Post: #26

Agree with the others picking a less moneyed target like Daily Mail that went too far, and those facebook individuals who made those death threats.

Make 'em pay.

Because if you don't, they, like any schoolyard bully, will come after you again with unrestrained impunity.

Post: #27

I'll offer the follow observation: if you want to sue someone for slander, libel, or defamation, it's better to sue in a common law country such as the U.K., Australia, or Canada. The law in those countries is very plaintiff-friendly; it has evolved so that if you can prove the other party said or published untrue statements, you almost always win. In the U.S., it's significantly harder because of the First Amendment and various affirmative defense that have been built into state law. In other words, it's harder to put the defendant on the hook without the defendant slipping off again.

Last year, the Daily Beast did a hit piece on Trump raping his ex-wife, Ivana. This is what Trump's lawyer told the reporter writing the piece:

Quote:Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.

“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.

Post: #28

On the one hand, Roosh is very likely due significant compensation in some jurisdictions, IF the existing law were applied fairly. However, even in common law jurisdictions, the law is not independent of mass public hysteria, the mainstream media and of course the government's stance on the issue at hand. If Roosh were to seek compensation which would be due in an ideal world, he may well find the system fails him because it is rigged against him.

In an ideal world, he would stand up to all bullies who commit illegal acts resulting in personal harm to him and his family, but we have seen over the past few days more than ever the contorted world in which we live.

Roosh should pick his battles wisely and allocate limited resources to those things which he deems the most important to him. If this for him means legal action, then so be it. But I suspect Roosh has other plans.

I personally would love to see that smartass little asian faggot at The Daily Beast taken down as per Trump's lawyer above and would donate more for this to happen, but it's not my decision.

Post: #29

(02-07-2016 09:47 AM)Going strong Wrote:  Also, Roosh could ask for a public defender and not risk any personal money on this, right? Or is it so (in the US) that you can't get a public defender if you yourself press the initial charges?... In my country, Roosh could start legal action against any media for free, considering he does not receive a fixed monthly wage...

The public defender's office wouldn't have anything to do with this. They represent defendants in criminal cases who qualify by meeting certain income requirements. Legal aid provides assistance to clients in civil matters, but they only take certain kinds of civil cases and I believe that a person also meet the income requirements. I doubt Roosh would. He would need a private attorney, although one may be interested in representing him pro bono.

Post: #30

(02-07-2016 09:39 AM)Libertas Wrote:  This should be put into the operations lounge.

Agreed. These type of posts should be private.

Post: #31

Agreed, they might read this.

Post: #32

He should ask the ACLU to take his case.

Just for lulz.

There was a time when they'd even take the case of literal Nazis.

Ah, how the times have changed...

Post: #33

(02-07-2016 06:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 09:39 AM)Libertas Wrote:  This should be put into the operations lounge.

Agreed. These type of posts should be private.

I see your point, but I put it here in order for all forum members (with law diploma or legal knowledge), to give their input. If we put it in the private sphere, then not all forum members would be able to give advise on this legal issue... I mean, it's possible a low-post-count member -but excellent lawyer- is reading this forum and might want to give advice.

Also, there's nothing really secret here: MSM must know that Roosh might want to press charges. It's obvious. And it's too late for them to cover their tracks, so...

Post: #34

(02-07-2016 03:42 PM)ChickenLover9T9 Wrote:  On the one hand, Roosh is very likely due significant compensation in some jurisdictions, IF the existing law were applied fairly. However, even in common law jurisdictions, the law is not independent of mass public hysteria, the mainstream media and of course the government's stance on the issue at hand. If Roosh were to seek compensation which would be due in an ideal world, he may well find the system fails him because it is rigged against him.

In an ideal world, he would stand up to all bullies who commit illegal acts resulting in personal harm to him and his family, but we have seen over the past few days more than ever the contorted world in which we live.

Roosh should pick his battles wisely and allocate limited resources to those things which he deems the most important to him. If this for him means legal action, then so be it. But I suspect Roosh has other plans.

I personally would love to see that smartass little asian faggot at The Daily Beast taken down as per Trump's lawyer above and would donate more for this to happen, but it's not my decision.

Ok, but the Law doesn't really work like that, in most (Western or other) countries.

I mean, sure the system hates Roosh, and most judges would, too, probably, on a personal level (or would they?)...

But... judges cannot give totally arbitrary decisions. They can't openly break the written laws, even when they want to. They have to defend the pretense of democracy.

