Scorpion1110

Christian:

This post is from Mark on the other Paul622 thread- and I think was on YB- Is this what you are referring to:

"I had to post this:

Today, 03:21 AM #85
bigred1091
Junior Member
Burnout box


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9 Re: 622paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continued listing of PC Rat posting on February 8, 2010, with comments

These issues, some not really issues and some that can be corrected, would have been better handled by working with he previous owner. Instead, you chose to put this issue on a public forum. As a result, you have caused an incitement of many people that have neither any direct knowledge of this engine or the disposition of the sale or they have no knowledge personally of 622paul (622paul does not attend church). This incitement of others on this public forum has resulted in many negative postings that appear to be undue and malicious attacks on the character of 622paul, his knowledge of the motor sport industry, his expertise in high performance parts and engines, to his personal integrity and his legitimate right to conduct business. The nature of the comments, with you as the gensis of these negative comments, are libelous. The definition of libel is "any false and malicious written or printed statement, or any sign picture, or effigy tending to expose a person to public ridicule, hatred, or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way". Both you and others making comments are participating in libelous actions that are subject to legal consequences. In the past, libel has been difficult to prove. However, these attacks are now in writing as listed on Yellow Bullit. I would suggest that you call 622paul and discuss what measures need to be completed on this motor and move on. I believe that when you finish this motor in about a month, you will be very happy with the results. Now, go and do the right thing"

Because if so here is what might be the "why"-

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established. If the plaintiff consented to publication of the defamatory material, recovery is barred. Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. Privilege confers Immunity on a small number of defendants who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public's business—for example, attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses whose statements are protected on public policy grounds.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...el+and+Slander

In other words if its true then there is no issue.

Is this how he got it handed to him? The first post was his attorney's words?

Scorp