Thread: Your going to love this one.

You'll get some from me too. Get a good lawyer Minutemen!! Cream these pigs!!
Show the country this is who these people really are, racists in hiding, transferring blame on everyone else.
My brother told me that in his humble opinion, he hears these Hsipanic groups go on and on against Americans, he said it is just jealousy. America is a free nation that has been prosperous and the citizens have banned together politically and nationally to use the nations resources. He said few other countries have accomplished that in the short time we have, while still maintaining a free society. Certainly it seems, none of the "Latin" countries have come near what Americans have accomplished. Thats their real problem (Freud called it "penis" envy!!!).

I think we need to start a website:

"WeAreTraitors.com"

Include not only LULAC, but also LaRaza, MALDEF, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, John McCain, etc.

Originally Posted by Charlesoakisland

Originally Posted by Scubayons

Originally Posted by Charlesoakisland

I'll chip in for the lawyer to sue. I'll bet there are a lot of others here that will do the same.

Yeah i will too.

I have already started sending a note to each of there sponsers.

In Light of what I have Found out about Ford Motor Company. I will not buy another Ford product until. The Ford Motor Company stops Sponsoring LULAC. The have started a new web site.
http://www.weareracists.com/
Which is the most racist web site I have seen? I assure you. That every American Citizen is in the process of finding out what you are supporting. Just Remember Ford Motors is Sponsoring this site also.

Do you want to send a note to the folks with Herndon Minutemen ?

Done did a little while ago.

not that I'm not against this Latin group for doing what they did, but is it really illegal for a group like that to post a website with folks in public prostesting and then labeling them, racist?

How many times have politicians gone after one another and called each other this or that, but how many get sued?

just curious as to how this falls under a illegal act on this group's part.

please educate me ;0

Originally Posted by Truism

not that I'm not against this Latin group for doing what they did, but is it really illegal for a group like that to post a website with folks in public prostesting and then labeling them, racist?
How many times have politicians gone after one another and called each other this or that, but how many get sued?
just curious as to how this falls under a illegal act on this group's part.
please educate me ;0

I'm confused too. Its all 'free speech', right? So you really cant sue for slander, right?

"In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of publishing (meaning to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation. "Defamation" is the term generally used internationally, and is accordingly used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander

There is a difference between Free Speech and attacking people personally. Labeling them a racist and posting their images is what is slander and lible.

Definitions of slander on the Web:

* words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
* aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
* defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. "Defamation" is however the generally-used term internationally, and is accordingly used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander

* Verbal or spoken defamation.
www.canadianlawsite.com/Dictionary_S.htm

* The oral utterance or spreading of a falsehood harmful to another's reputation.
www.oneilandco.com/insurnce/trmnolgy.htm

* Slander is oral defamation, untrue words said aloud as opposed to written down.
www.iciclesoftware.com/vlh7/VLH7Glossary.html

* is a separate charge from libel; it is a false and unprivileged verbal statement which does not originate in print.
www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

* False and defamatory spoken words tending to harm another’s reputation, business, or means of livelihood. Slander is spoken defamation; libel is published.
courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/

* the use of spoken words to harm someone's reputation.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/S.html

* Anything spoken about an individual that is false and malicious that ridicules them or damages their reputation.
www.usaaedfoundation.org/insurance/ins_ ... ossary.asp

* Untrue spoken statement which damages someone’s character.
www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm

* Oral defamation by speaking or uttering false and malicious words in the presence of a person, other than the person slandered, which prejudices another person’s reputation and character.
www5.aaos.org/oko/vb/online_pubs/professional_liability/glossary.cfm

* Oral defamation of the reputation or character of a person, which could be the basis for a lawsuit.
www.peakagents.ca/glossary/s14.htm

Need more?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm

SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.

The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Written or printed slanders are libels.

Here it is proposed to treat of verbal slander only, which may be considered with reference to, 1st. The nature of the accusation. 2d. The falsity of the charge. 3d. The mode of publication. 4th. The occasion; and 5th. The malice or motive of the slander.

Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages. Words of the first description must impute: - 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable. - 2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable. - 3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies. - 4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity or a clergyman of being a drunkard; Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim. Action upon the case for Defamation but it lies if maliciously spoken. The charge must be false; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. The slander must, of course, be published, that is communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be prove except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. SLANDERER - A calumniator, who maliciously and without reason imputes a crime or fault to another, of which he is innocent. For this offence, when the slander is merely verbal, the remedy is an action on the case for damages; when it is reduced to writing or printing, it is a libel.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l032.htm

LIBEL - Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander.

