Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Elections in and around Livonia; Letters from LPS legal department
Topic Started: Apr 16 2010, 12:58 PM (4,751 Views)
Sage
anonymous
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.ehow.com/list_6458620_defamation-character-laws-michigan.html

Defamation of Character Laws in Michigan

Contributor
By Christopher Herhalt, eHow Contributing Writer

Publishers are not fully responsible for defamatory articles published from a newswire service according to Michigan law.

The conditions surrounding defamation claims in Michigan are similar to those in most states, with three very notable exceptions. To be considered defamatory under Michigan law, a written statement must be false, it must be published to a third party without the plaintiff's consent, it must show negligence in factual accuracy and it must be harmful to the plaintiff or be able to lead to harm through the suggestion of harmful acts.

Unique Elements: Defamation Per Se

Michigan defamation law includes a provision for defamatory statements that are "false and imputes a criminal offense or lack of chastity." This special type of defamation is called "defamation per se" by Michigan law. Unlike similar provisions in other states, the Michigan "per se" section does not extend to those who claim their professional reputation or business have been defamed.

Who is a Public Figure or Official?

Michigan defamation law has a very specific definition for public figures and officials. It says that anyone whose job merits special scrutiny above and beyond the scrutiny expected of regular civil servants is a public official. A public figure is anyone who "by his accomplishments, fame or mode of living, or by adopting a calling" gives the public a valid interest in their activities. Members of the law enforcement community, prosecutors, municipal politicians, education trustees, city councilors and "prominent businessmen" have all been considered public officials or figures in Michigan defamation cases.

What is a Limited-Purpose Public Figure?

Michigan defamation law has special provisions for what is called a "limited-purpose public figure." This provision protects people who have been drawn into public scandals without their intention. An example is the spouse of an elected official who under this provision, becomes a public figure when information regarding marriage becomes part of a public discussion. The provision allows people drawn into to public scandals to be considered public figures if a related defamation case should arise. The complainant must then prove malice on the part of the defendant as a result.

Defenses

"Fair and true" reports about public proceedings are afforded "absolute privilege" and thus not liable in defamation cases. Reports that can be proven to be "substantially" true are also not liable for damages in defamation suits. News organizations are also not liable if the content of a story purchased from a wire service is defamatory, though they should not publish it if it is known to be false.

Changes in Awards for Damages

Recent changes have halted the awarding of damages for "hurt feelings" in Michigan defamation cases. As of 2007, plaintiffs can only win damages for the economic loss incurred by defamation. This includes lawyer's fees. There is a statute of limitations of one year on Michigan defamation suits.


Read more: Defamation of Character Laws in Michigan | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6458620_defamation-character-laws-michigan.html#ixzz0rS1YpmdM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sage
anonymous
[ *  *  * ]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(frwhrleunp4at045uc3ebxac))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-600-2911


REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961


600.2911 Action for libel or slander.

Sec. 2911.

(1) Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense.

(2)(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in actions based on libel or slander the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the actual damages which he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings.

(b) Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so, and proof of the publication or correction shall be admissible in evidence under a denial on the question of the good faith of the defendant, and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages. For libel based on a radio or television broadcast, the retraction shall be made in the same manner and at the same time of the day as the original libel; for libel based on a publication, the retraction shall be published in the same size type, in the same editions and as far as practicable, in substantially the same position as the original libel; and for other libel, the retraction shall be published or communicated in substantially the same manner as the original libel.

(3) If the defendant in any action for slander or libel gives notice in a justification that the words spoken or published were true, this notice shall not be of itself proof of the malice charged in the complaint though not sustained by the evidence. In an action for slander or for publishing or broadcasting a libel even though the defendant has pleaded or attempted to prove a justification he or she may prove mitigating circumstances including the sources of his or her information and the ground for his or her belief. Damages shall not be awarded in a libel action for the publication or broadcast of a fair and true report of matters of public record, a public and official proceeding, or of a governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, or for a heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the report. This privilege shall not apply to a libel which is contained in a matter added by a person concerned in the publication or contained in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, which was not a part of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body.

(4) A person against whom a judgment is recovered for damages arising out of the authorship or publication of a libel is entitled to recover contribution in a civil action from all persons who were originally jointly liable for the libel with the defendant or defendants, whether joined as defendants or not, to the same extent as and with the same effect that joint sureties are liable to contribute to each other in cases where they are sureties on the same contract. If the libel has been published in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication or by a radio or television broadcast, the servants and agents of the publisher or proprietor of the periodical or radio or television station or network, and the news agents and other persons who have been connected with the libel only by selling or distributing the publication containing the libel and who have not acted maliciously in selling or publishing the libel, shall not be required to contribute and shall not be taken into account in determining the amount that any joint tort feasor is required to contribute under the provisions of this section. If the author of the libel acted maliciously in composing or securing the printing or the publication of the libel and the printer, publisher, or distributor of the libel acted in good faith and without malice in printing and publishing the libel, the author of the libel is liable in a civil action to that printer, publisher, or distributor for the entire amount of the damages which are recovered against and paid by that printer, publisher, or distributor.

