The Response

[UOFLfan7]

To the OP:

I truly hope that you don't go through with contacting a lawyer and attempting to sue any members here for nothing more than voicing their opinions, most of which they have backed up with some very convicting evidence. Now, I assume that if you were to file a lawsuit that it would be a defamation lawsuit. Allow me to explain something about that lawsuit, not only is it one of the hardest lawsuits to prove, but it almost always cost the person who files the lawsuit more than it costs the person he is filing it again.

Defamation, despite what many people think, is not just using somebody's name is a bad/wrong manner without their consent or permission. It also can't be files in cases of opinions...for example, if I were to say Leon was a no-good, lying, cheating, wife-stealing, nerd, (Just an example Leon, not my actual opinions on you haha!) he couldn't file a defamation lawsuit against me as those statements are entirely my opinions and I am entitles to whatever opinion I want to have. Now if I were to make a statement such as, Leon stole three-thousand dollars from Wells Fargo...he is defiantly not to be trusted (wants again, just an example), then he would have a legit case unless I had concrete proof to prove me statement. However, even in that case, it would be a hard lawsuit to win as Leon would have to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that not only was my statement false...but that is also hurt his reputation, self-esteem, business, and in some way effected his life negatively. Now, I do not believe you are a public figure (I could be wrong as I personally don't know you), and I'm going to assume you are a private individual which does give you one advantage if you were to file a defamation lawsuit. You would not have to prove that the person who defamed you acted with malice, whereas a public official would have to. However, with that being said, I do not advise you to think that it means it would be easy for you to file a defamation lawsuit as it absolutely does not.

So with all that being said, you sir do not have any case here at all based on what I have seen. You can contact your lawyer, however I would advise against it as you would be wasting your own time and your own money. I am not going to judge whether or not you are in the wrong here, but I do, once again, advise that you take no action against any member here on this forum. Also, if you think you have a different lawsuit, you are misguided in your thinking. The only lawsuit you could even attempt to claim, based on your complaints, is a defamation lawsuit and once again, it would be near impossible for you to walk away from that with a win.

Now, to back up all that I have said, here is the condensed version of the legal definition of Defamation:

Defamation:
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).

Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.

Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.

If that is a bit too hard for you to understand, here is a simpler definition with less detail.

Defamation (of character)
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

Once again, to the OP, I make no judgement on whether or not you have disgraced this hobby, editing and trimming cards, erasing pencil marks, schilling, etc. Just giving you legal advice.

I would also like to apologize to Leon, as well as to the other forum members, for the rather long, drawn out post, but I felt the need to post this as the OP's threat to contact an attorney worried me a bit. Nobody here wants to waste their time and money dealing with a pointless lawsuit that would benefit neither party involved.

[Leon]

UOFLfan7- I don't mind if you say all that stuff but you need to have your full first and last name in the post. (or edit out your comments)....thanks

and I should add that there are 2-3 other board members that will have their names put in their posts in this thread, by tomorrow morning, if they don't do it themselves. Otherwise they can edit their comments out. No harm no foul....

[UOFLfan7]

Originally Posted by Leon

UOFLfan7- I don't mind if you say all that stuff but you need to have your full first and last name in the post. (or edit out your comments)....thanks

and I should add that there are 2-3 other board members that will have their names put in their posts in this thread, by tomorrow morning, if they don't do it themselves. Otherwise they can edit their comments out. No harm no foul....

Done

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. Probably top 3.

[npa589]

Originally Posted by calvindog

One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. Probably top 3.

Though not my favorite Hitchcock film, I always thought The Rope was terrific and overlooked with regard to his many other masterpieces. If only Joe would offer an additional response to tighten how apropos that movie title would be for this situation...

[thehoodedcoder]

Since there is not going to be another response from this person maybe now it is time to start taking some action against what has happened?

How much is an advertising spot on this forum? Can we put up a banner ad?

A simple banner saying "Josepth Pankiewicz alters cards and resubmits them for higher grades" would be sufficient.

Kevin

[DanP]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

Since there is not going to be another response from this person maybe now it is time to start taking some action against what has happened?

How much is an advertising spot on this forum? Can we put up a banner ad?

A simple banner saying "Josepth Pankiewicz alters cards and resubmits them for higher grades" would be sufficient.

Kevin

Great idea. I'll chip in...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DanP

Great idea. I'll chip in...

Don't get any ideas ....that banner ad won't make it up on this board. I understand the sentiment though.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

No extra charge Peter. You get all of that and more!!

[Leon]

To the OPs statement, it left a lot to be desired.

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by Leon

To the OPs statement, it left a lot to be desired.

It is an admission of guilt, at this point.

Kevin

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Leon

To the OPs statement, it left a lot to be desired.

He did confirm that his name was Joe.

[Sean1125]

We are only at 13,000 views.

[bobbyw8469]

I love this thread!! It has such a Lebron James feel to it!

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Leon

To the OPs statement, it left a lot to be desired.

Re-reading the OP, here is something else that I find rather perplexing:

"Rick Probstein deserves an apology from whoever accused Rick of being in cahoots with me for me to buy an undergraded card and resell it through him after regrading".

Why would anyone have to apologize to Rick if the OP was doing nothing wrong in the first place?