Arguments to defend

[I'mTheFather]

I did not post to this form before.

It's hard to believe there's more than one defamation case in Florida involving a daughter's computer.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/marriage-domestic-partnerships-other-family-law-matters-45/gifted-computer-608131.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/libel-slander-defamation-88/plaintiffs-threats-607625.html

 

[dodo3]

Thanks so much Quincy for your clarification and details (which you always does).

Thanks I'mTheFather for your research on previous postings in this forum.

 

[justalayman]

It's hard to believe there's more than one defamation case in Florida involving a daughter's computer.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/marriage-domestic-partnerships-other-family-law-matters-45/gifted-computer-608131.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/libel-slander-defamation-88/plaintiffs-threats-607625.html

from the second link:

I finally found an attorney. He is preparing the report. He cited the following rule
RULE 1.380. 4(e) Electronically Stored Information; Sanctions for Failure to Preserve. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

In the past I informed to Plaintiffs, when they sent interrogatories, that I tried my best to keep the information on the machine intact, while performing my (my daughter’s) work on that machine.

If it isn't the same guy, well, I cannot imagine it isn't.

 

[quincy]

Thanks so much Quincy for your clarification and details (which you always does).

Thanks I'mTheFather for your research on previous postings in this forum.

You're welcome, dodo3. And thank you for the thanks. We always appreciate them.

Good luck.

 

[dodo3]

Once more, many thanks.

I found that Plaintiff has no evidence except some circumstantial evidences: (i). someone from my home visited his website a day before the comments were posted on the blog, (ii). the language in those postings is “similar” to my language (non-native English), (iii). postings were made from a public place in the town where I live, etc. Absolutely, no other evidence.

At the same time, Plaintiff is not clean: (i). in the lawsuit, he accused me of posting all the comments but I have solid proof that I did not post at least one of the comments (ii). Plaintiff, after filing this lawsuit, has signed an affidavit to an internet provider, stating that he does not know the identity of the senders of some of those comments

Will his circumstantial evidence be enough for the Plaintiff to prove the requirements 1 and 3 of:
(1) whether the evidence ever existed,
(2) whether there was a duty to preserve that evidence, and
(3) whether the evidence was critical to the opposing party providing its affirmative claim or a defense.

 

[quincy]

Once more, many thanks.

I found that Plaintiff has no evidence except some circumstantial evidences: (i). someone from my home visited his website a day before the comments were posted on the blog, (ii). the language in those postings is “similar” to my language (non-native English), (iii). postings were made from a public place in the town where I live, etc. Absolutely, no other evidence.

At the same time, Plaintiff is not clean: (i). in the lawsuit, he accused me of posting all the comments but I have solid proof that I did not post at least one of the comments (ii). Plaintiff, after filing this lawsuit, has signed an affidavit to an internet provider, stating that he does not know the identity of the senders of some of those comments

Will his circumstantial evidence be enough for the Plaintiff to prove the requirements 1 and 3 of:
(1) whether the evidence ever existed,
(2) whether there was a duty to preserve that evidence, and
(3) whether the evidence was critical to the opposing party providing its affirmative claim or a defense.

It is hard to tell what will support spoliation of evidence sanctions, dodo3. But you had a duty to preserve the contents on your computer and you admit cleaning your computer after the preservation notice.

Although it might be unlikely that the plaintiff has hired a linguistics forensic expert, it is something that his attorney might have considered, especially if the plaintiff is claiming "similar language."

With that said, circumstantial evidence tends not to be as strong as physical evidence.

When do you see an attorney in your area? It is important that you do this soon.

 

[dodo3]

Once more, thanks Quincy.

What constitutes a physical evidence?

I am slightly confused, does the fact that postings have the same IP address as my town count as physical evidence? Also could you please tell what counts as “physical evidence” in legal terms and also what countess “evidence” in legal terms?

Currently I do not have a lawyer and seeking one. So, in the mean time, could you link me to a reference which has legal definitions of words?

