On December 18, 2023, Attorney Brooke Redmond of Wright Brothers Law Offices in Twin Falls Idaho, sent Denise and Joseph a demand letter together AND Denise a letter separately.
Brooke’s letter included three demands.
- to demand that all further correspondence with my Clients (or their immediate families, as applicable) be directed toward me and that Powers make no further direct contact with my Clients (or their immediate family members);
- to demand that Powers immediately cease and desist from making defamatory statements about any of my Clients; and
- to apprise you of my Clients’ intent to defend the TEDRA Agreement and the Court’s approval thereof in the Approval Action.
Brooke, while I appreciate your offer, I will politely decline.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND #1 — DECLINE OFFER
to demand that all further correspondence with my Clients (or their immediate families, as applicable) be directed toward me and that Powers make no further direct contact with my Clients (or their immediate family members);
Brooke, how do I correspond with you if you NEVER respond to my valid legal questions to your previous demands?
I appreciate your offer, Brooke, but at this time, I will deny your offer.
I will attempt to correspond with any family member I choose to (or any human for that matter), absent a court order.
In case you’re wondering about the purpose of the blog and podcast (not podcase, Brooke), it’s due to the 100% stone-cold silence from Marjorie, Janette, Charmelle, and yourself, Brooke.
Again, I appreciate your offer to attempt to overrule my First Amendment right to attempt communication with my family, but I do decline with optimism.
Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle have been invited to all conference calls (podcasts), before we decided to publish them online, and all parties have chosen to not communicate or join any call.
Since your clients refuse to communicate in good faith, a reasonable response is to make the truth public information.
As you’re aware of, once we file any and all claims with the court, they become public knowledge.
It was never Joseph’s original intention to publish the Powers v. Puka case in a public manner, however, your clients persistent silence was the proper motivation that Joseph needed to publish his understanding of the truth to be judged by God, family, and the community at large — with the intetion of protecting those from silent conduct.
Again, Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle, scripture gives you appropriate guidance on how to overcome if you’re accused. If you are in the right, you have nothing to worry about and no need to hide behind lawyers.
- Romans 3:4 – Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”
To spare Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle from publicly revealing all the details about the truth of our family dispute, Joseph made exhaustive attempts to directly communicate with the parties to find an amicable solution to their silent unconscionable disinheriting, and potentially fraudulent/extorting actions.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND #2 — DECLINE OFFER
to demand that Powers immediately cease and desist from making defamatory statements about any of my Clients; and
Elements Of Defamation In Idaho
In order for you to succeed in collecting damages for defamation, you Brooke, as an Idaho BAR licensed attorney are aware of the required elements needed to prove your claim.
In a defamation action, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant:
(1) communicated information concerning the plaintiff to others;
(2) that the information was defamatory; and
(3) that the plaintiff was damaged because of the communication. Clark v. Spokesman-Review, 163 P. 3d 216 – Idaho: Supreme Court 2007
Can you, Brooke, please send me a bill for the damages Janette received from us saying that people don’t like Janette?
Upon receiving the bill and proof of damages to Janette for Denise claiming that — people not liking Janette — I’ll do my best to pay those damages in full before a court orders property seizure against myself.
I’m very curious how you’d prove to the court with strict proof that’s competent evidence that this statement was not said by at least one of Janette’s co-workers to Denise.
I’m also interested in what actual provable damages anyone can claim because of high school drama of the typical game of — he said that she said that he didn’t like me.
I will also be declining your offer and I will continue to speak the truth as I understand it.
Defense Against Your Defamation Claim
- Truth: This is perhaps the most straightforward and powerful defense against a defamation claim. Under defamation law, a statement, even if it’s harmful to someone’s reputation, is not considered defamatory if it is true. The rationale behind this defense is that the law does not aim to protect an individual’s reputation if that reputation is undeserved. In defamation cases, the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of the statement often falls on the defendant.
