Saturday, July 26, 2014

Libel, Defamation, and Other Myths

In the Jodi Arias trial,  all kinds of wild theories have been presented by her supporters that are not based on medical fact. When challenged,  the claimant insists those theories are true. When medical fact is shared to prove why they are not, which in turn points out the lack of medical knowledge per the claimant,  he cries "defamation"  and threats to sue.

It appears  some people do not understand the difference between discrediting someone via use of relevant facts and what it means to defame a person.  Defamation can be either unintentional or malicious,  and a person does not want to be charged with the later. Through using multiple examples,  this article will show what malicious defamation looks like and discuss legal ramifications.

Richard Speights once posted in response to an error I made about defamation.  He stated that online defamation is not slander,  it is libel. He continued with his comment to imply that I did not know my medical fact, using my unrelated mistake as support.   However,  it appears his statement was only a petty libelous attack.   If we examine his statement and the fact he made the same mistake in using the word slander for libel,  we can see this.  Richard has admitted to reading an article that I wrote prior to his implication.  The article used the correct term to categorize written defamation,  which indicates  Mr. Speights had knowledge that I have an understanding of the difference between libel and slander.  Thus,  the implication can be considered to be malicious in nature, especially when his actions are looked at as a whole.

The bottom statement is Speights's statement.  It was obtained from a letter he has shared on his site addressed to Governor Brewer. 

Rich Speights has made other libelous comments towards me as well.

Speights's use of the word 'certain'  indicates that he is stating the doctor wanted to move away from this discussion because the discussion was unfounded.  This implies that the doctor found my question to not be worthy to discuss, which in turn,  implies that I do not have medical education or knowledge.  It is a very harmful claim for Speights to assert against any person within my profession.  It's another example of an attempt to defame.

Speights is implying in this paragraph that I do not know the difference between imply/infer.  He uses that claim and spelling errors to imply that I do not know medical terminology and have a lack of understanding of pathophysiology.  It's a dangerous legal path for the man to take.

This last statement of his can get him in big legal trouble. I suggest that he take more care with others that may not be so passive to the wild accusations of an emotional man.   He is asserting that I have an equally limited medical knowledge in regards to my noted errors in writing (which was a failure to edit and not a lack of knowledge).  Grammatical errors related to my negligence to go back and edit my articles have no correlation to my medical knowledge.   These four statements made by Speights are ones that he cannot support via evidence to show them to be true.  Thus, they fall in the classification of defamation.  He claims the act of defamation on my part, but since my statements were backed by examples and proof,  his claims will always fall short.

What Speights has neglected to consider in his defamation charges is when making a claim, there must be relevant proof that the claim is not true.    If there are examples of relevant proof provided which show the claim is true,  then it is not considered defamation.  Providing medical facts and links which suggest Speights lacks medical understanding shows the statement is true,  and thus, not libelous in nature.   In addition,  providing evidence that multiple pictures presented as evidence were altered and the reader was not informed is not defamation neither.

I  informed Mr. Speights of his multiple medical errors to which he responded by attacking, trying to ridicule, and encouraging others to avoid me via his implication I lacked medical knowledge.   However,  his claim was only malicious with intent to harm as evidenced by his actions in accepting what I told him and correcting the mistakes I pointed out to him.

His initial vessel statement:
You saw the statement with your own eyes,  both on my site and his.
His revised  vessel statement:

His actions indicate that he has an awareness that I do know, and am correct in my medical knowledge of A+P.

Furthermore,  his actions of correcting his own poor vocabulary after I informed him of his mistakes,  makes it clear that he knows I have an understanding of vocabulary:

Richard Speights's revision:

Finally,  his actions of correcting his grammar mistakes I informed him of show he is aware I have an understanding and am able to write in a grammatically correct manner.  I do not have a snip,  but a whole page of copied and past excerpts from his article support the fact the error was there.
Richard Speights's revision: 

Richard Speights's actions indicate that he is aware that what he implies is not true, it is a lie.  A man who believes a woman is spilling "ignorance into cyberspace"  does not take corrections for the woman. 

