The Latest Step In Fighting Crime At Reptiles Shows!!

Those alleged crimanals were from Tampa and Sal's in Boca Raton. It's not stealing if you're in different codes LOL! Just kidding LMAO.

Gotta poof read better.

First things first:

Wes - do you remember my warning?

If either one of you makes a comment about the other in any other thread, including inferences, veiled references, or innuendos that are plain to ME as being in violation of this *request*, or if either one of you emails me about the other, the one making a violation of this *request* will be suspended and fined.

I was NOT kidding.

Neil - Here's an email I got from you:

Rich.... since March 22, when you sent that thread about our feud to the "Hell" section, I haven't mentioned Wes' name ONCE since that time (except on THAT thread).... now, if you want to fine me the $10 for writing this to you, go ahead, but this is getting totally rediculous.... since you told both of us not to mention each others' names in ANY other thread except the one in Hell, EVERY TIME I post anything on any thread, in ANY section, here comes Wes again to berate me.... when are you going to live up to your promise (threat) and do something about him??.... Even when he DOES say something about me, I NEVER answer it in any fashion.... and that's not only on the BOI.... look at the GBD, GBS, and a couple of other sections.... he just won't leave me alone??.... Will you PLEASE get him to get off my back....
I know a lot of people have told you about him and his antics since your threat, yet you haven't done a thing to stop it.... why??.... Can't you see what he's doing to your site??
Again, if you want to fine me for saying this, that's ok, I'll pay it, but I just can't take it any more.... will you PLEASE help me with this??
Neil

You were also warned about this.

BOTH of you are suspended and fined.

As for this thread in general, it does not belong on the BOI. As soon as I can figure out where it is best placed at, it will then be moved there.

As for Tony Cueto's site, I wish him well, but I am not inclined to actively support it.

Because anyone can sue anyone for any reason, I agree that this is a lawsuit waiting to be filed. However, I would like to point out one bit of information regarding the legal presumption of innocence on the part of the accused.

Basically, it applies only to the government. The police, DA, court system, and penal system all presume a person innocent until proven guilty. That is the Constitutional tenent handed down to us from our Founders.

The general population, however, has no such requirement, and the court of public opinion is not at all bound to presume anything about the accused. I have no problem saying that Lizzie Borden really did kill her father and step-mother, even though she was found not-guilty in a court of law. Likewise, I think OJ did it, and for me to call him a double-murderer is completely acceptable. I'm also fairly certain that Lacey Peterson was killed by her husband. I don't have to wait for a verdict to call him a criminal.

Criminals are those who commit crimes, not simply those who get convicted for that behavior. We need to leave the presumption of innocence in the courts of law where it is applicable.

As for the question of a lible charge being brought to fruition in this instance, I think, from a layman's point of view, that you would have a hard time proving lible in this instance. As my understanding currently is (and that can be wrong, certainly), one is only guitly of lible if he:

a) Makes false statements

b) Knows they are false when they were made

c) Inteded to make the false statements for the purpose of doing some sort of harm to those involved

I cannot see that any of that is applicable here. To prove the statements false requires that those posted show they did NOT steal at these shows. Tough to prove a negative, especially when there had to have been SOME evidence of guilty for an arrest to have been made. Also, there is no way to prove that Toney Cueto KNEW these people were innocent of theft in any way ... again, they were arrested, after all. Finally, it seems to me that the PURPOSE of the site is to warn other shows about POTENTIAL losses. I don't see where there is an expressed statement of vengeance intending to do harm to those listed here. Merely a warning set forth in a tightly-knit community of herpers of possible trouble down the line. The BOI does the same thing every day.

Anyway, that's my take on the issue...

IMMV

The BOI objectively describes a set of circumstances ie 'Person X received a snake from me and did not pay for it'. This is a far cry from labelling someone a criminal. And, when you call someone a criminal when they have not been convicted, you are in fact knowingly making a false statement about them because in fact for the purposes of libel they are innocent until proven a criminal. And if you do it in an arena like this you are in fact intentionally harming them because you are ruining their good name. The BOI does not label, it provides objective descriptions of events from which the reader is permitted to draw his or her own conclusions.

The BOI IMHO could never support a libel charge but this new site can and I am sure will draw such charges.

Lucille,

This thread may be moved, and I am not at all certain that I care to search for it, once it is, but could maybe cite any referrences for the statements you made above? Especially when you said, " ... when you call someone a criminal when they have not been convicted, you are in fact knowingly making a false statement about them because in fact for the purposes of libel they are innocent until proven a criminal." I would be very interested to see where the laws of any State support such an interpretation of the concept of "libel" as a legal doctrine.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on this, but I believe you are incorrect in your assessment. If I am, however, the one in error, I would really appreciate seeing some source cited for your position being accurate.

Further, while Rich has insulated himself from libel suits, due to his specified TOS in relation to this site, I think it is a bit naive to suggest, "And if you do it in an arena like this you are in fact intentionally harming them because you are ruining their good name. The BOI does not label, it provides objective descriptions of events from which the reader is permitted to draw his or her own conclusions."

The WHOLE POINT of using the "Bad Guy"/"Good Guy" system on the BOI is a system of labelling people, based upon the opinions of those who have posted above them. Too many times, there have been those who have posted here screaming about this Bad Guy or that one, only to find out that the party was falsely accused, sometimes with contrived "evidences." Are those instances of libel? Maybe, but there is no way anyone is going to be successful in bringing such a suit simply because they were publically declared a crook. Private citizens ARE NOT bound by the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty."

The First Amendment allows me to say whatever I want about a person so long as it is not FALSE, KNOWN to be FALSE, and INTENDED to harm someone. I again assert that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove any of those three portions of a libel claim, and (as I understand the law) ALL THREE of them must be proven before libel is discovered.

You know, after I asked for citations from Lucille on this, I realized I had not offered any either. That's not fair, so I went to look to see if my understandings were correct. They were, and they were not.

The dictionary section of Law.com state about "Libel:"

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

According to this extensive definition, the burden of proof for libel is:

a) The statement must be untrue

b) It must be harmful to the individual in some way

c) Proof that the statement is untrue is required

Where I was mixed up was in thinking about the stricter definitions of libel that are applied when one makes a statement about a public figure. Therein, malicious intent is required for libel to be found. It is not required in a private issue of libel, but proof of malicious intent can increase the punative damages, according to the definition above.

Even so, because proving that these people did not steal is next to impossible, given the facts fo the cases against them, I still see no way in which the site could be found libel. I do agree though, as I already stated, that a lawsuit could certainly be brought. I just don't think it would be fruitful.

Darin, the BOI labels are based on personal and immediate experience. This site described on the original post labels someone a criminal, using hearsay to establish guilt, causing damage to their name, and reckless disregard for the truth. If you read newspaper articles, if the paper is talking about a person who has been arrested for something or other they may describe a person as an ALLEGED thief or an ALLEGED robber or so on. You will never see them label someone who has been arrested but not tried as a criminal.
How is this: I am willing to bet you a chocolate milkshake that within 30 days this new site will have a libel suit served on it.

Well, I don't bet, but that would be silly of me to take you up on that, even if I did. I agree that it (the site) may well be a target for a libel suit. I could sue you (or anyone else) for libel against me, but it would be a suit without merit.

Let's just say this, if there is a suit brought, and the plaintiff is victorious in his/her efforts, then I'll be 100% shocked and proven wrong. You have my word that I'll come back here, singing YOUR praises for your insights today! Fair enough???

I just knew it. A long hard week and no milk shake.........