(5) In actions brought for the recovery of damages for libel in this state, it is competent for the defendant or defendants in the action to show in evidence upon the trial of the action that the plaintiff in the action has previously recovered a judgment for damages in an action for libel to the same or substantially the same purport or effect as the libel for the recovery of damages for which the action has been brought, or that the plaintiff in the action has previously brought an action for the libel or has received or agreed to receive compensation for the libel.

(6) An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving public officials or public figures unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.

(7) An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving a private individual unless the defamatory falsehood concerns the private individual and was published negligently. Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees.

(8) As used in this section, “libel” includes defamation by a radio or television broadcast.


History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 396, Eff. Jan. 1, 1989
Constitutionality: A communication is not constitutionally privileged if its subject involves a private person in the context of a matter of public interest. Rouch v Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 427 Mich 157; 398 NW2d 245 (1986).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Personally, I felt that the "required" retraction by the LPS attorneys brought light to a subject that was long forgotten about. Now, the discussion is out in the open again, and imo, the use of district money to to hire attorneys for a personal matter outside of LPS is an issue. Now, IMO, that is illegal, using public funds for a private issue. Now maybe someone has time to look that little "issue" up in the state and federal law books. ;)
Edited by George, Jun 20 2010, 11:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Micki
Jun 19 2010, 07:10 AM
I can understand why Lisa would have been upset. I would have as well. Many times this site gets very personal. For many it is hard to divorce oneself from mean spirited remarks and it taints this site as one of trouble making rather than trying to find real solutions to benefit all. That may not be everyone's intent, of course.

Also, Jim I think it is a good reminder that we can't hide behind screen names. If somebody wants to find out our identity they can.
Whether or not a certain LPS empolyee is "upset" or not, tax dollars, intended for educating children, should NOT be used to in this manner.

This letter writing campaign by Keller Thoma may also have assisted a certain employee with her divorce; since she only changed her name in the past couple of years, it is totally possible that the comments made by "Snoopy" were used against her in divorce proceedings.


LPS must really be watching LN. Maybe they will keep on reading? ....... they don't trust LN about half a much as we trust the district and this LPS administration!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Purple Haze
Veteran
LPS Reformer
Jun 20 2010, 09:40 PM
L GAGA
Jun 20 2010, 08:12 PM
Just maybe Lucy or Linus could help Keller Thoma out ?
Sorry.....Just couldn't resist :)
Posted Image
Sounds like the LPS central office people could use a little help. ;) ;)
watch it, Reformer - you may be implying that our school employees are several slices short of a sandwich... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Extra Olives
Veteran
cecelia
Jun 19 2010, 07:48 PM
LPS Reformer
Jun 19 2010, 01:16 PM
Actually, this site was around long before Randy's Legacy.

But you seem to miss the point. Randy decided to use "Snoopy's" comment as an excuse to put pressure on Jim Dawes, and and surpress comments on LN just as Steve was up for reelection.

Do you think Jim is responsible for every comment made here?

Should Jim give up your name if a lawyer had a problem with something you said?

And, our tax dollars are not for Randy to spend for the betterment of whichever employee he favors. Do all employees get free legal services? Or just those willing to watch Randy's back. Did Margaret Flower get this same benefit?
No, LPS reformer, I think you miss the point. Snoopy did something illegal.
What is illegal about what ****** said?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs.M
Veteran
Oh puhleeeze, the comments implied improprieties and were offensive. Nobody on this site is that naive.

LPSRef. "Do you think Jim is responsible for every comment made here?
The point is that Jim Dawes did nothing illegal. Yet, he was the one they went after
"

Jimid is the admiminstrator and he gets the letters. Jimid kept no secret as to his identity etc.

There are a whole lot of fictional names and contributors, check the member list.
Who do you think should have received the mailbox greeting? <<a rhetorical question.

I personally don't think these (law firm) letters were used (or intended) to affect an election. I would think LPS's claim of wanting transparency, openness and discussion, is true. However, the one unwritten and most important stipulation with that is, it needs to be on their turf.