 Speights's actions are of a libelous nature with malicious intent.  That is criminal in Montana.

More evidence of Speights's libelous actions:

Once again,  Speights has demonstrated his tendency for defamation with the statement " it is clear she has spent her life studying hardly anything more specific than the back of her eyelids."    He has little evidence to support his statement and one look into my educational background and professional career will show he is quite wrong.  In fact,  if I wanted to play his game,  I could have a very strong libel suit against him.  As could Dr. Horn. 

If we review Mr. Speights's next blog,  Monkey business,  we can see his libelous actions continue.
His statement above is meant to imply a lack of medical knowledge on my part.  However,  he fails to offer evidence to support his claim because he does not have any.   In doing so,  he has committed yet another act of defamation and has entered into malicious intent.

He continues on with his libelous implications with the following statement:

Used in the context with the subject of his article,  Speights is implying that I have not spent the time in studies to support the medical knowledge I share.  A very harmful and untrue allegation.   Such an allegation can be considered to pose a threat to a person in my chosen career field.   Bad move on his part.  As is his next statement:

This statement implies that I have a lack of medical knowledge based ONLY on a failure to  proofread and edit my articles.   Such a statement is laughable and can never support his claim if he were to be sued for libel.   The evidence to support a statement must be RELEVANT to the statement,  which his is not.   His reasoning is just not logical.  He is dead wrong, and this is clearly demonstrated by the proofreading and editing I have done.  Now, if his claim is that I was hasty and careless only with grammar and vocabulary in presenting my blog  because I did not take the time to edit it for error,  he would be correct.  However,     that action says nothing about the knowledge I possess and the validity of it,  making Speights walking a narrow legal path when he writes such thing.  He attempts to negate the years I have spent in studying in the realm of higher education and over 16 years in practice.

Now,  in the next snip,  it's nice to see that Dr. Grammar went back to fix his own failed attempt at proper grammar.  He no longer uses the wrong form "write"  for "writer",  nor does he use a semicolon incorrectly.   I am at a loss though as to why he does not show this change by noting that the article was edited after writing it. Nonetheless,  his changing of the information goes to show that he,  a man claiming grammatical ignorance on the part of another,  had to be alerted by the other about the mistake in order to change it.  My article "Speights Needs an Editor.... a Comedy of Errors"   has multiple copied and pasted excerpts from the article.  If you have doubt his mistake existed, ask yourself which would be quicker and easier for me to do.  To copy and paste all those excerpts from his page or to go back and forth between two pages and transcribe them?

Maybe I should not have been so nice to make Speights aware of the irony of the paragraph.  Based on his own grammar,  it's a laughable and ironic thing to read..

Anyhow,  the paragraph is just another example of libel in Speights's article that he has so generously posted a link to all over this blog.  Pitiful mistake on his part to post such a libelous piece of writing so many times.  It shows that the clear intent was to defame me in a libelous way and can only serve as the final needed bit of evidence to seal his financial fate, and perhaps his freedom as well.   In doing so,  he has moved into the offense of defamation with malicious intent.

Further evidence that he has made some severe libelous comments without the relevant proof to support them.

Through an examination of  his libelous statements and  his empty threats to sue others,  it can lead a person to belief that Mr. Speights does not have a clear understanding of the law in regards to defamation.     I strongly suggest that prior to filing a lawsuit to charge another with libel Mr. Speights shares his own two essays about me with his "lawyer". And while he is at it,  he should include those written about Dr. Horn as well.   It  would be in Speights's best interest, or he may find himself in a very embarrassing situation once faced with a counterclaim for defamation with malicious intent.   Perhaps his "lawyer"  can point out the fact it is only defamation when not true.

