KCRag Forum

moderne wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 5:32 pm What's the crowd estimate under the canopy in KCLive?

moderne wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 2:44 pm Thanks to the MAGA POTUS any sort of lies are OK nowadays.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 2:57 pm

moderne wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 2:44 pm Thanks to the MAGA POTUS any sort of lies are OK nowadays.

Not to get political, but I don't think that's true. Did he come up with the Russia Collusion stuff or was that the democrats? Biden just lied about the documents in his possession being classified a week ago.

Let's not pretend political figures (who are often protected from legal action) lying is exclusive to one side.

Regardless, I'm talking about a private citizen trying to imply that a well respected developer defrauded the tax payers.

It seems she could be sued based on the laws.

1. False Statement: The statement made must be false. True statements, no matter how damaging, are not considered slander.
2. Public Communication: The false statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it's about. It can't be a private conversation.
3. Harm to Reputation: The statement must have caused harm to the person’s reputation. This could be loss of work, personal harm, or other damages.
4. Negligence or Malice: The person who made the statement must have either known it was false (acted with malice) or acted negligently in failing to determine its truthfulness.
5.No Privileged Communication: Some statements are protected under privileged communication, such as those in courtrooms or made during legislative debates.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:20 pm So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:20 pm So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

taxi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:44 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

You are a nitwit. Sue me.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:57 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:20 pm So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:13 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:57 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

Seems like a text book case of defamation. It's a private citizen, accusing a private company of illegal activity that could in fact cause damage. Agree it's not worth it, but she's only hurting her cause.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:57 pm

DColeKC wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:37 pm

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:20 pm So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:28 pm Again, not quite how it works. I can provide case law if you are all super bored and want to read, but it's a Saturday night and I recommend only reading it if you're getting paid lawyer wages to read it.

WoodDraw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 7:27 pm I don't think you'd even get that far in this case, but yes, like I said earlier, there are no damages.

She said the magic words, "in my opinion." Opinions on disclosed facts are not defamatory. So you'd have to prove her numbers are wrong and show actual malice.

Even then she'd have a defense that she was just talking and any reasonable audience would understand they were hyperbole.

It would be a nonsense case.