On 27/08/2004 20:37, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:
...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.
...
So, Mr. Peter Kirk--where is the libel? And what does Rohl's assertion
thathe 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'teven 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".
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 shouldbe 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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.