Mr. Speights has no defense to a libel charge if I get the desire to file.     For it not to be libel, his statements have to be true; the fact my editing shows my knowledge of proper grammar  does not even give him his weak 'bad grammar'  defense.  My degree and over 16 years of practice in my field prove him wrong. And when he posts links to his libelous articles in many different areas,  his ship is sunk.  Poor, poor Mr. Speights.

His over-posting of his link along with his irrelevant attack on my medical knowledge via grammar mistakes show that his intent was malicious in nature,  and not the actions of someone that just was ignorant to their actions.  These actions are termed 'malicious defamation'  and are very worthy of a monetary fine and criminal charges against the offender.  Not all states have criminal defamation laws on the books. However, Montana does.

Due to his own actions,  the man has no chance of mitigating circumstances by claiming unintentional defamation.   He has posted on multiple sites and made multiple comments that I lack medical knowledge and education,  and he has done so without the evidence to support it

More examples of Speights's acts of malicious defemation:

This one is not directed towards me,  but towards someone else.  Speights implies that the person is a drunk, which is a very libelous statement to make on a public forum.

For clarification,  what Rich is referring to is the fact that I pointed out his advice to others on cutting off their own callus is a dangerous act which all doctors state to not do.  I pointed out  it was a foolish act, and people should not listen to him.  The only way that statement can affect  his business is if his business is to cause harm to others, and that is not legal.  One cannot sue for compensation if their hands are dirty, they are suing in regards to an act that is illegal.  That would be like a cocaine dealer suing a client for not paying him.  

I hope that after reading this article,  Rich will have a better understanding of what defamation is, along with the difference between unintentional and malicious.   If he continues his current practice of defaming others,  he may come across someone not quite as passive as I am.  


I am considering writing a letter to John Engen, Fred Van Valkenburg, and Steve Bullock.  (Mayor and DA of Missoula, MT and Governor of MT)


I am requesting that in accordance with Montana code, charges of criminal defamation be brought up against Richard Speights.  I ask on my behalf and in consideration of Dr. Kevin Horn, medical examiner of Maricopa county, Arizona.  In addition,  I do so in consideration of  Prosecutor Juan Martinez, Maricopa county, AZ.  

Richard Speights has shown his malicious intent by making false claims about Dr. Horn.  This libelous action can be noted in his online essay “Innocence: Proof of Perjury” by Richard Speights. The essay is in regards to the Jodi Arias trial and the evidence shared with the public.   In the essay, he offers no true proof for statements in which he claims that Dr. Horn lied.   Furthermore,  he implies that it was the prosecutor who facilitated the lies.

I have stood strong and wrote a rebuttal to Mr. Speights's  allegations.   In my rebuttal I have provided medical fact, links, and other evidence which show Mr. Speights's allegations are based on incorrect medical knowledge, the omission of pertinent evidence from the trial, and  the alteration of photographic evidence.

Mr. Speights has responded in a malicious manner.  He has made public statements and implied I am of lower education and do not know my medical facts.  A review of my background will show higher education and 16 years of current practice in my profession.

 One such statement made by Speights:
“ must have slept through every English class she attended, has an equally limited knowledge of human anatomy, physiology, and physics.”

As per noted in Montana law,  this statement falls in the realm of malicious libel and poses a threat to injure me in my occupation.  I am requesting legal recourse in both criminal and financial penalties.

For full information as to the ongoing defamation of Dr. Horn,  Juan Martinez, and myself, please read and view his blog pages at:

In addition,  I  snipped off several excerpts and posted them as a collection at:


Richard has yet to provide proof that I lack medical knowledge. Nor has he offered the proof to support his medical statements.    However,  I have offered several links which support my medical knowledge and show he lacks it.  In addition,  I have a collection of screenshots that show his original statements in which his lack of  medical knowledge can be detected.  He  can continue to correct his medical fact mistakes after I point them out all he wants.  They still will always exists in those screenshots.

