RSS

Tag Archives: cadeflaw

Now Enough Is Too Much: Defaming The Dead

Now Enough Is Too Much.jpg1Now Enough Is Too Much.jpg2Now Enough Is Too Much.jpg3Now Enough Is Too Much.jpg4

Sign the petition

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/protect-the-legacy-of

Contact the US President and both US Senator for your State:  Tell them you support the AdLLaw Initiative and wish them to endorse it so it may become law.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

S. Kendrick, Cadeflaw/AdLLaw Resolution Specialist – a.k.a. Dial Dancer

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Video

AdLLaw Revisit Series Commercial 1

Published on Mar 25, 2014

AdLLaw’s video advertisement for their YouTube series “Revisit”.

This is aimed at gaining support for the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Initiative and Petition.

Comments and lively conversation is welcomed, hate rants and disrespect will be removed.

Category: People & Blogs

License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

Petition: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/protect-the-legacy-of

 

AdLLaw Revist Series Coming April 2014

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2014 in AdLLaw Promotion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Image

Support the AdLLaw Initiative

I Thought You Wanted the Truth

AdLLaw Petition

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 1, 2013 in Cadeflaw Interviews

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A Story of Defamation: What Qualifies?

To better understand defamation, we must know how the law defines defamation (libel & slander).

Harry and Tom were brothers and partners. They lived in a place called AnyTown located in AnyState, USA. Since childhood they had fought over money. Tom said Harry spent too much and Harry said Tom was cheap. Their last fight was over expanding the business.

Tom believed the time was not right and the money would go to waste. Harry believed Tom’s penny pinching ways were going to keep them from staying competitive.

They argued in front of anyone who was around and complained to everyone who would listen.

Their last argument took place in front of a new customer. Harry said: “Tom you are so cheap and stubborn I could choke you. You are going to ruin the business and then we will be sorry.

Tom shouted at Harry: “I am not going to change my mind and there is nothing you can do that will change it.” With that Tom walked away. Harry shouted at his back: “oh no! We will see!”

The customer who was not accustom to business people shouting at one another left without doing any business with the brothers.

Two days passed without Harry hearing from his brother. He thought to himself: “he is sulking or hiding telling the wife to tell me he is not home.”

On the third day of Tom’s absence, the Police met Harry at his home. He was arrested. They had found Tom buried in Harry’s garden. He had been bashed in the head. An anonymous tip had led them to the garden.

Harry was an avid craftsman hobbyist. He never met a fancy tool he did not like or buy whether he could use it or not. A hammer was found in his work shop it had Tom’s blood on it.

During the trial which would find Harry not guilty it was discovered the blood was Tom’s but it was too old to fit the timeline of the crime. The new customer who had testified against Harry had to admit Harry said choke not bash. Several family and friends would testify the brothers always fought and loudly but were quick to make up.

After the trial there was the usual round of news specials where pundits retried the case, with comments from people who were witnesses and those who had not witness anything.

Because of the trial, the accusations, the articles and public comments Harry lost the business and was forced to move to another State where he hoped they remembered little about his highly publicized trial.

Video version:

Which if any of these statements defamed Harry and which were opinion?

The New Customer, a traveling salesman would tell people he believed the jury got it wrong. He was sure Harry killed Tom. “I was there when Harry threatened Tom.”

A local newspaper Journalist with a tri-state readership wrote an article. He said. “He pitied Harry for having lost his business, because he was an accused murderer.”

One juror would write a book where she claimed; “She was sure the defense lawyer had hidden the real hammer.”

Late night TV personalities would joke about the next guy being careful about taking on a partner from AnyTown, in AnyState USA; who had a liking for hammers.

 

ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION

“A plaintiff in a civil lawsuit must prove all the elements of the tort by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the plaintiff must prove that it is more likely than not the defendant committed each element of the tort. The elements of a defamation (libel or slander) claim are:”

• A false and defamatory communication about the plaintiff
• Publication to a third party
• Fault amounting to either negligence or intent on the defendant’s part
• Harm or damage to the plaintiff.

 

FALSE AND DEFAMATORY COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF

“A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact–not opinion, satire or parody–that would tend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation in the community. To be defamatory, the statement must clearly be about the plaintiff.”

