2008 is Here and I've made a resolution *Please Read*

Before I get to my resolution, let me tell you a little bit about myself. When I was growing up, I was never a person that was very trusting and it just became worse over the years as I had more reason to not trust people and then when people started coming to me and saying that they were having problems with someone online, I decided to put my evil talents to use and I began digging into places I normally wouldn't find myself and I became quite good at it.

The longer I did this, the more resentful I became because it was an all too familiar reminder of myself. I began realizing that I was looking for what happened to me in other people and just knew that the people I began looking into had to have done something just as bad or worse.

I am the person that everyone loves to hate and I'm the person that you will suddenly find on Dateline as having vanished without a trace because I love to start shit or rather I love to finish shit that others start and bring out their worst qualities. What I mean by that is I dig deep for what it is that brought me to them in the first place and use it to my advantage and I get a thrill out of exposing them for lies and perhaps cheating on their spouse.

In some cases, like this recent thing, I tend to over react and I make it personal. When my friend came to me with this thing with Nikki, I made it my mission to make sure the people involved were either given peace of mind when I found out who was doing this or make sure the guilty parties were proven guilty and make sure the consequences followed.

That part will never change, its bred in me and its what I do and I do it well. However there is such thing as being too much of a bitch and that's what I did here. I made it personal because having been screwed myself, I wanted to make sure that whoever did this, paid the price for their wrong doing.

But, in doing some more looking into this and not really getting the results I did because I digged but because I realized I was just taking my sources at their word and assuming that this person she chatted with was the guilty party. It hadn't occurred to me that the sources I went to might not know what went on the past two years.

I realized I said this was closed but I had to make sure everyone knows that EVEN though NONE of this happened and it is NOT true about Nikki, that I may have jumped the gun and perhaps the wrong person is being blamed and for that I apologize to everyone involved, especially Nikki and her.

I hadn't even thought that the one person I talked to might not know and the other people are probably telling me the truth but it may not actually be them answering. I do believe it was them answering but who knows. What I'm saying is that I probably blew things way out of proportion and for that I'm sorry.

I also want to say that it was never my intention to hurt anyone, especially Nikki because even though its my job to find the truth, I sometimes get carried away and I end up putting my foot in my mouth and as usual cause chaos. Anything that has been said that implies him as being involved in things like this is NOT true and everyone must not assume that it is true because its not. Nikki is perhaps one of the best examples of what it takes to beat the worst possible odds.

You could say he's a miracle and that he is meant to send us a message that anything is possible and no matter how much you think the world is against you it is possible to turn that around and make it a more positive place to be.

My resolution for the new year is first to make sure everyone knows that I promise not to jump to conclusions unless I know for sure who it is that is actually the guilty party and try not to make it personal when it has nothing to do with me and make sure that when I do investigate things, I don't bring it like here but to keep it between the proper parties so that they are not in any way hurt by what is involved, at least in the sense of not having the whole world watching you like a public trial.

There is more than enough people judging others by what they do and I don't agree with public trials that are filmed on TV no matter what they do because to me, they are getting attention whether positive or negative and even though they have certain rights, I don't believe in giving them attention that will draw them sympathy if they are guilty of the crime with intent and malice when they committed it.

Same goes with what just happened and things I've investigated in my lifetime. However, I may be wrong in blaming certain parties and so until I know for certain, whatever happens will be kept private for the sake of everyone involved.

In one way, I made it personal I guess because I have the utmost respect and admiration for Nikki and I don't want to see him taken advantage of and I felt like someone was and whoever it might be is still yet to be found out. However, I will do so more quietly because the last thing I would ever do is intentionally hurt Nikki. I've got a lot of respect for him and hope soon that we can meet and he can personally tell me I'm a bitch. hehe.

In the year 2008, I plan to be less of a bitch and forgive those who have double crossed me and instead look upon it as a way to become wiser and know that, that is something that I won't let it repeat itself. Happy New Year everyone and let's start this new year right and spend it focusing on the positive and make the negative less important. Thank you.

Please Note

Okay everyone, I have deleted all posts except for a few. I want to make sure everyone knows that none of the information I spoke of concerning what I have recently been posting about is true, in the sense of 2 of the main parties involved have never been involved in such things and wouldn't do so.