That is why I don't see a judge denying Roosh a legal victory. How could any judge justify his (her) denial in written?? I mean, Roosh has no legal conviction on his name, so, end of story, nobody has any right to call him a rapist leader. The case rests. Which judge would openly make a mockery of the Law by denying Roosh a victory?

tl;dr Judges can screw you discreetly, but not openly deny your rights...

Post: #35

(02-08-2016 12:46 AM)Going strong Wrote:  But... judges cannot give totally arbitrary decisions. They can't openly break the written laws, even when they want to. They have to defend the pretense of democracy.

I think you need to spend more time in Croatia

Post: #36

One thing to consider with any legal action is the potential for Roosh's past conquests to be dug up and turned against him. While seeking damages would be the ideal form of justice, the modern world does not work this way and if he goes against powerful media outlets, they will play dirty and it will also discredit him in the mainstream even more. If he wins, he's the guy who went against the false ideals of what free speech is, if he loses he will become the pro-rape activist who tried suppress the media.

Further;
How many girls has he slept with? Alot.
How many of those girls would be resentful that they were pumped and dumped? Probably a few.
How many of those girls would happily say in a court of law that she did not consent if they were approached and paid off by the accused's lawyers? Probably quite a few as well.

No one plays clean and a lawsuit might actually allow these large media outlets to further their agenda and fabricate an actual rape.

WNL - Would not litigate

Post: #37

I'm not a lawyer, just a lowly engineer, so take this with a grain of iron filings.

I don't think Roosh should waste his time in court.

If he won he may get some money, but no media would touch him again.
Though they lied - we can't deny the current media are giving us free views. We want to ride them all the way.

Also, the only thing the Marxist media fembots have going for them is the moral high ground.
Could Roosh take this from them by saying something along the lines of "I could have sued, but... *explain how we're better than that*?

Post: #38

(02-08-2016 03:59 AM)CodyB Wrote:  One thing to consider with any legal action is the potential for Roosh's past conquests to be dug up and turned against him. While seeking damages would be the ideal form of justice, the modern world does not work this way and if he goes against powerful media outlets, they will play dirty and it will also discredit him in the mainstream even more. If he wins, he's the guy who went against the false ideals of what free speech is, if he loses he will become the pro-rape activist who tried suppress the media.

Further;
How many girls has he slept with? Alot.
How many of those girls would be resentful that they were pumped and dumped? Probably a few.
How many of those girls would happily say in a court of law that she did not consent if they were approached and paid off by the accused's lawyers? Probably quite a few as well.

No one plays clean and a lawsuit might actually allow these large media outlets to further their agenda and fabricate an actual rape.

WNL - Would not litigate

You're just speculating when people like Irenicus were talking facts. Even despite this, no one has come forward with an accusation.

This is very important. The media, establishment, whatever, needs to face consequences for their actions. If they don't, they will just do this over and over again.

Roosh likely has a very strong case against several outlets. He should make them pay.

Post: #39

During Roosh's press conference, the media wanted, insisted, to know whether or not Roosh actually lived in his parents' house... why? Because they know it might be important in a legal action: if Roosh does not even regularly live in said house, then publishing pictures of a house where he is just visiting, is even more scandalous and illegal. That was the point of these precise media questions. If Roosh had answered, "Oh yes, I do live there usually, or very often", then he would have disqualified a legal action that his parents could initiate...

Post: #40

(02-08-2016 09:04 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 03:59 AM)CodyB Wrote:  One thing to consider with any legal action is the potential for Roosh's past conquests to be dug up and turned against him. While seeking damages would be the ideal form of justice, the modern world does not work this way and if he goes against powerful media outlets, they will play dirty and it will also discredit him in the mainstream even more. If he wins, he's the guy who went against the false ideals of what free speech is, if he loses he will become the pro-rape activist who tried suppress the media.

Further;
How many girls has he slept with? Alot.
How many of those girls would be resentful that they were pumped and dumped? Probably a few.
How many of those girls would happily say in a court of law that she did not consent if they were approached and paid off by the accused's lawyers? Probably quite a few as well.

No one plays clean and a lawsuit might actually allow these large media outlets to further their agenda and fabricate an actual rape.

WNL - Would not litigate

You're just speculating when people like Irenicus were talking facts. Even despite this, no one has come forward with an accusation.

