Marchiondo v. Brown is the case upon which the Jury Instruction cited by Judge Hall are based.
Marchiondo contains key statements contravened by Judge Hall when he dismissed my defamation case saying that the newspaper piece was opinion:
* No Constitutional value in false statements of fact. page 400
* False statements of fact are unprotected ( I’m reading Sack to see how to say that it was the falsity that hurt me and my reputation, which it did. 1/11/04) page 400
* Recognizes “strong and legitimate interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation”… page 402
* Punitive Damages are Recoverableif knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth can be shown. page 403
* Calls for legal remedy for defamatory falsehood injurious to the reputation of a private individual. page 403
* Defamatory Falsehood is not protected. page 404
* Full Disclosure is required for absolute privilege. page 404
* No Constitutional value in false statements of fact.
* False statements of fact are unprotected ( I’m just reading Sack now, and beginning to see how to say that it was the falsity that hurt me and my reputation, which it did. 1/11/04)
* Recognizes “strong and legitimate interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation”…
* Punitive Damages are Recoverable if knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth can be shown.
* Calls for legal remedy for defamatory falsehood injurious to the reputation of a private individual.
* Defamatory Falsehood is not protected.
* Full Disclosure is required for absolute privilege.