This is a copy of a posting to Mr. Wexler's attention which I placed on the Tava thread. I think readers of Mr. Wexler's own board may be interested in what it says. He is walking on very thin ice - and although he is entitled to slam companies that he believes are operating improperly and which have overvalued stocks, opinion must be separated from libel. I selected this message to respond to since he has used the word "fraud" indiscriminately as he always does.
TO THE THREAD and to Mr. Wexler, in particular:
Mr. Wexler has a problem. He doesn't understand the English language especially well and misuses words in his ignorance. Any ongoing use of the word "FRAUD" in his postings pertaining to Tava cannot be claimed as ignorance as a result of this posting. Its definition in "Black's Law Dictionary" is as follows:
"An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another. Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 160 Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067/"
In none of his postings has he demonstrated proof of his repeated accusations of fraud by Tava or its management - and to make absolutely sure that he cannot claim as a defendant in any legal proceedings which might ensue that he did not understand the meaning of the word, I have posted it here so that it will not be a valid defense if he is confronted with charges of "LIBEL", which is the other word with which he has problems (or which may not be in his lexicon) as defined in "Black's Law Dictionary" below:
"A method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs. In its most general sense, any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another. A false and unprivileged publication in writing of defamatory material. Bright v.Los Angeles Unified Schoold Dist., 51 Cal.App.3d 852, 124 Cal.Rptr. 598.604. A maliciously written or printed publication which tends to blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession. Corabi v. Curtis Pub. Co., 441 Pa. 432, 273, A.2d 899, 904."
Libel carries severe financial penalties. This is not a game and the publication of unproven, false and malicious charges is a most serious business that should not be taken lightly by its author - but in view of all the money Mr. Wexler claims to have made, if he is prosecuted and found guilty he has plenty to hand over to Tava; and the price is, perhaps to him, worth the fun he has had in disparaging the company and its management without a single iota of proof. The line between opinion and libel is clearly drawn in law - but since I am not the injured party, as much as I would like to see Mr. Wexler brought up on charges of libel, I have no standing to be able to do so.
|