Source:  Suite 101 – The Law of Defamation

Additional Sources:
Dictionary Law – Defamation
Dictionary Reference – Defamation

This is a three part series:

Part I: A Story of Defamation: What qualifies?
Part II: Defaming the Living by Defaming the Dead. (TBA)
Part III: (TBA)

 
4 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cadeflaw’s Gary, IN School Project’ – Michael’s Heart

Vanessa Littles Gary IN School Project photo landscape (400x171)This cause was created to promote and support schools in the city of Gary, IN. Michael Jackson is the inspiration for the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates and the revelation to reach out to the schools in Gary, IN was given to Vanessa Little, Research Director of the group. Our goal is to bring happiness to children in the community of Gary, IN, where Michael Jackson was born and raised until his family left to pursue a career in the entertainment industry.

We believe that Michael would want us to remember his roots. Roots should always be nourished, though they branch out. Cadeflaw is 100% in favor of this project and we will do everything we can to make this initiative one of success. Why our choice of schools are in the city of Gary, simply put, Michael Jackson. He is the inspiration for the Cadeflaw Advocates Group.

Cadeflaw’s mission is to have an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law” authored and passed, but while we strive to do that we want to first be givers and think about the needs of others; especially children. Cadeflaw gives regular donations to different organizations monthly, but we’d like to have one called our very own, other than the Cadeflaw initiative. We now have the Cadeflaw Gary, IN School Project of which we also call the “Butterfly Project”.

We hope that many others will join us in this effort.  In Michael’s heart the welfare of ALL children could be found , no matter where. We think he would consider this an honor and a blessing for us to reach out to the children of Gary.

Where there is LOVE, Michael IS there. Let us be there, too. Much LOVE.

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Butterfly Playground Equipment Campaign 2013

Every Penny CountsClimbing, jumping and running in a structured playground environment can encourage children to become physically fit, help them overcome fear and show them what their bodies are capable of achieving. Playtime is a vital part of a child’s growth and development and the groundwork for skills that children need as adults, such as creative thinking, reasoning and socialization, may begin on a swing set or a rock wall.

The students recently moved into a newly renovated building, for school term 2012-2013. There are no flowers, trees or playground equipment for the younger children. This is a K-7th all girls’ school located in a very poverty stricken community of Gary, Indiana.

In spite of these circumstances the students continue to excel because of the principal, Pearl Prince and the teachers. That label is being peeled away and these educators celebrate the success of these children. The educators’ approach is to teach the children beyond what is expected and it has been successful.

The students have maintained excellent academic goals throughout the years because of their Principal, Pearl Prince and the teachers who sincerely care. Mrs. Prince has not allowed the children’s socioeconomic status to affect how they learn and how they see themselves. We want to support the vanguards of this school, financially, in their quest to give these children an even greater advantage to achieve their goals.

Commemorate Michael Jacksons Birthday 2013There are only a few of us although we are spread out, globally. Already, we have been able to donate $2000 toward the purchase of a mobile Panasonic Interactive Smart Board for this school and just a few weeks ago, along with another group, donated $750+ for school uniforms and more technology equipment. This is an ongoing effort and we would like to engage as many people or organizations as possible.

We sincerely would like to provide or assist further by placing playground equipment on the grounds for the little ones. We’ve initiated a fundraising campaign to purchase playground equipment and have it on property by August 29th of this year; and of course we don’t have much time.

However, we intend to keep campaigning pass August 25, 2013, if necessary.

Special Campaign for Playground Equipment

How to give/donate:

YouCare Butterfly Playground Equipment Fundraiser

Make Donations via Website

Cadeflaw PayPal: info@cadeflaw.com

Donations can be mailed to:

FRANKIE WOODS MCCULLOUGH GIRLS’ ACADEMY
C/O: Pearl Prince, Principal
3757 West 21st Avenue
Gary, IN 46404

Phone: (219) 944-7301
Fax: (219) 944-4865
PPrince1@garycsc.k12.in.us

Make check/money order payable to:
Frankie McCollough PTO

Total cost of playground system is $30,000.00

Playsystem: $13,995.00
Installation: $6,600.00
Borders/Surfacing: $9,400.00
TOTAL COST: $30,000.00

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION, BORDERS AND SURFACING COST PLEASE CONTACT:

Mike Catchur – Kidstuff Playsystems Representative

dba OMC Solutions

Kidstuff Playsystems

5400 Miller Avenue, Gary, IN  46403

Cell: (219) 771-3540

800-255-0153

Fax: (219) 938-3340

Email: mcatchur@yahoo.com

Website:  http://www.kidstuffplaysystems.com/

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased

7 U.S. States With criminal Libel Laws for Internet Defamation

(7) States Having Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased

NOTE: The following  information was published February 24, 2011 on the Cadeflaw website Five States Having Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased  http://www.cadeflaw.org.