This is very important. The media, establishment, whatever, needs to face consequences for their actions. If they don't, they will just do this over and over again.

Roosh likely has a very strong case against several outlets. He should make them pay.

Speculation, but possible. Either way it's just a thought experiment and I feel as if it does need to be considered as a potential scenario.

Girls generally let go of the resentment if they're pumped and dumped. Some don't.
Girls are more likely than not to be left leaning in their political views.
Roosh has fucked a lot of girls. Is it not safe to say that at least one of them ticks the above two boxes?

The media is not just trying to generate revenue, the powers that control the media control the American political narrative. Shady things go on at the highest level and do you think a resentful girl would not jump at a huge monetary gain would not jump at the chance to retrospectively accuse him of rape? On top of that, she's probably on the "Roosh is pro-rape" bandwagon as well. She may very well retrospectively look back and convince herself she was raped.

I stand by the assertion that going after the media in the courts, especially when you stand for a viewpoint that most people have been brain washed to find offensive will yield, at the very best, a monetary gain and small moral victory for Roosh and at the very worst financially ruin him, completely discredit the movement and potentially land him in jail?

Post: #41

I have to agree with you Cody on this one. The faggot who wrote the Daily Beast article was so butthurt he even appealed to all women who have been with Roosh, in the hope that one of them could be coerced in some shape or form to lodge retrospective false accusations against him.

In this environment, the system is rigged against Roosh. I would agree that technically the Daily Mail in the UK would offer the best reward/risk ratio, but this is the same justice system that put extremely questionable cases in jail for rape despite no real convincing evidence (Ched Evans comes to mind) and brought a man to trial literally for walking past a woman for half a second. The word "Rape" here is now so emotionally charged that a supposedly unbiased, rational jury will in fact get triggered themselves and immediately take the stance of guilty unless proven innocent to the point where a jury of children with Down's Syndrome could see the truth, as opposed to innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Whatever the specifics of your case, as a heterosexual white male in the UK, if you are tackling mainstream media or a woman lodging false accusations against you, it's like going into a casino where the house always wins. You might come out lucky, but you are going into a game that is rigged against you from the start.

In an ideal world Roosh would get justice and those who slandered him would pay. No dispute from me on that. But we don't live in an ideal world, as we all have seen over the past week.

Post: #42

(02-08-2016 09:36 AM)Going strong Wrote:  During Roosh's press conference, the media wanted, insisted, to know whether or not Roosh actually lived in his parents' house... why? Because they know it might be important in a legal action: if Roosh does not even regularly live in said house, then publishing pictures of a house where he is just visiting, is even more scandalous and illegal. That was the point of these precise media questions. If Roosh had answered, "Oh yes, I do live there usually, or very often", then he would have disqualified a legal action that his parents could initiate...

If they took the time to read anything Roosh has ever written/posted, it would be abundantly clear that he does not live there and spends the vast majority of his time outside of the United States. This is yet another prime example of how uninformed Roosh's haters are and how far away from the truth stuff like these "rape" allegations are.

Post: #43

If you want to help Roosh with costs, support his sites and his books. The ROK article that hit today about that should show you how to help, but you can donate to ROK, you can buy one of his books, and if you've already bought his books you can review them on Amazon.

Post: #44

(02-08-2016 11:32 AM)CodyB Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 09:04 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 03:59 AM)CodyB Wrote:  One thing to consider with any legal action is the potential for Roosh's past conquests to be dug up and turned against him. While seeking damages would be the ideal form of justice, the modern world does not work this way and if he goes against powerful media outlets, they will play dirty and it will also discredit him in the mainstream even more. If he wins, he's the guy who went against the false ideals of what free speech is, if he loses he will become the pro-rape activist who tried suppress the media.

Further;
How many girls has he slept with? Alot.
How many of those girls would be resentful that they were pumped and dumped? Probably a few.
How many of those girls would happily say in a court of law that she did not consent if they were approached and paid off by the accused's lawyers? Probably quite a few as well.

No one plays clean and a lawsuit might actually allow these large media outlets to further their agenda and fabricate an actual rape.

WNL - Would not litigate

You're just speculating when people like Irenicus were talking facts. Even despite this, no one has come forward with an accusation.

This is very important. The media, establishment, whatever, needs to face consequences for their actions. If they don't, they will just do this over and over again.

Roosh likely has a very strong case against several outlets. He should make them pay.

Speculation, but possible. Either way it's just a thought experiment and I feel as if it does need to be considered as a potential scenario.