- First Amendment: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. This defense is particularly relevant in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern. The Supreme Court has ruled that in such cases, a higher standard is required for defamation—actual malice. This means that the statement must have been made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This defense acknowledges the importance of free speech and open debate, especially on matters concerning the public or public figures.
- Pure Opinion: This defense is based on the premise that opinions, as opposed to statements of fact, are generally not subject to defamation claims. An opinion is a subjective statement about something, reflecting the speaker’s viewpoint or belief rather than asserting a concrete, objective fact. Since opinions cannot be proven true or false, they typically do not fall under defamation. However, the line between opinion and fact can sometimes be blurred, especially if an opinion implies undisclosed facts. In such cases, courts will evaluate the overall context in which the statement was made to determine whether it is a protected opinion.
Idaho Case Law On Defamation
—the Idaho Supreme Court adopted the approach of the Second Circuit in libel cases distinguishing between a statement of fact subject to potential defamation liability or a mere expression of an opinion noting: “An assertion that cannot be proved false cannot be held libelous. A writer cannot be sued for simply expressing his opinion of another person, however … Wiemer v. Rankin, 790 P. 2d 347 – Idaho: Supreme Court 1990
Brooke, Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle — I believe your behavior is disgusting beyond belief. Your inability to comprehend right from wrong is truly a sight to behold for anyone interested in truth and justice.
RESPONSE TO DEMAND #3 — DECLINE OFFER
to apprise you of my Clients’ intent to defend the TEDRA Agreement and the Court’s approval thereof in the Approval Action.
I didn’t need a demand letter to tell me of your intent.
Your 417+ days of silence were crystal clear as to your intentions.
Response To Other Claims In Brooke’s Frivolous Demand Letter
The Podcast also contains short audio statements from phone calls with my Clients that seem to have been edited, altered, or otherwise presented in a way that may not accurately reflect the entire conversation that was had. The comments appear to have been made for the specific purpose of damaging my Clients’ character and/or reputation and business. Such conduct is both wrongful and actionable. Demand is hereby made that you cease and desist all such conduct. If such continues, my clients will seek damages for defamation of character.
To clarify, our intention is the truth, the whole truth, no partial truth, and nothing but the truth.
Marjorie made all sorts of wild claims that led us to where we are at currently.
Marjorie’s inability to take a firm honorable stance on any claims we’ve made in the Powers v. Puka case or directly confront her family to explain with any level of reasonable detail — without unilaterally stopping any attempts to get at the full truth — is unreasonable to any reasonable person.
If you can present to me any evidence to suggest anything in the above videos is NOT true, I will remove the videos and issue a public formal apology — without hesitation.
Until Marjorie, Janette, or Charmelle admit and apologize for the part the role they played in us getting to where we are today — we intend to continue to exercise our legal rights to the causes of action we believe have standing and merit.
If any part of you believe it’s okay to unconscionably disinherit their daughter before a recently deceased family member’s interment, despite Tom and Marjorie’s express intentions of nearly 20 years, then we have no choice but to pursue justice to the fullest extent of the law.
See also: Give Janette Money Or Marjorie Will Keep Hurting Andrea — Did Joseph Have A Choice?
See also: Luke 11:46 & 52: Jesus said, “Woe to you lawyers also!”
For you, Brooke, to controvert this issue and to persistently defend Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s frivolous claims is against the Idaho Rules Of Professional Conduct.
At a minimum, there is uncertainty in our claims against Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle.
However, I’ll look forward to your good faith argument for defending Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle.
If the court finds that you, Brooke, are indeed defending a frivolous claim, we will swiftly move the court for sanction.
If in the end, your combined actions are actually legal and lawful, then so be it.
But until then, only an appeals court judge will give me orders, not you, Brooke.
Is Brooke Defending A Frivolous Lawsuit?
Idaho Rules Of Professional Conduct (PDF)
RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Lawyers have an ethical duty to avoid pursuing or defending claims that are frivolous, meaning claims that have no basis in law or fact.
This principle is outlined in the rules of professional conduct which govern the legal profession.
These rules generally prohibit lawyers from filing suits or defenses when they know the claim is frivolous.