Original information was first obtained from Wikipedia and First Amendment Center. However, none of that information can be found on either webpage, as I’ve recently found out. That is very interesting. It is not unusual for information to be periodically updated, but information concerning the five states in reference to “Defamation of the Deceased” can not be found on either site.

Original Information from Wikipedia on February 24, 2011 It should be noted that there can be regional statutes as well that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States as a general rule of thumb defamation is limited to the living. However, there are five states (Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada) that have criminal statues regarding defamation of the dead[20]

1. ^ Colorado Revised Statute Section 18-13-105, Idaho Code § 18-4801, Georgia Code – Crimes and Offenses – Title 16, Section 16-11-40, Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47, and Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510.

Original Information from First Amendment Center Site

Colorado

“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the extent that it criminalized statements made by one private individual about another private individual. The court also held that “actual malice” need not be proved in cases between two private individuals.

Georgia

“(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff’d 401 U.S. 985, held that the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and remains on the books.

Idaho

Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who willfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.

Louisiana

“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005)

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), holds that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional so far as it punishes true statements about public officials that are uttered with malicious purpose. Additionally, the statute is unconstitutional in respect to its failure to differentiate whether false statements against public officials were made with malice, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or in a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement. However, Louisiana’s statute is not unconstitutional per se as long as any actual prosecutions under it follow the constraints laid out in Garrison. Snyder v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff’d 397 U.S. 589. The Louisiana statute still remains on the books.

Nevada

Nevada makes it a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken the memory of the dead.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There is no “intent” requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true and published “for good motive and justifiable ends.” Id. at 200.510

“Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another shall be deemed a publication thereof.” Id. at 200.520.

Editors and proprietors of published material may be held liable, but an editor or proprietor may escape guilt by proving “that the matter complained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes by another who had no authority from him to make such publication, and was retracted by him as soon as known with an equal degree of publicity.” Id. at 200.530.

Nevada law makes it a “gross misdemeanor” either to threaten to libel somebody, or to solicit personal gain in return for not libeling somebody. Id. at 200.560.

Note: In an unpublished order, federal Judge Johnnie Rawlinson approved an agreement between the Nevada Press Association and the Nevada Attorney General that the statutes would not be enforced because they were unconstitutional. In Nevada Press Association v. del Papa, CV-S-98-00991-JBR (199, the final judgment stated that the statutes were unconstitutional because they were overbroad and punished individuals for the publication of truthful statements.

NEW INFORMATION OBTAINED 

Different Standards For Public Figures & Private Individuals In Internet Defamation Lawsuits Kelly Warner Law

In most cases, only the living can be defamed. However, ten states have laws prohibiting defamation of the dead (Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, North Dakota and Washington).

Utah, North Dakota and Washington….unable to find any information on these three states concerning Internet Defamation for the deceased.

Criminal libel laws for Internet Defamation (Living and Deceased) Criminal Libel Laws for Internet Defamation

Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the extent that it criminalized statements made by one privateindividual about another private individual. The court also held that “actual malice” need not be proved in cases between two private individuals.

Georgia
“(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff’d 401 U.S. 985, held that the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and remains on the books.

Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18- 4809.

Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.” Kan. Stat. Ann § 21-4004 (2005).

The court in Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), found the statute required actual malice in matters of public concern and furtherheld that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad.

Louisiana
“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005)

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), holds that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional so far as it punishes true statements about public officials that are uttered with malicious purpose. Additionally, the statute is unconstitutional in respect to its failure to differentiate whether false statements against public officials were made with malice, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or in a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement. However, Louisiana’s statute is not unconstitutional per se as long as any actual prosecutions under it follow the constraints laid out in Garrison. Snyder v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff’d 397 U.S. 589. The Louisiana statute still

Nevada
Nevada makes it a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken thememory of the dead.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There is no “intent” requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true and published “for good motive and justifiable ends.” Id. at 200.510

“Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another shall be deemed a publication thereof.” Id. at 200.520.

