as many emails as I can hoping to give others the support in the fact they are not alone.
This is a growing problem with today's expanding Cyberspace and more and more businesses being rated online. It has been stated that many time that many clients, when they seen negative posts on someone or a business, will usually not take the time to find out if it is Internet Gossip or fact.
I have heard from small business owners who have filed bankruptcy, struggling professionals that had one client or former employee take revenge with the keypad, as well as potential job applicants not getting a job after a firm did an Online Search. This is becoming a serious problem and needs to be addressed.
For those that believe that free speech will condone defamation, think twice - and read about my case. This is not about free speech - this is about people intentionally and maliciously destroying others with a few keystrokes in what is being called E-Venge.
I continue to answer as many emails as I can hoping to give others the support in the fact they are not alone.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Sue Scheff: The Web is Not Anonymous
My case and the unprecedented jury verdict for damages of over $11M has gained national and international attention. There are more and more people now fighting back against Cyberbullying and Internet Harassment.Take a moment to find out more about Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy.
Read More about how The Web is Not Anonymous by Dozier Internet Law:
Dozier Internet Law: The Web is Not Anonymous
Dozier Internet Law chases a lot of scofflaws. Sometimes the subject matter is copyright infringement, sometimes trademark infringement, often hacking and defamation. A reporter interviewing me last week was surprised to learn that individuals posting information online were not entitled to absolute anonymity and was surprised that you could subpoena information to identify the source of the publication of defamatory information in the airline industry. That got me to thinking a little about the knowledge base of most netizens.
Yes, you can be identified.For every instance in which Public Citizen wins a case preventing the disclosure of the identity, I suspect they turn down dozens of cases they know they can't win. There is no absolute right to privacy or anonymity online. Identities are disclosed everyday in litigation through a process called "discovery". And most people leave pretty good tracks.
If the plaintiff is obviously going to lose the case, the courts won't let the plaintiff use discovery to identify a defendant. But if the case is arguably valid, there is no problem with issuing extensive and far ranging discovery to locate and identify a defendant. And it is a process used often by lawyers, but an issue not publicized by the extreme left wingers very often. That way, each "victory" they claim sounds significant. But most, frankly, are irrelevant or at least not significant.
At Dozier Internet Law we go after these anonymous types often, and with great success. Rarely does Public Citizen get involved. When they do, their involvement is an anomaly. We don't publicize all of the cases in which we are identifying, through discovery, anonymous scofflaws, but from the volume of press release type emails and blog entries flowing from Public Citizen, I can understand this reporter's misunderstanding.
Read More about how The Web is Not Anonymous by Dozier Internet Law:
Dozier Internet Law: The Web is Not Anonymous
Dozier Internet Law chases a lot of scofflaws. Sometimes the subject matter is copyright infringement, sometimes trademark infringement, often hacking and defamation. A reporter interviewing me last week was surprised to learn that individuals posting information online were not entitled to absolute anonymity and was surprised that you could subpoena information to identify the source of the publication of defamatory information in the airline industry. That got me to thinking a little about the knowledge base of most netizens.
Yes, you can be identified.For every instance in which Public Citizen wins a case preventing the disclosure of the identity, I suspect they turn down dozens of cases they know they can't win. There is no absolute right to privacy or anonymity online. Identities are disclosed everyday in litigation through a process called "discovery". And most people leave pretty good tracks.
If the plaintiff is obviously going to lose the case, the courts won't let the plaintiff use discovery to identify a defendant. But if the case is arguably valid, there is no problem with issuing extensive and far ranging discovery to locate and identify a defendant. And it is a process used often by lawyers, but an issue not publicized by the extreme left wingers very often. That way, each "victory" they claim sounds significant. But most, frankly, are irrelevant or at least not significant.
At Dozier Internet Law we go after these anonymous types often, and with great success. Rarely does Public Citizen get involved. When they do, their involvement is an anomaly. We don't publicize all of the cases in which we are identifying, through discovery, anonymous scofflaws, but from the volume of press release type emails and blog entries flowing from Public Citizen, I can understand this reporter's misunderstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