However, lawyers may take on cases where the merit of the claim is uncertain or if there is a good faith argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law.
In situations where the validity of a claim is not clear-cut, a lawyer might still represent a client, provided there is some basis for the claim, even if it’s not a strong one.
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.1, states that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
This includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
If a court determines that a claim or defense is indeed frivolous, it may impose sanctions, including fines and attorney’s fees, against the lawyer and/or their client.
Therefore, while lawyers should not defend a claim they know to be frivolous, they may defend claims where there is some arguable basis in law or fact, even if the chances of success are slim.
This distinction is important for maintaining the balance between advocating zealously for clients and upholding the integrity of the legal system.
RULE 3.1: MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Meritorious Claims and Contentions,” sets ethical standards for lawyers regarding the filing and defense of legal proceedings.
The rule is designed to prevent the abuse of legal processes by prohibiting lawyers from presenting or defending claims or legal positions that are frivolous—that is, without a sound basis in law or fact.
Here’s a breakdown of its key components:
- Basis in Law and Fact: Lawyers must not initiate or defend a legal proceeding unless they believe there is a legitimate basis for it in law and fact. This requirement is meant to ensure that legal actions are grounded in genuine disputes or needs and are not being used to harass or burden others without cause.
- Good Faith Arguments: The rule acknowledges that legal advocacy can involve arguing for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Therefore, it allows lawyers to present claims or defenses that may push the boundaries of current law, provided these arguments are made in good faith. This part of the rule supports the evolution and improvement of legal precedents and doctrines.
- Special Consideration in Criminal Defense: The rule specifically addresses the role of lawyers in criminal defense, acknowledging the unique aspects of criminal proceedings, particularly the severe consequences for defendants. It states that a lawyer defending a criminal case, or a case that could result in incarceration, may defend the proceeding in such a way as to require every element of the case to be established. This means that even if a defense might seem weak or unlikely to succeed, the lawyer is still ethically permitted, and indeed obligated, to require the prosecution to prove every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This rule is critical for maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system.
It balances the need to allow lawyers to zealously advocate for their clients, including pursuing novel or emerging legal theories, against the need to prevent the legal system from being clogged with baseless claims.
What Is Defamation?
Defamation is a legal term used to describe a false statement made by one person about another, which harms the reputation of the person the statement is about.
Defamation can take two main forms: libel and slander.
- Libel: This refers to defamation that is written, such as in a newspaper, book, or online post. Libel is permanent in nature.
- Slander: This is defamation that is spoken and heard, like in a conversation or over a broadcast, such as radio or TV. Slander is considered to be more transient.
The key elements of defamation generally include:
- A False Statement: The statement must be false. True statements, no matter how damaging, are not considered defamatory.
- Publication to a Third Party: The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the subject of the statement.
- Injury: The statement must cause injury to the reputation of the person it’s about. This often means showing that the statement has caused others to think less of the person.
- Fault: Depending on the case, the plaintiff might need to prove that the person making the statement did so with a certain level of fault, ranging from negligence to actual malice (especially in cases involving public figures).
Defamation law is designed to balance the protection of individual reputations with freedom of speech.
Different jurisdictions have variations in how they handle defamation cases, including what defenses are available (such as truth or privilege) and what damages can be claimed.
It’s important to note that opinions or hyperbolic statements that are clearly not meant to be taken as factual assertions are generally not considered defamatory.
The laws and standards regarding defamation can be complex and often require detailed legal analysis.
What Is Frivolous?
In the legal context, the term “frivolous” refers to a claim, lawsuit, motion, or appeal that lacks any substantial basis in law or fact and is often intended to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition.
A frivolous claim is identified as one that:
- Lacks any arguable basis either in law or in fact.
- May be based on allegations that are the product of delusion or fantasy, or on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
- Can include actions such as filing the lawsuit itself, a baseless motion for a legal ruling, or an appeal with no single arguable basis.
Frivolous legal actions are those that are clearly lacking in substance, meaning they have no basis in fact or for which the law provides no remedy.