Editors and proprietors of published material may be held liable, but an editor or proprietor may escape guilt by proving “that the mattercomplained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes by another who had no authority from him to make suchpublication, and was retracted by him as soon as known with an equal degree of publicity.” Id. at 200.530.

Nevada law makes it a “gross misdemeanor” either to threaten to libel somebody, or to solicit personal gain in return for not libeling somebody. Id. at 200.560.

Note: In an unpublished order, federal Judge Johnnie Rawlinson approved an agreement between the Nevada Press Association and the Nevada Attorney General that the statutes would not be enforced because they were unconstitutional. In Nevada Press Association v. del Papa, CV-S-98-00991-JBR (1998), the final judgment stated that the statutes were unconstitutional because they were overbroad and punished individuals for thepublication of truthful statements.

Oklahoma
The state has promulgated four libel-related crimes:
1.“Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends.” 21 Okla. Stat. § 771 (2005). It is not, however, necessary that anyone actually read or otherwise learn of the libel for a conviction to be secured; mere exposure to the possibility of being read by another person is enough. Id. at 776.
2.Any person who makes a libel, willfully publishes one or willfully or knowingly aids in the making of a libel may be punished by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 (and shall be liable in civil court to the injured party). Id. at 773.
3.One who “falsely and maliciously or falsely and wantonly” imputes unchastity to a female is guilty of a crime, but one with much less severepenalties: $25.00 in fines or 90 days in jail. In such cases, the state need not prove the imputed information to be false; rather, the truth of the information is an affirmative defense. Id. at 779-80.
4.“Willfully, knowingly, or maliciously” spreading false rumors is also a crime. Id. at 781; see Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d (Okla. Crim. App. 1983)(upholding this statute as not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad).

A person who threatens to make a libel is presumed to have the same “intent” (mens rea) as one who actually does make a libel. Id. at 778.

The truth of information published with “good motives” and “justifiable ends” is a defense to libel. Id. at 774. An individual will not be liable for a statement if the statement is privileged information that is published as part of a legislative or judicial process, as part of one’s official duties, or as a “fair and true” report of the former. In the case of unprivileged information, publication gives rise to a rebuttal e presumption of malice. Id. at 772. Moreover, even when a newspaper makes a “fair and true” report of one of the above proceedings, if it does so with malicious intent, it can still be convicted of libel — although malice will not be presumed from publication. Id. at 777.

The Oklahoma statute contains the language “blackens the name of the dead,” which alludes to a cause of action for a deceased individual or their relatives. However, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), the court held that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased individual nor could the deceased individual’s estate or relatives recover for the libel. The Oklahoma statute does not include language that expressly changes the common law requirement that the individual be living nor does the statute language expressly create a right for a deceased individual or their relatives to recover for the libel. Therefore, the court held that in Oklahoma an action for libel cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased individual. Nonetheless, the statute language has remained unchanged.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , ,

A MILESTONE FOR THE CADEFLAW INITIATIVE

Cadeflaw MilestoneCadeflaw stands for California Anti-Defamation Legacy Law. Its purpose is to make a change in the California law that would allow for a course of action for family members who are harmed by the defamation of their deceased loved one. The law is not without precedent; five states have such a law on their books. Idaho, Georgia, Nevada, Colorado, and Louisiana have laws protecting the reputation of the deceased. The goal of Cadeflaw is to add California to the list of those states that protect the reputations and legacies of those who have passed on.

Cadeflaw’s initiative does not intend to thwart freedom of speech. We believe everyone has a right to say whatever they wish; we do however, believe that each person should be held accountable for their words. Words can leave lasting and deep wounds, and sometimes it’s the truth that is painful. When something is said or written that is true and is reported for a purpose it is one thing. However, using words to intentionally defame or hurt someone is not socially or morally responsible. That is our belief and it is why this effort was started and why Cadeflaw will continue to work until the change in the law comes to fruition.

Cadeflaw started when Michael Jackson passed away. As mourning people struggled to understand the depth of emotion and grief they were feeling, they sought others who shared their feelings.  One cause of their continued sorrow was the ongoing media degradation of Michael. The reporting of rumor, speculation, and the rehashing of old lies began to take a toll on those who loved Michael. Caring and concerned people came together and developed ways to honor Michael and share “the other side of the story”.

One group of people became especially close and as they shared their thoughts and feelings, an idea came forward to urge the State of California to put a law into place that would allow an avenue of relief for family members when a deceased loved one is the object of defamation. This idea took off under the leadership of Mary Brookins, Administrative Director of CADEFLAW. The supporters of CADEFLAW will no longer passively accept the disrespectful and cruel assassination of Michael or anyone else that is not here to defend themselves.

The inspiration behind this initiative is Michael Jackson; however, the law is not intended to cover only Michael. The proposed law will give every citizen, regardless of social standing or status, the right to respect and dignity after they have passed on. It will give every family a chance to stop the pain, suffering, and possible financial loss caused by the defamation of a deceased loved one.

Since its inception in early 2010, Cadeflaw has had many opportunities to get our message and goal out in front of people. Very early on, Karen Kmiecik, Cadeflaw Finance Director, had the opportunity to travel to California. While there she was able to meet with Mr. Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s attorney during his 2005 trial. Mr. Mesereau read our petition and wished us well in our endeavor. One of the earliest exposures we had was an interview by Billy Johnson from Yahoo! Music. Valmai Owens, Director of Publications MJTP interviewed us for her blog. Firpo Carr has interviewed us and we have twice appeared in his Los Angeles Sentinel column. Cadeflaw has a regular column in the Jam Café Magazine, the Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait online magazine, where each month we strive to share information on our progress and continue to enlighten people about our effort and its importance. Several times each month, Cadeflaw hosts blog talk radio shows where various topics pertaining to the group’s objectives are discussed.

Cadeflaw organized its first official event in August, 2012. It was held in California and was organized to coincide with Michael Jackson’s 54th birthday. This was an exciting way to present Cadeflaw’s mission and the group worked diligently to make it a success. The event was held at the J Spot Comedy Club in Los Angeles, and Cadeflaw Fundraising Director, Christina Tozer was present to facilitate. The event was hosted by Mr. Broderick Rice. Several notable speakers were present, among them Geraldine Hughes, author of “Redemption”; Larry Nimmer, Emmy-award nominated filmmaker and creator of the documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland”;   April Sutton, BET Television host and reporter; and William Wagener, Producer at OnSecondThought.tv. Mary Brookins, Cadeflaw Administrative Director, gave an introductory message. The event was a success in getting people aware of Cadeflaw and the importance of protecting the reputations and legacies of the deceased.

We needed twenty-five California registered voters to sign our petition in order to present our plea to the California Legislative Counsel. During the spring of 2012 we gathered 91 signatures and we submitted a letter requesting the Legislative Counsel to consider our request for a minor change in California law.

The Cadeflaw law is simple; it only changes California Civil Code §§ 44-48 by changing the definition of who can be defamed to include “a natural person whether living or dead”. Standing rules follow the California Probate Code §§ 6400 – 6414.

Cadeflaw’s proposal was submitted to the California Legislative Counsel in May, 2012. In July we received this communication from the Legislative Counsel: “Pursuit to your request, we have prepared, in appropriate form, your initiative measure to be submitted to the electors, relating to the extending the cause of action for defamation of a deceased person to the person’s relatives.”

Now that the proposed initiative has been written, we must submit the draft to the California Attorney General with a written request that a circulating title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the initiative measure be prepared (Elections Code § 9001(a)). At the time of submission we must pay a fee of $200. The $200 fee is to be placed in a trust fund in the Office of the State Treasurer and is refunded if the initiative measure qualified for the ballot within two years after the summary has been issued to our organization. If the initiative measure fails to qualify within that period, the fee is put into the General Fund of the State (Elections Code § 9001 (c )). At the time of request for title and summary we must also execute and submit a signed statement prepared by the Office of the Attorney General in reference to the collection of signatures. Our plan is to initiate a petition signing campaign before submitting the draft of the bill to the Attorney General. We must find dedicated people in the state of California

Cadeflaw is ready for the next step in bringing our mission to completion. We have come a long way from that little group of women who wanted to “make that change” as Michael Jackson sang. We want to make a difference, and take a stand against irresponsible journalism ……………….

Cadeflaw is also involved in other ways of trying to “make that change” in people’s lives. During the early part of 2012 Cadeflaw Research Director, Vanessa Little, shared a burden she had on her heart for the children of Gary, Indiana. Gary is the birthplace of Michael Jackson, and it is a town that has been overlooked in many ways. Cadeflaw sought a public school that could use some extra help and the Frankie Woods McCullough Girls’ Academy responded to our inquiry. The girls who attend the Academy are known as the Butterflies. Cadeflaw has adopted the Academy, and supporting the Butterflies has become very important to Cadeflaw. You can learn all about all about Cadeflaw’s Butterfly Project here Cadeflaw Gary, IN Butterfly Project

(See Media – Cadeflaw Articles)

B. Owens, Cadeflaw Secretary/Journalists

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 13, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , ,

Link

MotherDiva Show Pre-Grammy Red Carpet 2012 pt 2

Pete Allman, Owner at Celebrity Scene News, interviewed by Valencia Dantzler, aka Mother Diva. Mr. Allman discusses Michael Jackson and Cadeflaw. He also discusses a little about a script written for ”In Search of Neverland”, the story about Michael Jackson and his friendship with Gloria Berlin, and how she found Michael his paradise, Neverland.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 18, 2013 in Cadeflaw Interviews

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Letter to Justice Roberts of U. S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court

March 2, 2011

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

It is a heartrending day in this country when our Supreme Court Justices would rule against the remarkable men and women; our US soldiers who serve our country and who has given their lives and continue to do so that we may be safe from harm. They stand watch and fight so that we may have the full benefit of these freedoms.

It is not only tactless but reprehensible when a pastor and his members are allowed to promote HATE by making inflammatory statements by way of picket signs against our fallen soldiers; and the highest court in America agrees with them by permitting them legal cover, hiding behind the first amendment. Men and women who have volunteered to serve and protect us should be honored, not defamed and slandered.

This pastor, along with his family members, presented themselves at the funeral of a deceased soldier, Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq in 2006, with signs reading: “Thank God for dead soldiers,” ”You’re Going to Hell,” ”God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men. It is common knowledge that this group pickets many military funerals promoting hate while using the word of God as a cover to do so.

“Thank God for 9/11”. How terroristic is that, sir? And the justices of the highest court in this land sided with these people? I love this country and I value the freedom that has been granted to me and others; but sir, please, how could you write an opinion using the constitution to side with something this malevolence?

How can the constitution shield such iniquitous remarks or written pronouncements such as these about anyone; and especially a deceased soldier? What does that declare to the world about our country? If a “God” fearing man can get away with something such as this, it tells me that I am at the mercy of any group who decides they hate me and promotes it because your court gives them that right. I say your court because God can’t be in that decision.

It is time that people cease using the “First Amendment” to commit such evils. Freedom of Speech is a right given to us and I consider it to be an honor and most certainly a privilege to have full use of it. However, it does not give us the right to defame and slander those who can’t defend themselves; and there is a responsibility to be fair and just while exercising that freedom.

Matthew Snyder and other fallen soldiers died defending the rights of others and they deserve much more than what they have been given. The deceased have a right for their legacy’s to be protected and preserved. Instead the US courts give odious people the right to speak and publish hateful comments about them. Justice Roberts, that doesn’t sound right to me.

The first amendment should be redressed and the proper corrections made right. It is time for change, sir. People would be mindful if they were penalized for these slanderous and defaming statements. It is time an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law” be put into place, sir.

I do realize, of course, that you will not be of the same opinion as myself and many others; but let us agree, in advance, to disagree. Most of America won’t be in agreement; especially those who hide behind the “First Amendment”. However, it is TIME for CHANGE.

I thank you kindly for your time, Chief Justice Roberts.

Humbly Submitted,

MJ Brookins, Administrative Director

Texas

A few videos from WBC displaying their “Hate” promotions

God Hates America   

Westboro Baptist Church family disowns daughter — 20/20   

Jeremy Vs Westboro Baptist church  

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 17, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , , ,