Suing for defamation is a plague that is intended to deprive the sued party of their natural right to free speech and their money or because of an agenda that relates to business or personal interests. Once someone thinks that you have a power or money you are exposed to being sued for defamation, regardless of the facts.

Regrettably, I am an expert on the subject, having being sued for defamation four times in the last 9 years, as follows:

1. The wife of an executive of the music publisher who stole the music that belongs to my family sued me for defamation. The lawsuit does not say what, when and to whom the difamation statements were made. In spite of this anomality, the judge took 17 months to dismiss the claim.

2. A copyright attorney sued me for defamation because of a news article that I wrote and was published on a sonwriter advocacy web page. The news article said that the legal representation of a songwriter did a “sloppy job or was incompetent or wasted the songwriter’s time”. The songwriter had sued a major record company (Fonovisa) for $US 6 million for using two of his songs without his authorization. As it turned out, before trial was to commence, the lawsuit was withdrawn because there was no case against Fonovisa, as Fonovisa had never actually sold any unlicensed records. In a deposition the attorney that sued me was asked why he had asked for $US 6 million in damages (a huge, absurd, amount, even if the record company had sold a multiple platinum record) the reply was: “paper holds anything you put on”. The attorney wants an award of $US 2 million in damages for the alleged defamation. The case is pending in court.

3. The same copyright attorney as in 2 above sued me because he alleges that a fictional attorney on a work of fiction which I authored and posted on the web referred to him. The fictional lawyer is named “ratil”. The attorney alleges that he is “ratil” and it means I called him a “rata”, spanish for rat. The attorney again, wants an award of $US 2 million in damages for the alleged defamation. The case is pending in court.

3. The same copyright attorney as in 2 and 3 above sued me because he alleges that in a private (no witnesses) telephone conversation (with an executive of a tv/radio broadcaster for whom the attorney is doing some work) I allegedly said some nasty things about him. In deposition the a broadcaster executive said that I said they made “a big error in hiring the attorney” and that “he knew nothing”. Again, the attorney wants an award of $US 2 million for the alleged difamation, which is euphemistically called in the lawsuit “tortious interference and persecussion”. The case is pending in court.

What, me worry?

Jon, dont worry. The crackpots will be unmasked in due time in Canada and in Puerto Rico. Yes, paper hold anything you put on it, but reason will beat a piece of paper called lawsuit. Yes, the laws must be updated to the 21st, century. The dark ages ended five centuries ago and the legal system has not realized it.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com