Columbia Pacific happenings

I assume that you meant to say that to be a complete defense to libel the statement must be true and relevant. It's an interesting point. I wonder if such a case has ever been tested where the statement was true but irrelevant?

In any case, the 'kook' was claiming a Ph.D. in almost every post he made so it would seem easy to prove the topic relevant.

I still get a chuckle thinking about him publicly using this argument about the truth not being a defense to libel at the same time that he was claiming his Ph.D. from a Bear's Guide degree mill was perfectly bona fide.

 

Actually, John, that Bureau employee was Dr. Betty Dowd, and she DID testify at the appeal trial for CPU, that she was told by deputy director Shiela Hawkins, that they were going after CPU.
The testimony plus a copy of the original court transcript are to be found at
http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/dow.html

But CPU lost the case anyway.
Earon

 

Re: Re: Re: Columbia Pacific happenings

North, I'm very impressed that you have taken some time to read some of the things that I have unearthed about that whole CPU vs. CPPVE process.

I think that this suit, should it ever make it into court, and the overall effort should be of interest to readers here because it a consumer-based effort, based on the perspective of consumers, those who are stuck with degrees that the government previously declared as legitimate, and even equivalent to regionally accredited for some years.

At the moment the "suit" consists of an organizing effort by one CPU alum, Guy Wells. Wells is collecting names of alumni who are interested in forming the basis of the civil suit against the CPPVE.
He is also working with two others in the effort, Roger Geronimo and Rosemary Fecteau.

The suit, should it ever occur, is 100% alumni driven, and has no direct relationship with the former CPU.

The whole process that occurred with CPPVE vs CPU neglected the voice of CPU's alumni. There are thousands of consumers affected by that whole process, and we are talking about degrees that were state approved. CPU's graduates, going all the way back to 1978, have been tainted by the whole mess, even though the BPPVE says that CPU degrees prior to July, 1997 are approved, legal and valid.

I do not know specifically what the grounds are for the suit, and I understand that Guy Wells has an attorney who won a CPU related case for him against Florida some years back.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Directions for Signing Up for the Alumni Civil Lawsuit

Any CPU alumni reading this can contact Guy at
[email protected]

When you contact Guy, do the following:


Write "CPU Alumni Lawsuit" in the subject heading. Provide only your name address, phone number, degree earned and date of graduation.


Do not send any money yet! We are ballparking a fee of $100 per alum for legal costs to get started. Guy will let you know when that is necessary.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's all the information I have at this point, but as I get more I am certainly willing to share it here.
Earon

 

The Student Tuition Recovery Fund provides a vehicle for insuring students get the refunds they are due from closed schools. And yes, this “insurance” only applies to California residents.

But any student, anywhere in the world, is entitled to rescind the enrollment contract if the school is not in compliance with the California Education Code. However, for students residing outside of California, the state will not issue the refund. The student must file a civil lawsuit. Class actions are permitted. Hence my caution to Dr. Carr.

 

Dr. Bear,

Wait a minute. Are you saying that, if I got into libel law, I could charge THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS ($385.00) for each and every HOUR???

Heck, I could work, let's see, ten hours a week and STILL double my income!

SHOOT! Who cares about liberty and justice? LIBEL is the way to GO!

Nosborne, JD
(Whose WHOLE LIFE just passed before his eyes!)

 

For $385 per hour, I believe you should have gotten a better explanation.

I know of no U.S. jurisdiction where truth is not a complete defense to defamation (slander or libel). Where the statement involves a matter of public concern, such a diploma mills, the plaintiff has to bear the burden of proving that the statement is false.

However, truth may not be a defense to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires “extreme” and “outrageous” conduct by a defendant causing “severe” emotional distress. In discussing “less than wonderful schools,” I wouldn’t lose any sleep over tort liability.

 

Mr. Boyd:

Are YOU getting $385.00/hour? I wish I was!

I agree with your tort analysis. Here in New Mexico, we also have a tort called "Unintentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", by which they mean "negligent". I don't think it would apply here, however.

Nosborne, JD
(Who would sue, sue, SUE for that kind of money...well, maybe not.)

 

Very interesting, so I guess when public speaking it might be a bad idea to viciously attack and ridicule an ugly person sitting up front? I guess that I'm going to have to come up with a different approach to break the ice.

 

I think that the issue would be whether you were malicious in your actions and whether the person suffered MEASURABLE damages as a result of your conduct.

Nosborne, JD

 

Unless you yourself are the ugly person.

 

The company I worked for about 15 years ago retained a government contract law specialist who charged $500.00 per hour (and billed by the minute). In this instance my company really got it's moneysworth.

 

I think David Boyd is right. Perhaps your attorney got his degree at BACD as well.

There is no standard in libel claims that the information be "relevant". Relevant to what? A verifiable fact is a verifiable fact and able to be stated, printed or otherwise published without risk.

Perhaps the specific circumstance of your discussion with this attorney, or the suit or claim, merited some discussion of relevance.

Any newspaper can print a public or otherwise verifiable truth. The example you gave is very common in American politics. No injury can be claimed because a newspaper reports a truth that is 30 years old.

Just take any recent example:

Clinton's drug use; Bush's drug use; J. Bush's daughter's drug use; ad infinitum.

Libel is, simply (or not so simply):

a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt (from: http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/)

Falsehood is the key to libel. Not relevance.

Hamish

 

Dear Hamish

Perhaps you think you're being clever. I think you're being insulting to one of the finer lawyers on the planet. Sheldon Greene. 20 years with Cesar Chavez, then 20 years in private practice.

People interested in a disturbing aspect of libel might want to gaze at the September/October issue of "Poets & Writers" -- not on line -- where there is an article entitled "The chill of false light"

It deals with what the author (Norah Booth) calls "a recent trend in defamation law: the increase in lawsuits based on the little-known concept of "false light/invasion of privacy."

She writes that "For a finding of full-fledged defamation, the law requires that any damage to reputation be verifiable, and also inflicted with "malice" or "flagrant disregard of the truth." But a finding of "false light" requires only that untrue statements be "highly offensive to one's sensibilities."

Among other cases, Ms. Booth describes one "brought by survivors of a sea captain who was portrayed as egotistical and irresponsible in the book and film 'The Perfect Storm'" thereby causing psychological distress to his descendants.

She says that false light laws have been on the books for more than 100 years, but are coming into play mor and more, and there are no clear precedents.