Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/08/2004 20:37, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:

> ...
>
>  
>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > So, Mr. Peter Kirk--where is the libel?  And what does Rohl's assertion 
> > >      
> > that 
> >    
> >
> > > he has actually found a statue of Joseph have to do with Manetho?  Also, I 
> > > suggest you give up "lawyering" as your previous posts have shown that you 
> > >      
> > don't 
> >    
> >
> > > even know the difference between civil and criminal law.  
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Now you are libelling *me* in a public forum.
> >    
>
> No.  I am not.  Because when I wrote about "setting precedents" in a previous 
> post, you replied with an example of someone being shot or stabbed or 
> something.  For that, the defendant would be involved in a criminal case, in which 
> caselaw and precedents do not apply--only the facts of the case matter.  The 
> sole exception to this is a "wrongful death" lawsuit--which is a civil matter and 
> can be brought even when the defendant in a criminal action is judged "not 
> guilty".
>
>  
Well, thanks for the explanation. First let me explain that I am a 
British citizen and English law on these matters is not identical to 
American. But the whole point of my posting about law (although I didn't 
use the terms) was to say that a historical matter is not like a civil 
law matter as you suggested, in which the court decides based on 
precedents etc, but like a criminal law matter in which the court 
attempts to find the facts - and, even if the court makes a mistake, the 
facts are still the facts.

> You might find yourself > needing a lawyer yourself.
>
> Or you--if you continue to publicly assert that I am libeling anybody.  If 
> you publicly accuse someone of that, you had better make sure that it is the 
> truth.
>
> You have no idea whether or not I have > qualifications in law. You should 
>  
>
> > be careful before making such a statement publicly about someone who for all 
> > you know might be a  practising libel lawyer who would certainly see what you 
> > write as a 
> > libel against himself. Such things could get very expensive for you.
> >    
>
> LOL!  Your previous post about the law would have tipped off anyone who knows 
> anything about it that you are no "practising libel lawyer".  And the one I 
> am replying to erases all doubt entirely.  If you are no lawyer, as you state 
> below, no claim by anyone that you don't know the law could ever be construed 
> as libel by a court of law.  Period.  Because you would in no way suffer 
> damages by such a claim.
>
>  
Well, you may be right. But you didn't know I was not a lawyer, until I 
said so in my PS. You show either ignorance of the law or recklessness 
in publicly accusing people you know almost nothing about of ignorance 
when in fact you have misunderstood the facts.

> > > > Meanwhile, Marianne, I haven't noticed many question marks in your 
> > > > recent postings, just quite a lot of statements like "definitely" and 
> > > > "No doubt about it".
> > > >        
>
> Did you make certain of the facts before you wrote that?  My assertion is 
> that you did not--and that it is a gross exaggeration. 
>
>  
I copied and pasted these two quotations from one of your postings.

> ...
>
> But I agree with you that the moderators ought to intervene, to > 
>  
>
> > stop list members libelling either reputable scholars like David Rohl or 
> > other list members.
> >    
>
> Or threatening them--as you have done me.  I am going to give you some good 
> advice:  calm yourself now and think twice about replying to any of my 
> posts--unless you can do so in a scholarly and gentlemanly fashion.  I am a student of 
> the law.  And don't at this point need a lawyer for anything.
>  

And I know the law better than you seem to think.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/