These actions are typically considered to be without serious purpose or value, often about matters that are trivial, meritless, or without substance to the extent that an investigation would be disproportionate in terms of time and cost.
A frivolous claim is also characterized by the implication that it has not been brought in good faith, as it clearly has no reasonable prospect of success and/or is not significant enough to warrant its mention.
Additionally, it can be vexatious if it is pressed specifically to cause harassment, annoyance, frustration, or financial cost to the defendant or respondent.
In terms of legal consequences, if a court determines a claim to be frivolous, it can dismiss the case and may order the party that filed the frivolous claim, and possibly their attorney, to pay any reasonable expenses incurred, including attorney’s fees.
Furthermore, state codes of ethics for the practice of law generally require that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
This includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
The differentiation between frivolous and non-frivolous legal actions is vital for the efficient operation of the legal system, ensuring that the court’s time and resources are used for legitimate and substantial legal disputes.
These definitions and explanations are based on various legal resources, including the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, Wikipedia, and US Legal, Inc.
What Are The Elements Of A Frivolous Lawsuit In Idaho?
In Idaho, as in many jurisdictions, a lawsuit is considered frivolous if it lacks a legal basis or is not supported by any credible evidence. The elements of a frivolous lawsuit typically include:
- Lack of a Valid Legal Claim: The lawsuit does not state a claim for which legal relief can be granted. This means the case is not supported by existing law or a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
- Lack of Factual Evidence: The lawsuit is not supported by any credible evidence. This means that the facts presented do not support a legal claim, or are completely absent, false, or irrelevant to the case.
- Improper Motive: Often, a frivolous lawsuit is filed with an improper motive, such as to harass or maliciously injure the other party, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
- Abuse of Judicial Process: The lawsuit is used as a tool to abuse the judicial process, aiming to burden the defendant or the court system without a valid reason.
It’s important to note that determining whether a lawsuit is frivolous is a legal judgment that courts make based on the specifics of each case.
In Idaho, as elsewhere, if a lawsuit is deemed frivolous, the party that filed it may be subject to sanctions, including paying the legal fees of the other party.
What Are The Elements For Abuse Of Judicial Process In Idaho?
In Idaho, as in other jurisdictions, “Abuse of Judicial Process” refers to the improper use of the court system in a way that is not consistent with its intended purpose.
This concept is not always clearly defined by statute, but generally, it encompasses the following elements:
- Improper Purpose: The primary element of abuse of the judicial process is using the court system for an ulterior or improper purpose. This means that the legal action is not primarily about seeking justice or resolving a legitimate legal dispute, but rather about achieving some other goal, such as harassing an opponent, pressuring them into an unrelated agreement, or damaging their reputation.
- Frivolous or Groundless Claims: Often, lawsuits that constitute an abuse of judicial process involve claims that are frivolous, meaning they have no legal merit, are not supported by facts, or both. This can also include repeatedly filing lawsuits against the same party with similar baseless claims.
- Misuse of Legal Procedures: This can involve actions like filing unnecessary motions, engaging in unwarranted discovery practices, or other legal maneuvers that are intended more to burden or harass the opposing party than to advance a legitimate legal claim.
- Intent to Harm: There is often an element of intent to harm the other party, financially or otherwise. This can be difficult to prove, as it involves demonstrating the subjective intent of the person who initiated the lawsuit.
- Lack of Probable Cause: In some contexts, abuse of judicial process can be linked to initiating legal actions without probable cause, meaning there is no reasonable basis for the lawsuit, and the person initiating it knows or should know this.
It’s important to note that abuse of judicial process is a serious accusation and proving it typically requires clear evidence of misuse.
The court must find that the legal process was used primarily for an improper purpose.
If proven, the consequences can include sanctions, fines, or even criminal charges, depending on the severity and nature of the abuse.
What Are The Elements Of Injunctive Relief In Idaho?
In Idaho, the elements for obtaining injunctive relief, as outlined in the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65, include:
- Notice: A preliminary injunction can only be issued after notifying the adverse party.
