Difference between revisions of "1997 Glaçâ v. Støtanneu (UC)"

From TalossaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Outcome)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|plaintiff=ADIÊNS GLAÇÂ
 
|plaintiff=ADIÊNS GLAÇÂ
 
|defendant=STØTANNEU
 
|defendant=STØTANNEU
|when={{year|1997}}
+
|when= Argued in {{year|1997}} but eventually abandoned.
 
|opinion= -
 
|opinion= -
 
|other=
 
|other=
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The record is unclear as to the outcome of this case. ''Ár Päts'' claims that when SPP member [[Ieremiac'h Ventrutx]] threatened to email-bomb the King and to encourage "College Republicans" to infiltrate Talossa, "[Glaçâ] abandoned the party and his lawsuit, his reputation in rubble."
 
The record is unclear as to the outcome of this case. ''Ár Päts'' claims that when SPP member [[Ieremiac'h Ventrutx]] threatened to email-bomb the King and to encourage "College Republicans" to infiltrate Talossa, "[Glaçâ] abandoned the party and his lawsuit, his reputation in rubble."
  
On the other hand, the [http://talossa.proboards.com/post/119248/thread recollection] of [[Miestrâ Schivâ]] is that "The Uppermost Cort found that (on the precedent of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=485&page=46 ''Falwell v. Hustler'']) it was impossible to be libelled by a paper with no credibility which no-one took seriously."
+
While the case itself was abandoned, the legal opinion of [[Danihel_Laurieir|Justice Lauriéir]], given in his regular newspaper column ''TZ'', was that (on the precedent of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=485&page=46 ''Falwell v. Hustler'']) it was impossible to be libelled by a paper which lacked credibility.
 
 
More accurate records are needed to determine whether there was in fact a ruling in this case, and what the contents of that ruling were.
 

Latest revision as of 12:12, 9 July 2014

Din el Cort Pü Inalt


ADIÊNS GLAÇÂ
Plaintiff
v.
STØTANNEU
Defendant


Decided
Argued in 1997/XVIII but eventually abandoned.

Brief of the ruling
{{{ruling}}}

Opinion of the Court delivered by
-


Background

Adiêns Glaçâ of the Silver Phoenix Party (a merger of the Chocolate Orange Party and the Whigs) sued the newspaper Støtanneu (run by Robert I) for libel. The newspaper labelled the SPP as a "party of prevaricators", similar to Davron's 1994 "Liberal Party". Crucially, the paper accused Glaça of misleading the Cosâ in his application for citizenship in 1996.

According to Ár Päts, this drawn-out trial was dubbed "the O.J. trial" by Art Verbotten due to its length. During the case, King Robert, on behalf of his newspaper, claimed that Glaçâ was attempting to "censor" the press.

Outcome

The record is unclear as to the outcome of this case. Ár Päts claims that when SPP member Ieremiac'h Ventrutx threatened to email-bomb the King and to encourage "College Republicans" to infiltrate Talossa, "[Glaçâ] abandoned the party and his lawsuit, his reputation in rubble."

While the case itself was abandoned, the legal opinion of Justice Lauriéir, given in his regular newspaper column TZ, was that (on the precedent of Falwell v. Hustler) it was impossible to be libelled by a paper which lacked credibility.