Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • June 26, 2017, 04:30:21 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: The Strange case of John Giduck  (Read 5756 times)

Kentbob

  • JOAT
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 2111
  • Sound the horn and call the cry
    • Antrim Self-Protection
Re: The Strange case of John Giduck
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2012, 11:39:31 PM »

Logged
"Specialization is for insects."-Robert A. Heinlein

http://antrimmasp.blogspot.com/

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6373
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: The Strange case of John Giduck
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2012, 07:10:20 PM »

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
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 10:06:13 AM by Hock »
Logged

JimH

  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
Re: The Strange case of John Giduck
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2012, 09:10:15 AM »

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 ?

Logged

Kentbob

  • JOAT
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 2111
  • Sound the horn and call the cry
    • Antrim Self-Protection
Re: The Strange case of John Giduck
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2012, 09:33:41 AM »

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 ?

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I have no problem believing it.  The guy is a douchebag looking to make a buck anyway he can, in no way different from JW.  I'm actually more surprised that a judge threw out the suit, and very thankful that he did so.  Maybe there is some justice to be found in the legal system after all.

Kent
Logged
"Specialization is for insects."-Robert A. Heinlein

http://antrimmasp.blogspot.com/

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6373
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: The Strange case of John Giduck
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2016, 06:16:51 PM »

The results of these lawsuits...(what was he thinking!?)
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/posts/10151422446985665

 

Download