- Reasons for Issuance: The order must state why the injunction was issued.
- Specific Terms: The terms of the injunction must be clearly stated.
- Detailed Description: The injunction must specifically describe the acts restrained or required, without referring to other documents.
- Security Requirement: The movant must provide security to cover costs and damages if it is found that the injunction was wrongfully obtained. The State of Idaho and its political subdivisions are exempt from this requirement.
- Grounds for Preliminary Injunction: This includes situations where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, the act complained of causes irreparable injury, the defendant is violating the plaintiff’s rights, or the defendant is disposing of property with intent to defraud the plaintiff.
These rules ensure that injunctive relief is granted only after careful consideration and due process, balancing the rights of both parties involved in a legal dispute.
Janette Is Seeking An Injunction Because Denise Said People At Her Work Don’t Like Her?
For Janette to successfully seek an injunction based on Denise’s statement that people at her work don’t like her, she would need to demonstrate that this statement meets the criteria for injunctive relief.
Typically, injunctive relief requires showing a likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of hardships in favor of the plaintiff, a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and that the injunction serves the public interest.
However, a statement about colleagues’ personal feelings may not easily fit into these legal criteria, as it’s more of an opinion than a fact and may not necessarily cause irreparable harm or justify a legal remedy like an injunction.
Is This Their Strongest Argument Or Is The Climax To Come?
According to The Art Of Readable Writing, a guidebook lawyers use to enhance the clarity and persuasion power of their writing, they explain why starting with your strongest argument has a higher tendency to persuade those reading your writing.
Starting with your strongest argument in writing enhances readability and engagement.
It captures the reader’s attention immediately and establishes a solid foundation for your point of view.
This approach is particularly effective in persuasive writing, where making a compelling case upfront can significantly influence the reader’s perspective.
By leading with your most convincing argument, you set a tone of authority and credibility, encouraging the reader to continue with an interest in what you have to say.
If this is their strongest argument, then I’m blown away by their continual persistence to avoid confronting the truth about how they treated Denise and Joseph at very sensitive times.
What Is “Harm To The Person’s Reputation” In Idaho?
In Idaho, defamation is a civil tort that allows individuals to sue if they have been defamed, in order to receive compensation for the harm caused by false statements.
Defamation encompasses both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements), and both are illegal under Idaho law.
To successfully sue for defamation in Idaho, several key elements must be established:
- False Statement: The statement made must be false. Truthful statements, regardless of their impact, are not considered defamatory.
- Publication to a Third Party: The defamatory statement must have been communicated to at least one person other than the subject of the statement.
- Harm to Reputation: The statement must have caused harm to the reputation of the individual. This harm can manifest as damage to the person’s standing in the community, professional reputation, or other forms of personal damage.
Additionally, certain defamatory statements are considered so harmful that the law presumes damage.
This concept, known as defamation per se, applies to statements that accuse someone of a crime, attack a person’s professional character, allege a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease, or statements about a person’s chastity.
In such cases, the victim doesn’t need to prove actual damages as these statements are inherently defamatory.
In terms of defenses against defamation in Idaho, several are recognized:
- Truth: A statement that is true cannot be defamatory.
- Privilege: Certain situations, like statements made in court or during government proceedings, may be protected.
- Opinion: Opinions are generally not considered defamatory as they are subjective and not capable of being proven true or false.
- Consent: If the person consented to the publication of the statement, it cannot be considered defamatory.
Regarding damages, successful defamation lawsuits in Idaho may result in various types of compensation.
These can include compensatory damages for economic and non-economic harm, such as lost wages and emotional distress, and in cases of malicious conduct, punitive damages.
In some instances, injunctive relief to prevent further defamatory statements may also be granted.
It is important to act within the legal timeframe for defamation cases in Idaho, which is up to two years from the time the defamatory statement was made.
For a more comprehensive understanding and to assess the specifics of a potential case, it’s advisable to consult with legal professionals experienced in defamation law.
What Is Mean To Attack A Person’s Professional Character?
Attacking a person’s professional character in the context of defamation refers to making false and damaging statements about an individual’s professional abilities, conduct, ethics, or performance.
This kind of defamation can be particularly harmful as it directly impacts an individual’s career, reputation in their industry, and ability to earn a living.
In legal terms, such defamation falls into two categories:
- Slander: This is spoken defamation. It typically occurs in one-on-one conversations, public addresses, and media interviews. An example would be falsely accusing a professional of incompetence or unethical behavior in a public meeting or through spoken words to others in the industry.
- Libel: This is written defamation. It can take the form of articles, blog posts, social media posts, and any other written communication. An example might be publishing a false statement online that a professional has engaged in fraudulent activities or has been terminated from a job for professional misconduct.
To establish a defamation claim, several key elements need to be proven:
- Falsity of the Statement: The claim being made must be entirely fabricated and have no basis in reality.
- Publication: The fraudulent statement must have been communicated to at least one other person, apart from the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Harm to Reputation: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damages as a result of the false statement, such as loss of work, financial loss, or social embarrassment.
- Fault: The plaintiff may need to demonstrate that the defendant acted maliciously or negligently.
The legal implications of defamation include the balancing of protecting individual reputations against safeguarding free speech.
Defamation laws can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another, but they typically require the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof.
Defenses against defamation claims include:
- Truth: A statement that is proven to be true is an absolute defense against defamation.
- Privilege: Certain statements made in specific contexts, such as judicial declarations or governmental proceedings, may be immune from defamation claims.
- Opinion: Statements that are clearly identified as opinions, and not factual assertions, are generally not considered defamatory.
Workplace defamation can have serious consequences for both employees and employers, including damage to professional reputation, loss of job opportunities, and financial losses for a company.
Proving workplace defamation involves demonstrating that a false statement of fact was made about the victim, communicated to a third party, and caused harm to the victim’s reputation, with at least a negligent level of intent by the defendant.
Understanding the nuances between workplace defamation, opinion, and constructive criticism is crucial.
While defamation involves spreading false information that harms an individual’s reputation, opinions are subjective and not defamatory, and constructive criticism is based on truth, presented in a helpful manner focusing on work or behavior rather than attacking the person.
In summary, attacking a person’s professional character through false statements can constitute defamation, with significant legal and professional consequences.
It is vital for individuals who believe they have been defamed to seek legal counsel to understand their rights and the potential legal actions they can take.
See also: What Qualifies as Workplace Defamation of Character?
And also: Character Defamation: Analyzing the Fundamentals and Legal Implications
Is It Attacking A Person’s Professional Character If You Say That People They Work With Don’t Like You?
Saying that people someone works with don’t like her may not necessarily be an attack on that person’s professional character in the legal sense of defamation.
Defamation typically involves making false statements that harm a person’s reputation, particularly in regard to their professional abilities or ethics.
The statement “people they work with don’t like her” is more of a subjective opinion rather than a factual assertion about her professional competence or behavior.
In defamation cases, the crucial element is the distinction between opinion and fact.
Opinions, especially those that cannot be proven true or false, generally do not constitute defamation.
However, the context and the way the statement is made can be important.
If this statement is made in a manner that implies a factual basis for the dislike, such as implying unprofessionalism or incompetence, then it might edge closer to being defamatory.
The impact of the statement on the person’s professional reputation would also be a factor to consider.
In defamation law, it’s also important to consider whether the statement has caused any actual harm to the person’s reputation, like impacting their job status or professional relationships.
What Does Making False & Damaging Statements About An Individual’s Professional Abilities, Conduct, Ethics, Or Performance?
Making false and damaging statements about an individual’s professional abilities, conduct, ethics, or performance is a serious matter, typically falling under the category of defamation.
Defamation in the workplace, whether as slander (spoken) or libel (written), involves false statements of fact that are communicated to a third party, harming the professional reputation of an individual or business.
These false statements can be made by anyone – employees, employers, or third parties like customers and competitors.
To prove workplace defamation, one must demonstrate that a false statement of fact was made, communicated to a third party, the defendant acted with at least negligence, and the statement caused harm to the victim’s reputation.
Common examples of workplace defamation include false accusations of criminal activity, unethical behavior, incompetence, or misconduct.
Defamation in the workplace can have severe consequences.
For employees, it can lead to job loss, difficulty in finding new employment, and damage to professional relationships.
For employers, it can harm the company’s reputation, impact customer trust, and lead to a decline in productivity and morale.
Defamation law is complex, and the line between defamation and permissible speech, like opinions or constructive criticism, can sometimes be thin.
Constructive criticism is intended to help improve performance or behavior and is based on truth, while defamation involves false statements with an intent to harm or discredit.
Legal remedies for workplace defamation can include filing a lawsuit, seeking damages, and obtaining injunctions to prevent further defamatory statements.
However, it’s essential to consult with an experienced defamation attorney to explore all available options and understand the potential implications of legal action.
What Evidence Does Janette Need To Prove Workplace Defamation?
To prove workplace defamation, the following evidence is typically needed:
- False Statement of Fact: The statement must be factually verifiable as true or false and not merely an opinion.
- Communication to a Third Party (“Publication”): The statement must have been spoken or communicated to someone other than the plaintiff.
- Negligent or Malicious Intent: The defendant must have acted with negligence or malice in making the statement.
- Harm to Plaintiff’s Reputation: The statement must have caused harm to the plaintiff’s professional reputation, which could include job loss, damage to professional relationships, or financial losses for a business.
Evidence can include documents, screenshots, witness testimonies, and records of financial or professional harm. For more detailed guidance, consult a legal professional.
Brooke Claims The “Basic Terms” Of Such Agreement Were Originally Proposed By Joseph And Denise?
If by basic terms, you’re referring to when Marjorie chose to withhold love and affection to her granddaughter (Joseph’s sister & Denise’s daughter) if Joseph doesn’t buy the 612 property?
See also: Can You Have A Contract Without A ‘Genuine’ Meeting Of The Minds?
And also: What Is The Legal Term That Best Describes Surrendering Money Due To Duress Or Coercion?
To resolve this question of fact, I’ll use the discovery tool known as REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION and I’ll request (before compel and sanction motions) for you to produce the proposal in which Joseph and Denise made the offer to dissolve and terminate the Marge Puka Irrevocable Trust.
If we can’t agree or if there’s ambiguity in the “originally proposed terms” then we’ll take this question of fact to trial.
Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Are Optimistic About This Demand Letter?
If you’re optimistic about Brooke’s demand letters to Joseph and Denise, please re-read this blog post in full to understand our point of contention.
It’s very curious how Brooke’s demand letter did not respond to all other claims by Joseph and Denise.
Once again, Brooke selectively chose the details that her clients provided (and omitted) and is, once again, attempting to attack the weakest perceived points — while avoiding what is strong.
See also: Are You Ready To Receive The Enemy?
Brooke’s letter did not stir the pot nor did it calm the hostilities among the family members.
Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle are attempting to subvert due process, God (Matthew 18:15-18), and EVERYTHING it means to be an American.
If Marjorie had an ounce of good faith left in her, she has missed every single opportunity Joseph and Denise have extended to her.
Marjorie and Janette claim to be Christians who follow Jesus, but, when given any and all chance to actually follow Jesus — Marjorie and Janette flip Jesus the middle finger.
Matthew 18:15-18
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins,[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.
Despite what you’re doing, Marjorie and Janette, I will continue to pray for you to find your way back to the one and only good shepherd.
I pray that you come to the full truth and stop playing these silly games in darkness.
If your actual intention was to calm hostilities, you would have started by confession.
Instead, once again, you go back to your lawyer to hide your sin from the world.
Of course, you know, Marjorie and Janette, you will ultimately be judged by God the Father, for your actions.
I pray that on that day that you stand before the LORD YOUR GOD, that our father and Jesus christ are merciful to you.