I've done more digging and am finding out a lot of things, none of which I will disclose. I'm going to be consulting an attorney on the matter and see what he thinks but please NOTE that the main parties have never done such things, nor would they so consider it just rumor with no truth to it. Something did happen but what is going to be my focus on the matter and what did happen is simply not knowing who my friend was talking to and that is the key factor. Everything else is bull and whatever else there is, will remain between the parties and solved amongst themselves.

So to protect the main parties involved, namely the bands, no more will be said here or anywhere else online and this subject is closed so disregard whatever things you've read because neither band have ever done these things.

Now the purpose of this will change to saying positive things about bands or any other news I might find worthwhile. Thank you.

Court TV News/Impersonating a Music Band

*NOTE* I will be making posts on different outlooks on the laws that state what is illegal and what is not and the previous posts will be elsewhere and not made public as of yet until these matters have been throughly dealt with. Thank you.

In Court TV News, San Antonio Superstar Tony Parker filed a lawsuit against a celebrity gossip website when they made statements that he was having an affair with a French Model, cheating on his wife Eva Longoria. These accustions are false and he's seeking $40,000,000 in damages.

http://www.courttv.com/people/2007/1220/parker_ap.html

Click link above for more on the story. To purposely and intentionally Impersonate someone whether it be a celebrity or anyone else is illegal and a form of Fraud and Slander. To make false accusations against a real person is also Fraud and although the laws are different in every state, to purposely impersonate a real person is against the law and are subject to stiff fines and jail time.

Also in a related article, in 10 states it is against the law to impersonate a music band. This can relate to making false statements about them and implying that you are them and purposely deceiving a person or persons with the intentions of personal gain by way of frauduently making someone believe you are the person you are impersonting.

New Jersey recently became the tenth state to pass a “Truth in Music” bill. Led by a lobbying effort from vintage singing groups like the Drifters and Sha Na Na, musicians have pushed for legislation making it illegal to use the name of a famous band unless it includes at least one original member or unless management holds a trademark.

Jon Bauman (pictured), the lead singer of the original Sha Na Na, told the L.A. Times: “For the people who made this music to be suffering this indignity at this point in their life when they should be recognized as pioneers is just heartbreaking.”

The statutes read roughly as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or conduct a live musical performance or production through the use of a false, deceptive or misleading affiliation, connection or association between a performing group and a recording group.” Impersonators are subject to stiff fines.

Fraud Definitions

Wikipedia Encyclopedia Definition of Fraud

In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.

Definition

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

Marriage Fraud can take several forms and is the act of entering a marriage for personal gain rather than a genuine desire to enter into a sincere marital relationship. Marriage Fraud is usually associated with obtaining immigration benefits. In the United States, marriage fraud for immigration purposes is punishable under INA §204(c)(1) and the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986. Possible criminal penalties include $250,000 and 5 years in prison as well as deportation and a permanent bar against receiving future immigration status. Marriage Fraud can be either unilateral or bilateral Unity and Immigration Policy in the United States. In a unilateral marriage fraud, only one party is aware of the fraud and the fraud is against both the immigration service as well as the other party. The innocent party may file a lawsuit and/or annulment of the marriage. In a bilateral fraud, both parties are aware of it and both parties are subject to criminal penalties.

In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud – the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct – and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses. Journalistic fraud implies a similar notion, the falsification of journalistic findings.

Defamation, Libel and Slander Laws

Since this person seems so interested in this blog, let's read this. Before I post this, the previous posts and anything said is 100% true in the sense that everything I have been sent and have read, to the best of my knowledge without my having been in these chats or e mails are accurate to the best of my knowledge and my friend has every reason to believe she was purposely decieved and it has been said by three of the parties that all chats and E mails are bogus, false and they've never been in Yahoo IM or have ever e mailed her and she has e mails saying as such. An article on Laws pertaining to everything this has been about from expertlaw.com. On a side note, when she became doubtful of this, she went directly to the source and was informed of this and now she is just trying to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else.

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

• Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
• Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
• Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
• Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.

A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.

An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.

Public Figures

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.