Girls generally let go of the resentment if they're pumped and dumped. Some don't.
Girls are more likely than not to be left leaning in their political views.
Roosh has fucked a lot of girls. Is it not safe to say that at least one of them ticks the above two boxes?

The media is not just trying to generate revenue, the powers that control the media control the American political narrative. Shady things go on at the highest level and do you think a resentful girl would not jump at a huge monetary gain would not jump at the chance to retrospectively accuse him of rape? On top of that, she's probably on the "Roosh is pro-rape" bandwagon as well. She may very well retrospectively look back and convince herself she was raped.

I stand by the assertion that going after the media in the courts, especially when you stand for a viewpoint that most people have been brain washed to find offensive will yield, at the very best, a monetary gain and small moral victory for Roosh and at the very worst financially ruin him, completely discredit the movement and potentially land him in jail?

I don't totally agree with your analysis and fear of scandal. People are not completely stupid, across the world. Even common people watching the MSM.

I mean, if some (lying) woman comes out of the shadows after this media-frenzy and says, "Hey I remember now, I was raped by Roosh in X country, I just forgot to mention it for some years"... do you really think that people would believe this shit? I don't.

This is the limit with MSM lies. They can, and do, lie, but they have to be careful not to lie too blatantly. And for them to present a crazy blue-haired woman saying "Hey I remember now, I was raped by Roosh in X country, I just forgot to mention it for some years, but now my memory is refreshed", well it would be such an obvious, convenient lie, that nobody in the world would believe it.

Also, some members say that it'd be a big risk for just small compensation money. I disagree. The DailyMail is a billionaire media. Roosh, and more than anything his parents, could ask for half a million pounds, easy. I mean, Roosh's parents can go to a court, explain the shock, and risk for their safety and lives, it was for them to see their personal house and address pictured for no reason in MSM, and ask for big compensation money. I bet they would win. Which judge could refuse them a win?

I spoke to a French lawyer I know, of high reputation, and he told me, it's the crucial legal point: the doxxed house was not even the legal or usual residency place of Roosh. MSM had no business photographing or revealing this private-people house. Obviously Roosh's parents have a legal case. For serious money.

Post: #45

(02-07-2016 03:07 PM)Habano Wrote:  I'll offer the follow observation: if you want to sue someone for slander, libel, or defamation, it's better to sue in a common law country such as the U.K., Australia, or Canada. The law in those countries is very plaintiff-friendly; it has evolved so that if you can prove the other party said or published untrue statements, you almost always win. In the U.S., it's significantly harder because of the First Amendment and various affirmative defense that have been built into state law. In other words, it's harder to put the defendant on the hook without the defendant slipping off again.

Last year, the Daily Beast did a hit piece on Trump raping his ex-wife, Ivana. This is what Trump's lawyer told the reporter writing the piece:

Quote:Trump’s lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.

“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen said. “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”

“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,” he added.

I agree with Habano on this one. Libel law in the US creates significantly greater barriers to the plaintiff than in other countries. I haven't practiced in the US, but it appears to me that the American court system is pretty lethargic and that there are all sorts of procedural shenanigans that can slow down a case and keep it from coming to trial for many years.

England and Wales is the libel plaintiff's paradise and in fact is often used as a venue for libel tourism.

Canada's libel laws are midway between those of the UK and the US but in my experience the court system is considerably better run than in the UK and court procedures are pretty straightforward.

I imagine Australia's libel laws are probably closer to those of England and Wales than to the United States.

I don't know about civil law jurisdictions such as France, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are quite plaintiff-friendly.

Even if you have been libelled, it doesn't mean that you are entitled to damages. Damages are awarded in libel for loss of reputation and pecuniary (financial) losses resulting therefrom. If your reputation is already poor, or you haven't actually suffered any financial losses then you'll may be awarded only nominal damages.

Some jurisdictions (England and Wales for example) will require that a libel notice be sent to the offending party within a year of the alleged libel on the assumption that if your reputation is suffering you can't sit around and wait for damage to acrue.

And of course libel actions need not go to court. Large media corporations may or may not fight this (it's not unusual for them to settle and make it go away), but if you identify and serve a libel notice/pre-action letter through your lawyers on individuals SJWs who libelled you there's a good chance that they'll fold rather than face an expensive court case.

I've never practiced defamation law, so I'm not an expert, but there's the basics.