Criminal Law. A malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing or by signs or pictures, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with intent to provoke the living; or the reputation of one who is alive and to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. It has been defined perhaps with more precision to be a censorious or ridiculous writing, picture or sign, made with a malicious or mischievous intent.

In briefly considering this offence, we will inquire: 1. By what mode of expression a libel may be conveyed; 2. Of what kind of defamation it must consist; 3. How plainly it must be expressed; 4. What mode of publication is essential.

The reduction of the slanderous matter to writing or printing, is the most usual mode of conveying it. The exhibition of a picture, intimating that which in print would be libelous, is equally criminal. Fixing a gallows at a man's door, burning him in effigy or exhibiting him in any ignominious manner, is a libel.

There is perhaps no branch of the law which is so difficult to reduce to exact principles or to compress within a small compass as the requisites of a libel. All publications denying the Christian religion to be true; all writings subversive of morality and tending to inflame the passions by indecent language, are indictable at common law. In order to constitute a libel, it is not necessary that anything criminal should be imputed to the party injured; it is enough if the writer has exhibited him in a ludicrous point of view; has pointed him out as an object of ridicule or disgust; has, in short, done that which has a natural tendency to excite him to revenge.

The case of Villars v. Monsley was grounded upon the following verses which were held to be libelous, namely: 'Old-Villers, so strong of brimstone you smell... As if not long since you had got out of hell... But this damnable smell I no longer can bear. Therefore I desire you would come no more here; You, old stinking, old nasty, old itchy, old toad... If you come any more you shall pay for your board... You'll therefore take this as a warning from me and never enter the doors, while they belong to J. P. Wilncot, December 4, 1767.'

Libels against the memory of the dead which have a tendency to create a breach of the peace by inciting the friends and relatives of the deceased to avenge the insult of the fanlily, render their authors liable to legal animadversion.

If the matter be understood as scandalous and is calculated to excite ridicule or abhorrence against the party intended, it is libelous, however it may be expressed.

The malicious reading of a libel to one or more persons, it being for sale on the shelves in a bookstore; and where the defendant directed the libel to be printed, took away some and left others; these several acts have been held to be publications. The sale of each copy, where several copies have been sold, is a distinct publication and a fresh offence.

The publication must be malicious; evidence of the malice may be either express or implied. Express proof is not necessary for where a man publishes a writing which on the face of it is libelous, the law presumes he does so from that malicious intention which constitutes the offence and it is unnecessary for the prosecution to prove any circumstance from which malice may be inferred. But no allegation, however false and malicious, contained in answers to interrogatories, in affidavits duly made or any other proceedings, in courts of justice or petitions to the legislature, are indictable. It is no defence that the matter published is part of a document printed by order of the house of commons.

The publisher of a libel is liable to be punished criminally by indictment or is subject to an action on the case by the party grieved. Both remedies may be pursued at the same time.

Practice. A libel has been defined to be 'the plaintiff's petition or allegation, made and exhibited in a judicial process, with some solemnity of law;' it is also, said to be 'a short and well ordered writing, setting forth in a clear manner, as well to the judge as to the defendant, the plaintiff's or accuser's intention in judgment.' It is a written statement by a plaintiff, of his cause of action and of the relief he seeks to obtain in a suit.

The libel should be a narrative, specious, clear, direct, certain, not general, nor alternative. It should contain, substantially, the following requisites: 1. The name, description and addition of the plaintiff, who makes his demand by bringing his action; 2 The name, description and addition of the defendant; 3. The name of the judge with a respectful designation of his office and court; 4. The thing or relief, general or special, which is demanded in the suit; 5. The grounds upon which the suit is founded.

The form of a libel is either simple or articulate. The simple form is, when the cause of action is stated in a continuous narration, when the cause of action can be briefly set forth. The articulate form is when the cause of action is stated in distinct allegations or articles. The material facts should be stated in distinct articles in the libel, with as much exactness and attention to times and circumstances as in a declaration at common law. Pompous diction and strong epithets are out of place in a legal paper designed to obtain the admission of the opposite party of the averments it contains or to lay before the court the facts which the actor will prove.
--b--

IN !

Gosh, they sure aren't very good photographers are they. What lousy quality photos.

Yeah, I hope someone sues their tails off.

All you would get out of these buffoons would be an apology. As members of the loser left, they likely have no assets to speak of.

It's the old red herring. If you can't win an argument, label your opponent a racist thereby effectively changing the subject. Works all the time.