[Husker] Legal Matters

[Mark Landin]

>    That is very true.  But, you also have to prove damages by preponderance
> of the evidence.  Usually heartbreak, embarrassment, and humiliation is not
> enough because there is no way to put a price tag on that.  Usually you have
> to prove that you were damaged to the point of financial losses, scholarship
> losses, employment losses and that kind of thing.  And, as I have said the
> burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Can they indeed prove losses?  If
> they can then go for it.  Typically because the plaintiff is upset isn't
> enough.  Remember, when you get into court what one may logically think or
> feel may or may not be the law.

IANAL, but my understanding (listening to another discussion involving
some lawyers) is that since the libel in this case involves false
accusations of felonius behavior(s), this brings in the "per se"
assumption of defamation of character, which is actionable. I will
quote:

"First, there is very little doubt that the language used constitutes
libel per se. A false accusation of the commission of a crime is one
of the categories that is looked upon as so egregious, that the mere
statement itself is presumed to cause damages without the necessity of
proving damages."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I will also be interesting to see what actions may be taken against
the radio stations who reported the story without any verification.
They are probably safe unless somebody can show they published the
stories with malicious intent.

-- 
"If hard work were such a wonderful thing, you'd think rich people
would have kept it all for themselves" - Lane Kirkland