I may even have to consider contacting the good people at Waddell and Magan who have written "written words and pictures are considered to be libelous" and "Libel is considered to happen when it is said to have been published."
 However,  what best caught my eye is "Libel is false and unprivileged publication by writing that:
1.  exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy; or
2.  causes him to be shunned or avoided; or
3.  has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. M.C.A. 27–1–802.

 45-8-212. Criminal defamation. (1) Defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person's or its business or occupation.
     (2) Whoever, with knowledge of its defamatory character, orally, in writing, or by any other means, including by electronic communication, as defined in 45-8-213, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 6 months in the county jail or a fine of not more than $500, or both.
     (3) Violation of subsection (2) is justified if:
     (a) the defamatory matter is true;
     (b) the communication is absolutely privileged;
     (c) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern;
     (d) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative, or other public or official proceedings; or
     (e) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with the purpose to further the interest or duty.
     (4) A person may not be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

     History: En. 94-8-111 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-8-111; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 230, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 395, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 344, L. 2003.

..........hmmmm.....    Mannie?  or Maney?  


  1. Wow. It is incredible all the words he posts and not ONE sentence about where your actual content is wrong. NOT ONE. All he can do is spew hyperbole and other nonsense, hoping that people will be distracted and not read your genuine work, that exposes his ignorance. A psychologist could have a field day with the amount of projection that is found inside his posts. Poor thing is just a sad, sad person -- extremely sensitive and insecure.

    Keep up the great work!!!

  2. I have added a little more to the article. So, how many people think I should send that letter out? Answer YAY or NAY below.

  3. BAM! Most excellent! I say "send it". I will send it as well. Send off a copy to the Gov. of Arizona & Dr. Horn. Include his pathetic petition. This crank has gotta go! Richard knows full well his report is a bunch of lies and fake medical info yet he's still trying to promote if you want to be a "writer"? Unbelievable!

    1. Government offices and attorneys are closed on Sundays.

  4. Notice how this particular nut makes blanket statements that have no validity to them. Such as "no one has read my report" & "I'm the only one that understands the medical facts" when it is painfully obvious that none of that is true. We all read his idiotic report and know he's full of shit.

    Speaking of full of it. Look at this crap he's trying to sell on e-bay:

  5. Look who I found promoting his junk while pretending it's not him back in 2013. "Observant Guy" for he not.

    1. I have to say that I am not 100% convinced that is Richard. Why? Because Richard's style of writing is filled with lots of imagery which can give the less observant an idea he knows of what he speaks. The statements made by "Observant guy" lacks that in their style of writing.

      However, "Observant guy" is just as wrong about the law as Rich is if he believes using speculation as to what happened during the knife fight is sufficient grounds of appeal.

    2. Could be right. A knife fight is grounds for an appeal? Since when since Travis had no knife nor a gun? Makes no sense. LMAO!

  6. Looks like the Grammar Gestapo and Editor Extraordinaire missed one of his own mistakes, as in "vial castigations". Surely, he meant vile?

    "Interestingly, none of the people slandering me online have read my report; they care to read only vial castigations against Arias—a modern lynch mob, cyber bloodlust. Nonetheless, justice demands men and women of good character rise in defense of the defenseless with calmness of spirit and objectivity of view."

    1. He has many vocabulary errors, Slim. Detour/deter, peal/peel, definitely/defiantly, to/too, it's/ its, vial/ vile, heel/heal, etc.
      Whereas it's an easy mistake to be made by anyone, making them warrants ridicule when that person uses another's carelessness with editing to imply they lack intelligence.

  7. Say what? He does not even makes sense with that idiotic statement. The defenseless was Travis. We are rising up for him! How come I followed the case and saw no lynch mob? He just makes shit up expecting people to buy into it. Of course he never gave that to any one who would actually matter in the case. Now I followed the case from the day she killed Travis and it wasn't online. I did not follow the trial on HLN, but chose a wiser direction of watching it live on the net. No commercials either! Now I read his dumb report as I've told him thousands of time. It has no validity to it whatsoever, just like all his other rants. Jodi has good character? Since when? Missed the facts much Richard? Why, yes you did because you think with your shriveled winki dink at all times. It will be a cold day in hell before anyone would believe a crank on the net and free Jodi. Oh wait, you did not give that trash to anyone on her team.

    1. I have to say agree that Arias did take a beating in the public eye, but would have to disagree about it being because of HLN. Nancy Grace annoys the hell out of a lot of people; many of those people are ones that feel Arias is guilty. Pretty sure that they are not doing it because Nancy Grace said so.
      I, like you Pinky, watched the trial commercially free. It was not online, but via recording it through Direct TV. I fast-forwarded through the annoying commentary and commercials, thus did not experience the HLN opinion until after the verdict. I went into the trial with an open mind and slowly made the determination of guilt after considering all the evidence separately, and as a whole.
      I believe that Arias received a beating in the public eye because of her own actions. People are angry at the heinous nature of the crime she committed. However, it is her attempt to insult the public's intelligence with her unsupported and poorly constructed lies. People do not like it when someone does that. And, when she had the audacity to use something as horrible as pedophilia to support those lies, it only added fuel to the fire. Lies about pedophilia only serve to harm the fight to protect our children against incidences of abuse. Finally, too many of the men and women out there that have suffered true abuse, Arias's unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims are a direct insult and belittle their experiences. Those are the actions that brought on the hate seen for this woman, not a news site or social media calling her names. The news sites and social media are only scapegoats for Jodi to escape blame -- as were Jodi's mother, her father, Bobby, Matt, the prosecutor, and Travis. It's an example of narcissism at its best.

    2. Spot on! Jodi is her own worse enemy. Jodi gave multiple interviews where she lied her fugly face off. People hate that! She deserves the hate directed towards her. Now it's going to get worse for her. Thank Jason Weber for that who is trying to scam people out of money to line his own pockets. Even her followers are turning on each other.

  8. Since I don't believe RS has good character because anyone who does knows she's a vicious killer & psychopath. What is good character to Dick? Let's see. Jodi, growing pot on her roof, beating up her mother, smashing her brother with a bat, tortured/abused her dog & cat, drooping out of school to shack up with an older boyfriend, never able to keep a job, skips out on mortgage payments after she dumped Daryl for Travis, stalked Travis, hacked into his accounts, lured him with kinky sex, harassed his other girlfriends, slashed his tires twice, tried to move by him after he broke up with her, she had no job, she planned his killing but before she did, she had sex with him. She stabbed him 29 times, slit his throat & shot him in the head after she cornered him in the shower, she lied multiple times about the killing, committed big time perjury on the stand, forged letters, made up sick lies about Travis, tried to get matt to lie for her...etc.


    1. I'm looking for the "Like" button, lol

    2. I forgot to mention what a whore she was/is. She used men with sex. That was her history. Who goes to sleep with another man you barely know right after you slaughtered your ex-bf? Jodi

  9. Miss Deb,

    I don't know what to tell you love. I guess you'll have to weigh the cost, and go from there. I'm somewhat stunned that this whole event is even happening.

  10. The blame lies solely with Richard Speights. Deb, I thought you might find this interesting. It's in regards to finding if one were in the military or not.

    1. Thank you! That is a valuable link!

    2. The folks at that site are really nice too. I will have an article up really soon about Speights's military service and why it's unlikely what he alleges to have happened is suspcious. Also, I have received his alleged DD214 form and I will show why the information on the form as compared to his SF claims shows deception.

    3. Squirrel mama, you will like the article because I think it's right up the alley of VNN. Feel free to borrow bits and pieces if you would like.

    4. Ms Pesky --- here is the article. Hope you like it because I know there is a personal nature for you.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.