General Category > Unsecret Lives of Walter Mitty

The Strange case of John Giduck

(1/2) > >>

Hock:
This guy got some attention from his Breslin book/study. Yet insiders in special forces have lots of problems with him....

http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=107621

http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=107006

http://thetruthaboutsocnetlies.wordpress.com/category/john-giduck-milking-taxpayers/

http://thetruthaboutsocnetlies.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/john-giduck-is-not-a-member-of-the-special-operations-association/

Kentbob:
This just in!

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30958

Hock:
The strange case continues
http://guardianofvalor.com/john-giduck-files-lawsuit-against-socnet-and-soldier-who-outed-him-as-a-phony/

Hock:
I gather that this case filed in Colorado by Giduck has been dismissed.

"...The law has long recognized the tension between the law of defamation and basic guarantees of free expression. Thus, for example, even patently defamatory statements concerning public officials and public figures are privileged under the First Amendment unless
they are accompanied by “actual malice” defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 370 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967).
It is this tension that has generated numerous cases addressing the first element of a defamation action, i.e. is the statement defamatory. Not every untrue, uncomplimentary or offensive statement concerning an individual is defamatory. Indeed, the law is settled in
Colorado that the “mere use of foul, abusive, or vituperative language does not constitute defamation.” 7A Colo. Prac., Personal Injury Torts and Insurance § 32.2 (2d ed.), citing Bucher v. Roberts, 198 Colo. 1, 595 P.2d 239 (1979). Expressions of opinion, as distinguished from assertions of fact, are generally not actionable since “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 784 (1974). Such statements may be (and in practice almost always are) constitutionally privileged in order to safeguard the vigor and candor of public discourse. “Weighed against the individual’s right to be free from false and defamatory assertions . . . is society’s interest in encouraging and fostering vigorous public debate.” Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293. 1298..."

I also gather that Giduck is responsible for the legal fees of the many SOC people that he sued.

Hock

JimH:
It seems all charges against all SOCNET members are now dropped.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/03/john-giduck-loses-part-of-his-slapp-suit-against-socnet/

It is hard to believe someone that KNOWINGLY makes false claims,especially to make money off of said false claims,would try to sue those who called him/her out as a fake.
To me it was just to cause those who outted the fake to have to spend money to defend their assertions that the alleged fake was /is a fake.
I am glad that in this case the Judge apparently made the alleged fraud pay legal fees.
Too bad the court could not also order the alleged fraud to stop using the false information to make a profit,and post retractions to those claims.

I wonder if those who hire/hired a Fake,due to false claims the fake knowingly made,(who now know they were ripped off),have the right to sue the fake for return of funds ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version