Quote:
Originally Posted by Dro B
Aren't you an attorney Lucille? I remember somebody once looked into your background suspecting you were and discovered that you were? I'm not into stalking so I'm not gonna bother but either way I agree, a real lawer would have used different terminology, and would've said they'd ad fauna to the lawsuit if they found enough probobly cause to do so. Implying that fauna is party to a crime when there's no proof of such non-sense would give fauna grounds to sue him for libel and slander especially if that accusation would've been made publicly, and any lawer would know not to put things in such stupid terms and wording.
|
Well, I'm not an attorney. But I can tell you that slandering has to be verbal. This would only be considered libel, and it has to be false. Since all of it is true, there is no grounds. He would also have to prove a tangible loss to his business.
I find it highly amusing that he stated previously he was above all of this, but secretly reached out to Rich to try and have it removed. People try to throw these words around to sound smart. I do not doubt his intelligence, as I do believe his history indicates that he was a real estate mogul once upon a time, and that is where he made his money.
I have no doubt that he is well versed in the language of legalese, and how to present a good case on its face. But that is really a scare tactic.