Livonia Neighbors has become an avenue for criticism and accolades as well as comments from unhappy residents, parents, some students, to be voiced:
-without a time limit,
-without the blue request form,
-without having to smile for the camera etc.
-and without waiting a week or two for the next meeting.
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be WRONG.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Extra Olives
Veteran
Not being naive, Mrs. M. Just that there's a difference between inappropriate/offensive and illegal. Was the post offensive? Yes, it probably was to some. But, was it illegal? That I'm not so sure of.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Extra Olives
Jun 21 2010, 10:35 PM
Not being naive, Mrs. M. Just that there's a difference between inappropriate/offensive and illegal. Was the post offensive? Yes, it probably was to some. But, was it illegal? That I'm not so sure of.
If it was, they would have gotten a judge to issue a court order to release the ISP address.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Last night (after they cut the audio) Lynda said she was not going to allow an answer to be made regarding the cost of the lawyers being used againt Mr. Dawes. Interesting how those "technical difficulties" pop up when Lynda wants them to.
Edited by LPS Reformer, Jun 22 2010, 06:26 AM.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Administrator
Administrator
I am very interested in keeping this forum civil. I am not interested in lawsuits, and I do not think anyone is. My only motivation would be to once, and for all, be deposed, and state under oath my involvement with any particular group over the past years. It seems to be the only way to show that I personally look at all sides, and try to do what is best. Obviously, thats a double edged sword, and would open opportunities for discovery that go far beyond FOIA. I am sure those opportunities would be fully explored by any concerned party.

This is pretty simple folks. Don't make it personal and let the facts speak for themselves. Strong opinions are welcome. It's more about respect in my opinion. Respect is earned, and it takes two to have respect. Respect strong opinions, and listen to facts. Not just facts that back up your opinions. Thats where real solutions are found, and that is the point of this forum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
This_Is_Crazy
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
LPS Reformer
Jun 22 2010, 06:25 AM
Last night (after they cut the audio) Lynda said she was not going to allow an answer to be made regarding the cost of the lawyers being used againt Mr. Dawes. Interesting how those "technical difficulties" pop up when Lynda wants them to.
Lynda Scheel was totally out of order in saying that she was not going to allow an answer to the question of the cost of the attorneys in regards to the Abbey/Raymond thing. If a citizen FOIA's that data then they are required, under the law, to provide it. Where does she get off saying what she said. She is like a little dictator gone nuts. She is totally out of order and should be reprimanded or sanctioned for it.

Also, who cut the audio/video feed? This is beyond belief! The person responsible for this should be fired or kicked off the board. The whole episode is totally out of order!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Typical for this BOE President. She has to have it her way, and if it is not, she will make them alter it so that she may be perceived in a more positive light.

The question remains.... HOW MUCH MONEY CAME FROM THE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION FUND TO WRITE LETTERS REGARDING LIVONIA NEIGHBORS, AND THE IDENTITY OF ******?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Extra Olives
Veteran
This_Is_Crazy
Jun 23 2010, 06:45 AM
LPS Reformer
Jun 22 2010, 06:25 AM
Last night (after they cut the audio) Lynda said she was not going to allow an answer to be made regarding the cost of the lawyers being used againt Mr. Dawes. Interesting how those "technical difficulties" pop up when Lynda wants them to.
Lynda Scheel was totally out of order in saying that she was not going to allow an answer to the question of the cost of the attorneys in regards to the Abbey/Raymond thing. If a citizen FOIA's that data then they are required, under the law, to provide it. Where does she get off saying what she said. She is like a little dictator gone nuts. She is totally out of order and should be reprimanded or sanctioned for it.

Also, who cut the audio/video feed? This is beyond belief! The person responsible for this should be fired or kicked off the board. The whole episode is totally out of order!
It appeared to me that the audio was cut at Ms. Scheel's direction. Immediately before it fell silent, Ms. Scheel looked off camera and appeared to give some sort of direction. I'll have to watch it again to be sure, but that's what it looked like to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Just to clarify, the audio was turned down during my remarks, and turned back up once the next speaker came to the podium.

The total loss of sugnal came later, when a power line went down on 5 mile. Rather than ajourning the meeting, they held it upstairs in the dark.

Karen Smith from the Observer was present.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
By the way, apparently none of the higher ups at Keller Thoma wanted anything to do with this letter. The atty assigned was one of the more junior associates.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Here is the follow up to my question on how much of the taxpayers money was spent on the attorneys to attack Jim Dawes and Livonia Neighbors. Notice that twice the shut off the audio. The interesting thing is that most of what you miss is Lynda talking.

My favorite line was when she said "we have responded to your FOIAs, we have responded to your questions, we have responded to your letters, but we are finished responding to you, and won't ever respond again!"

That night, I sent in a FOIA for the money spent on this matter.

Edited by LPS Reformer, Jun 24 2010, 09:38 PM.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
You may notice that she has no problem with blunt speech, when she is the one using it.



“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ms. AK
Veteran
Cutting the sound is very distressing. Was there an "official" reason it was done?
Krome on Cars

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Administrator
Administrator
It is my understanding these letters were possibly subject to FOIA anyway. If someone were determined enough to get them.

I do not take this as a personal attack on myself, and Loyd Romick is in no way speaking for me. I am sure LPS understands that Loyd speaks for himself. Like it or not.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply