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.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-212.htm


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.  

ADDENDUM

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)

Dear XXXXX

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:
http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Innocence_Proof_of_Perjury.php
http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Tsunami_of_Errors.php
http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Monkey_Business_2.php



In addition,  I  snipped off several excerpts and posted them as a collection at:
http://jodiariastrialtruth.blogspot.com/2014/07/libel-defamation-and-other-myths.html

-------------------------------------------END--------------------------------------------

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?