Submitted by YouAreADadJoke t3_10py2lz in baltimore
sxswnxnw t1_j6mxr5v wrote
Of course he is. People countersue all the time.
Paral3lC0smos t1_j6myxzr wrote
Sorry for appearing ignorant, but is this (or does it appear to be) a legit counter suit, or is it some sort of tactic to settle at mediation out of court? I guess, I don’t understand how does it make sense to counter sue if someone is suing you 🤔
frolicndetour t1_j6n3wxy wrote
No, this doesn't appear to be a legitimate countersuit. Statements made in pleadings or court are usually exempt from defamation claims because then literally everyone sued or charged with a crime would sue for defamation. It's not even a useful tactic for mediation because the counterclaim will immediately get thrown out.
Counterclaims make sense sometimes but this isn't it.
HorsieJuice t1_j6nj36p wrote
I understood the article to say that he's claiming defamation due to statements they made in the press.
YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n54fj wrote
Do you have legal training? Have you read the court documents? If not, how are you so sure of your opinion?
frolicndetour t1_j6n8rzd wrote
I've been a lawyer for 20 years and regardless of what the pleadings say, there is absolute privilege against defamation in court proceedings.
KingBooRadley t1_j6nh5i6 wrote
As we learned in law school, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Thanks for this bold reminder.
YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6nnnvr wrote
This is from the article:
"Consequently, Lanham argues that Connolly and Mott knowingly engaged in a media campaign to spread false and defamatory statements about him and failed to disclose material facts that would have cast doubt on their accusations. Lanham argues they did so with actual malice—that is, with “knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.”"
frolicndetour t1_j6nuft9 wrote
Fair, statements to the media would not be protected, although I'd have to read the articles. I've read some and the majority seem to be quoting the complaint, which would still be covered by the court protection. They also included the opinions of the homeowners; opinions are not defamation. Calling someone racist is generally held to be an opinion. If they made a statement of fact in the media that is false, then the counterclaim may have legs.
YouAreADadJoke OP t1_j6n0e6s wrote
Sounds like your mind is already made up on the subject. Did you bother to read the article?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments