Tag Archives: defamation

Where is the Justice?: Defaming the Dead

Where Is The Justice photo #1

If you are familiar with our Blogs, articles and videos where we explain the ways defamation affects a decedent’s legacy, hold on we have more information to share with you. If you are new to the AdLLaw Petition Initiative Blog, check below, there are links which will offer you other material.

This is our most comprehensive argument. Don’t worry, this is easy.

We are a society which has embraced more causes and the use of the Petition than any before us. Our inclusion in causes and signing the associated Petitions announce we are against crimes of bullying which produce physical and emotional harm, abuse of the helpless; the elderly; adults; children and animals. We say we diligently work to eradicate the many forms of discrimination and to see there is legal and social equality.

Due to televised Court Trials we are now third-party participants. We investigate and analyze testimony and evidence, make personal judgments, and we socially punish those we believe guilty and reward those believed innocent regardless of the jury’s verdict. We also discuss or work to change or add laws which we believe are not clear or comprehensive enough to insure there is justice for the victim, accuser or accused

When deciding on a crime which would frame this discussion there were many to select from. The two most powerful was theft and the crime of discrimination. Because, we have written several articles on how defamation robs a decedent of their legacy and their survivors of peace of mind, I settled on discrimination.

Where Is The Justice photo #2

Ok….. Moving on to “discrimination”, but first let’s lay to rest the fallacy that says a deceased person is no longer relevant and therefore, there is no need for this Anti-Defamation Initiative. The law says: A deceased person through their heirs or Estate will continue to pay taxes on investments or property they acquired. This makes them relevant.

If a decedent’s words and actions while alive are admissible as witness testimony or establishes eligibility to become a co-defendant then they are very relevant.

 If the law says a decedent is accountable for slander committed when alive then the decedent is highly relevant.

The words, previous actions and perceived character of a decedent are most relevant. It is those areas considered when determining which laws apply and recommending monetary judgments for or against them.

Discrimination and the Law:

Picture a person killed either by accident or with intent.  Are our laws to discriminate when it comes to seeking justice, because, they are persons who come from wealth, poverty, have body piercings, are famous or not, fashionable, heterosexual or gay, has tattoos or trousers worn very low?  Should justice be according to whom has a likable or unlikable personality, attended Prep School or no school, acted sober or silly, or someone whose religion, culture, physical features or manner-of-speech is in the minority? No our laws should not discriminate when it comes to the alleged victim and criminal, and their equal rights to justice.

Now …….For our BIG finale: Another excuse for not enacting this law is; “laws are for governing the living.”  AdLLaw will govern the living. Just as with any law it is first designed as a deterrent against unlawful activities and at last resort a tool to deal with crimes committed; in this case people who practice slander and become enriched through their crimes. It is for the survivors who have to bear the brunt of possible character assassination due to familial ties with the defamed decedent, and whose revenue or social status declines due to that defamation.

See, told you AdLLaw was for the living, that wasn’t hard at all now was it!

 Oh,…I almost forgot, if making it illegal to slander the dead would rob us of our First Amendment Rights then slander laws for the living would not exist either!

Where Is The Justice photo #3

If you think this discrimination which allows defamation of a decedent to go unchallenged is wrong then help do something to change that. If you think it is wrong to sue a decedent through their survivors or Estate, but not the other way around then help create the law which will change it. If a deceased person is “relevant” enough for all the above then they are “relevant” enough to have a law which protects them and their legacy from slander.

CHANGE IT. What’s sauce for one is …..Well, you know the rest. AdLLaw 

(Anti-Defamation Legacy Law)

Where Is The Justice photo #4

Sign The Petition

Contact Your U.S. Senators  Ask them to endorse the initiative

Contact the President. Ask him to endorse the initiative.

Contact family & friends. Ask them to do the same.

Check out our other material on this subject:

S. Kendrick – a.k.a. Dial Dancer


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

Who said the Dead can’t be sued for Defaming the Living?

Here Lies A Decedent

Since the start of this organization and throughout its evolution it has been visited by persons who said they had legal knowledge and had come to set the record straight.   They argued there is no need for a law against defaming the deceased.   Going on to explain such a law would give way to frivolous law suits, violate our First Amendment Rights, hamper writers and the dead did not need to worry about their reputations.  It was further pointed out the possibility of a deceased person being sued for an act of slander committed while they were alive was highly unlikely.  

A listener on one of our CadeFlaw radio shows said the probability of a law suit against a decedent for slander happening had about the same chance as an average person affording the Hope Diamond.

Well, the Hope Diamond has just become very affordable.

Well, the Hope Diamond has just become very affordable.

Well, the Hope Diamond has just become very affordable.

Jesse Ventura file a law suit for defamation against the Estate of Chris Kyle author of American Sniper and won.

In January 2012, former Navy Seal Chris Kyle was on the Opie and Anthony and Bill O’Reilly shows promoting his autobiography titled “American Sniper”.  During the interviews Chris Kyle said in 2006 while in a bar that was holding a wake for a slain Navy Seal he punched a man he dubbed Scruff Face, because of derogatory remarks made about Seals who had lost their lives in Iraq.  Later he would identify the person called Scruff Face as former Minnesota Governor and former Navy Underwater Demolition Team member Jesse Ventura.

Jesse Ventura publicly stated he had never met Chris Kyle, was not in the bar when the punch took place and did not disrespect dead Navy Seals.

In 2012 Jesse Ventura filed a petition for a defamation suit which was approved with a court date of June 2013.

“On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were shot and killed at the Rough Creek Ranch-Lodge-Resort shooting range by veteran Marine Eddie Ray Routh.”

It is reported Jesse Ventura requested the book’s publishing company, and Chris Kyle’s Widow and Estate Executor remove his name from the book and any possible movie.   They stood by Kyle’s claims of accuracy in the book and denied Ventura’s request.   Jesse Ventua petitioned the Courts to move the suit from Chris Kyle to his Estate. The request was granted.

“On July 29, 2014 Jesse Ventura was awarded $1.8 million in the defamation suit against the estate of Chris Kyle”

Dead Can NOT Sue For Slander

The possibility of a deceased person being sued for defamation is a reality.

 But the ability for a family to sue the slanderer of their deceased loved one is an impossibility. 

Because there is no law against defaming the dead.  There is no legal way to hold a slanderer accountable by the Family or Estate of a defamed decedent. 

Let’s change this.

 Sign the Petition:

Contact your U.S. Senator and have them endorse it:

Contact the President and ask him to endorse it:

Contact family, friends & associates and ask them to do the same.


There are many gaps and omissions in the articles available for research.  Few articles hold an unbiased stance on this situation.  Nowhere did I find an accurate chronicle of events.  I will leave further reading and discussion of the rights or wrongs of either party to you readers.


S. Kendrick – a.k.a. Dial Dancer


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

A Legacy: “Everyone Will Have One Like It Or Not”

A person’s Legacy has much in common with a tree.  Some will be saplings others aged oak, but all can continue to grow and provide long after the person tending it has gone.

Each must weather their own type of elemental disturbances, endure tests of enforced glut and drought to insure they can thrive and survive.  When healthy, both can provide physical and emotional shelter and support during life’s torrents.  Seed from them can be the beginning of the new.  Depending upon need, both may be a social and economic mainstay; a source of creativity, inspiration, teaching and a way of validating an existence.

A Legacy like mature trees will bear varied fruits.  Drawing from an achievement, contribution or even a misstep will be according to a user’s specific objectives, ties, goals, tastes and intent.  

Each of us will leave something behind when we die, something you alone touched, so when people look upon it or think of you, you are there.

A Legacy Everyone Will Have Photo

You will be etched into the minds of others through the stories they share about you, pass on and hand down which becomes part of your Legacy.  You may diligently build your Legacy with the future in mind or be absent minded in its care, or unaware how significant it can be and to whom, but it is yours to fashion and the stories shared should be told according to your words and deeds, and none other.

Like with trees the unprincipled destruction of a Legacy robs future generations of its potential benefits.

There is no law against defaming the dead, and with that there is no way to protect their Legacy from being depreciated. Decedents can be sued through their representatives for defamation committed while alive and have a judgment placed against their Estate. The reverse is not possible.

To keep the unprincipled from vandalizing a Legacy and robbing those who can gain from it there must be a law to help protect the deceased from defamation and having the Legacy wrongly characterized.

Please support the CadeFlaw/AdLLaw Petition Initiative.  There are many laws which protect the deceased as they do the living against theft, except one, defamation.  Let’s change that.

Support Goals:

To have each supporter sign the petition. Contact your Senate Representatives and the President. Let each know you approve of this proposed law and wish them to endorse it as well. Make them aware of the Initiative by sending them the link to the petition which has the purpose and requirements plainly written out. Pass this information on to family, friends and associates and ask them to support as well. 

The Petition

Contact State Senators

Contact U.S. President

Photos from:,,

Submitted By: S. Kendrick – a.k.a. Dial Dancer


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

Here Comes The Thief

You look up and see a thief. He is boldly walking up to your neighbor’s door. Maybe he intends to sneak through the back door. He is well known by many and by many names. You know either he intends to use guile to talk his way in or break into their house so he can steal a most prize possession from them.

Here Comes The Thief Photo 1

You have heard and read stories where he has stolen from others before.  Stories which tell of the emotional, mental, social and sometimes financial devastation left in his wake.   You know that for some strange reason he has the law on his side.  He legally has the right to steal.

Here Comes The Thief Photo 2

What can you do?  What will you do?   Will you ignore the situation, because it is not your house and therefore not your problem, or will you try to help a neighbor?  What will you do to help protect a decedent’s legacy and the sanity of their survivors from defaming the dead?

Here Comes The Thief Photo 3

You could sign a petition which makes it illegal to defame the dead.  A petition which if made law will give the survivors of a defamed decedent the right to address slander of the dead in a court of law.   Give the decedent’s survivors the right to have the slanderer stand before the courts and prove what they say with evidence or recant any falsehoods and pay for damages.

Here Comes The Thief Photo 4




S. Kendrick, Resolution Specialist – a.k.a. Dial Dancer


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


AdLLaw’s Mini Series Revisit Chap II

A Petition Initiative:

The Petition with goal spelled out:
Petition Goal: To gain support so that we can request a Bill be prepared by the US Senate that would make it unlawful to defame a person who is deceased.

The Group and written goals:

1 Comment

Posted by on April 27, 2014 in Cadeflaw Interviews


Tags: , , , , , ,


An Invitation – AdLLaw

An Invitation to join the AdLLaw Initiative to attain worldwide support and to bring awareness to this important law which; will protect and preserve the legacies of the deceased.


Special Instructions:

Only one signature per person please. If you reside in the USA please invite the US President and both of your US House Senators via email or postal letter.
International Guest: You may invite the US President.

If you decide to invite elected officials to join you please be sure to inform them “you support the AdLLaw Initiative and have signed the Petition and you wish them to do the same.”

Contact President Obama

U.S. Senators Website  Contact the two U.S. Senators in your state

Thank You,
The AdLLaw Advocates

Nonprofits & Activism

Standard YouTube License


Posted by on October 28, 2013 in AdLLaw Initiative, Advocacy, Initiatives


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.



“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.



“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)


Posted by on June 15, 2013 in Advocacy


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


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 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: , , ,


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


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: , , , ,