Defenses to Defamation and other content based torts


With respect to the above exhibits, the undersigned is willing to agree to use of the attached exhibits during trial subject to the following terms and conditions:

1.    that all redactions are clearly indicated on the face of the document and the areas redacted are clearly delineated.

2.    the that the person printing out the documents will swear that the exhibits in question are true and accurate at the time the document was printed out.

3.    that they are subject to the affirmative defenses that Respondent has already enumerated to the tribunal, namely:  

    a.    First Amendment to the US constitution,
    b.    the Free Speech provision of the Illinois Constitution,
    c.    47 USC sec 230 pertaining to the Internet Decency/Immunity act and the posting of others upon the blog in question,
    d.     the Illinois Elder Abuse Act which provides immunity from disciplinary action for reporting incidences of elder abuse and exploitation;
    e.    The stated policy of the State of Illinois under 735 ILSC 110/5 or the Illinois Citizens Participation Act (see below).

4.    Copyright infringement is not waived.  It is asserted that large portions of the printouts are not fair use nor necessary for trial  and the IARDC should not particpate in wrongful or illegal activities, but that the Tribunal should hold an in camera hearing to determine whether each paragraph and sentence is necessary for a trial on charges asserted in the ARDC’s 01/0813 complaint and then only those actual sentences and paragraphs maybe copied, used and disseminated during the hearing.

5.    Traditional affirmative defenses to defamation in Illinois caselaw, namely,

hyperbole, exaggeration, litigation reporting, fair reporting, innocent construction, political/newsworthy figure criticisms, opinion and all other common law defenses.

It is to be further noted for the record, that the parties do not decide relevance;
this is up to the trier of law.

This waiver is also predicated on the declaration by the Rule 253 disclosure and a declaration to the tribunal that the person in question from WordPress is a qualified internet and blogging forensic witness and has received adequate training in same to analyze all blog changes and in particular on WordPress.

The undersigned is also asking that the ARDC review her documents and analyze for relevance and at time of introduction provide the requisite foundation.

The undersigned asserts that all portions of her blog are irrelevant to this proceeding because the IARDC has not been granted the authority to regulate speech on a non commercial, content oriented blog that is geared toward probate victims and their families and discussing their troubles and issues in probate court.  This is pursuant to Citizens United and other relevant cases.

                        Respectfully Submitted,

                        JoAnne M. Denison

Please note that any actions taken contrary to stated “public policies” of the State of Illinois as enacted by the legislature are ineffective and may not be enforced in any court of law or legal forum.

    (735 ILCS 110/5)
    Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation.
    Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
    The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
    It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing movants.
(Source: P.A. 95-506, eff. 8-28-07.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s