Hmm,
It appears someone is a bit irritated. My goodness, it is actionable!
“It’s come to my attention that you have made defamatory remarks about my fellow plaintiffs and me in the Linda Metzger et al v. Pamela Polejewski and Michael Hanson lawsuit.
Upon review of your remarks, I find that approximately 5% of what you wrote is true and the remainder untrue. It also appears you made little or no effort to ascertain the truth or falsity of your comments, either by examining the extensive court records or by contacting the plaintiff(s) for confirmation or denial prior to submitting your remarks to this public medium.
Your reckless disregard of the truth has placed you in an actionable position.”
The defamatory remarks mentioned? Here is what I found on “doglady”.
“There once was a woman (Pam Polejewski?) who was trying to run a No Kill Shelter and she was majorly shot down by a vindictive neighbor and the Humane Society, in their infinite ignorance of animal issues.”
“…the aforementioned people and groups persisted in persecuting her. This harrassment and persecution continues to this very day,…”
and then we have 4k9paws:
“If you are friends of her neighbors out there, then I see where you get your mis-information. I also know some of her neighbors out there, and would not trust them as far as I could throw them.”
This person does not mention “neighbors” in any but a general sense again.
Now, I am curious. “Linda Metzger” is the person claiming to have been wronged here.
Do you think the statements made by 4k9paws and doglady were really defamatory?
Were really defamatory to Linda?
8 Responses to “Hmm,”
1 GeeGuy 27 December 2007 @ 7:12 am
Didn’t she really defame herself, by making known that which was previously anonymous?
2 gffirefly 29 December 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Kinda how I saw it.
3 Linda Metzger 9 January 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Please note I said the comments were defamatory to my fellow plaintiffs and me, not just me. You might recall that the Tribune posted a link to the full text of our Complaint on the Web, which contained all seventeen plaintiffs’ full names, addresses, and phone numbers, in October 2005. The numerous civil and criminal stories of the Polejewski saga made the front page of the Tribune no less than 20 times since then. Can’t be asserted that we were “anonymous.”
4 firefly 10 January 2008 @ 6:25 pm
The remarks were made about “neighbors” not “plaintiffs”. Nowhere did either of the people you took issue with identify anyone but the defendant by name.
From your comment, we can assume that you consider yourself the “vindictive neighbor”, but until you confirmed that, there was no link between you personally and any plaintiff or neighbor…
5 Linda Metzger 10 January 2008 @ 7:05 pm
The 17 plaintiffs are/were the neighbors. (One has died, a couple have moved since 2005.) This is a rural area, there are few neighbors, and the majority were represented in this lawsuit. The Complaint reads: “Linda Metzger, Individually and on Behalf of the West McIver Road Neighbors, an Association of Concerned Citizens, Plaintiffs” You could argue the bloggers were not referring to the plaintiff/neighbors, I suppose. I’d argue differently, of course.
6 firefly 11 January 2008 @ 7:35 am
So, how were you harmed?
7 Linda Metzger 11 January 2008 @ 10:23 am
I think harm can be shown. Avenues for libel, defamation, and character assassination exist, but there is also the tort of outrage, for which there is precedent in Cascade County. In that case, the content and timing of a personal phone call were the issue, and the plaintiff prevailed.
For a very interesting read, I suggest the defendant’s pro se appeal of Metzger v. Polejewski, recently posted on the Montana Supreme Court Web site, case no. DA 07-0407.
8 Linda Metzger 28 February 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Update: The Plaintiffs/Neighbors Response Brief is now available on the Montana Supreme Court Web site, in the Metzger et al. v. Pamela Polejewski and Michael Hanson case, no. DA 07-0407.
Leave a Reply