 

[I'mTheFather]

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

 

[dodo3]

Thank you, I'mTheFather

Quincy said “It is hard to tell what will support spoliation of evidence sanctions”. What is the reason for this hardness specially after knowing the facts: (i). in the lawsuit, he accused me of posting all the comments but I have solid proof that I did not post at least one of the comments (ii). Plaintiff, after filing this lawsuit, has signed an affidavit to an internet provider, stating that he does not know the identity of the senders of some of those comments.

Plaintiff claimed:
(i). all postings are by the same person
(ii). I proved that at least one of them is not by me and not from US. ( I did not leave US during that time: my passport will speak for itself)
Therefore, based on the above two statements, all postings are not by me. Therefore, the evidence was not in my computer. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to fulfill the first requirement for spoliation.

What is wrong in my argument?

 

[I'mTheFather]

Thank you, I'mTheFather

Quincy said “It is hard to tell what will support spoliation of evidence sanctions”. What is the reason for this hardness specially after knowing the facts: (i). in the lawsuit, he accused me of posting all the comments but I have solid proof that I did not post at least one of the comments (ii). Plaintiff, after filing this lawsuit, has signed an affidavit to an internet provider, stating that he does not know the identity of the senders of some of those comments.

Plaintiff claimed:
(i). all postings are by the same person
(ii). I proved that at least one of them is not by me and not from US. ( I did not leave US during that time: my passport will speak for itself)
Therefore, based on the above two statements, all postings are not by me. Therefore, the evidence was not in my computer. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to fulfill the first requirement for spoliation.

What is wrong in my argument?

If you are intent on continuing without an attorney, then you should do your own research. Go back to the Florida Bar Journal article that quincy linked. Read the cases that are referenced in the article. You should be able to figure out why you are wrong.

 

[quincy]

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

I'mTheFather, I have always been partial to Black's Law Dictionary:
http://thelawdictionary.org

Physical evidence is tangible evidence, dodo3 - evidence that you can see or touch.

Physical evidence is just one of many forms of evidence that can be used when trying to convince a judge and jury of the facts (the truth). You can use one of the three dictionary links provided to see what is said about "evidence."

I agree with I'mTheFather that you need to re-read what has been posted and linked to already. No one here is going to be able to advise you on the particulars because we do not have access to the particulars. And we cannot do personal reviews on this forum. For that, you need to seek out an attorney in your area.

Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

Plaintiff claimed:
(i). all postings are by the same person
(ii). I proved that at least one of them is not by me and not from US. ( I did not leave US during that time: my passport will speak for itself)
Therefore, based on the above two statements, all postings are not by me. Therefore, the evidence was not in my computer. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to fulfill the first requirement for spoliation.

What is wrong in my argument?

if he is incorrect that not all postings were by you, he is wrong but as long as ONE posting (of the material that is the basis of the claim) was by you, you are guilty. No idea how you come to the conclusion that if not all postings were by you the evidence was not in your computer.

Due to that, your conclusion is incorrect.

 

[quincy]

if he is incorrect that not all postings were by you, he is wrong but as long as ONE posting (of the material that is the basis of the claim) was by you, you are guilty. No idea how you come to the conclusion that if not all postings were by you the evidence was not in your computer.

Due to that, your conclusion is incorrect.

There are SO many reasons why dodo3 needs an attorney in Florida. The concentration on spoliation of evidence is just one indication that the case could easily be lost even though good defenses might be available.

 

[justalayman]

There are SO many reasons why dodo3 needs an attorney in Florida. The concentration on spoliation of evidence is just one indication that the case could easily be lost even though good defenses might be available.

no doubt but he seems to want to waste his time talking about something that is only a part of his troubles while ignoring that big monster in the closet; his choice.

As you have said; the plaintiff must have something or it would not have gotten as far as it has already. dodo seems to want to ignore that; his choice.