1997 Glaçâ v. Støtanneu (UC): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (4 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 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
[[Evan_Gallagher|Adiêns Glaçâ]] of the [[Political_parties#Historic_Parties|Silver Phoenix Party]] (a merger of the [[Chocolate Orange Party]] and the [[Whigs]] sued the newspaper [[Stotanneu|''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. | [[Evan_Gallagher|Adiêns Glaçâ]] of the [[Political_parties#Historic_Parties|Silver Phoenix Party]] (a merger of the [[Chocolate Orange Party]] and the [[Whigs]]) sued the newspaper [[Stotanneu|''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. | 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. | ||
| 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." | ||
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. | |||
Latest revision as of 06:12, 9 July 2014
| The Judiciary |
| • The Cort Pü Inalt |
| • The General Cort |
| Cort Records |
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.