Student Blogger Loses Defamation Case

An anonymous reader writes to tell us about Yaman Salahi, a UC Berkeley student and blogger, who lost a lawsuit brought against him by Lee Kaplan, a journalist for FrontPageMag.com. Kaplan had sued Salahi in California small claims court for tortious business interference and libel, in response to a blog Salahi had set up about him called "Lee Kaplan Watch." Salahi lost in small claims court and then lost an "appeal" — which is essentially a retrial by another small-claims judge. No written opinion was offered with either decision, though all other court filings are available. From Salahi's update on his blog: "...because [Kaplan] sued me in small claims court, I did not have the protections of the anti-SLAPP [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy] statute... I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal, because small claims judges are not obligated to release written opinions with their rulings.... I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected."

Right of Appeal

[John Hasler]

To deny you your right to Appeal [ca.gov] to a real court would be to deny you your right to due process.

This is a racial dispute.

[ushering05401]

My understanding is that both sides have engaged in tainted, sensationalist reporting related to Arab/Israeli issues.

Kaplan is the pro-Israel writer.

Regards.

The article did say

[Henry V .009]

The judge that presided over my appeal decided in Lee Kaplan's favor, ruling that I must pay Kaplan $7,500 in damages plus $75 in court fees.

Maybe he should hire a lawyer

[Dachannien]

Seriously. It took me two minutes to find this:

California Codes 116.710.(b) The defendant with respect to the plaintiff's
claim, and a plaintiff with respect to a claim of the defendant, may appeal
the judgment to the superior court in the county in which the action was heard.

Re:From his site

[Atlantis-Rising]

It's a mistake anyway. Just because you have to basically be a lawyer to know what the correct move is doesn't mean that anything else is less incorrect.

I've dealt with small claims court matters before; court staff will help you formulate it, sure, but they can't (and won't) give you legal advice.

The best advice, as always- if you are being sued, consult a lawyer. The dollar amount is irrelevant. Even if your lawyer spends thirty minutes to look over the filing and tells you everything you've done is fine, it's worth it.

Re:From his site

[Dachannien]

Actually, that would be not showing up to court, which, coincidentally, is how Salahi lost the case the first time around.

Re:Counterstrike? NOPE - waived

[grolaw]

You have a duty to bring all causes relevant in the original action. The matter is decided and the doctrine of "res judicata" precludes relitigating the same matter. But if someone argues that the case has issues that are still viable there is always "collateral estoppel" - issue/claim preclusion to shut down another action.

Besides, small claims and de novo review of a small claims action are not courts of record and this whole business is trivial beyond most /. CowboyNeil poll answers.

Let it be....

Muslim Arabs are semites too, dumbass

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Jews are not the only Semites of the world, and criticism of Israel and its policies is hardly criticism of an entire people (let alone, all the world's Semitic people which include far more than just ethnic Jews).

Not related to blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the court docs. The defendant sent emails to businesses saying he would ruin them if they didn't stop hiring this guy. It has nothing to do with his posting stuff on his blog. He certainly deserved to lose.

small claims court is NOT evil.

[SuperBanana]

If the case were really so cut and dried, Kaplan would have eaten this guy alive in a real court instead of fooling around with small claims.

There are half a dozen comments already in the story, along the lines of "man, what a scumbag, suing in small claims!" or "small claims court sucks, OMG, NO RIGHTS USA SUXORS!"

You have the right to request a small claims court case be moved to a "real" court. You may have to do so immediately, however. There is nothing preventing you from bringing a lawyer with you to small claims court.

Small claims court is a place where a common man who can't afford a lawyer, actually stands a chance. Evidence standards are dropped for both sides, and at least in my state, the laws supporting small claims court state that everyone, from clerk to judge, needs to work to assist both parties as they are *laymen*. It instructs them to be helpful, explain stuff, and be lenient with minor technicalities in paperwork and procedure for the same reason. In "real" court, if you mis-spelled the defendant's name in your filing, you'd risk get your case tossed out. In small claims court, the clerk says, "uh, you mean Smith, not Simth, right?", and everyone moves on.

With the exception of borrowers using lawyers pushing lawsuits through small claims court to sue debtors with lots of bad/false/misleading evidence, small claims court is an excellent service to the public. It fills the niche of crimes the cops don't care about in dollar amounts lawyers cost too much for.

The blogger in this case was too stupid to fire up a browser and start reading how small claims court works in his state- or he simply lost his case because the other side (gasp!) had a legitimate claim. Either way, cry me a river.

Re:I don't think so.

[mbstone]

One of the oddities of the court system is that no court cares, nor can any court know for certain, what you can "afford" or how much money you "have." Nobody knows whether a losing party to a lawsuit has (or does not have) cash hidden under a mattress, or a rich uncle with six months to live. Maybe Mr. Salahi will be able to get a job when he gets out of college and Mr. Kaplan will be able to file a wage garnishment. Maybe someday Mr. Salahi will inherit real estate or win the lottery. Since the lawsuit was based on an "intentional tort," could be Mr. Salahi won't be able to avoid it even if he files for bankruptcy. A judgment creditor can subject a judgment debtor to various kinds of unpleasantness and hassle even if the debtor is truly "judgment proof." Judgments in California earn 10% annual interest, and they can be renewed every 10 years, forever. IAAL.

So was he really guilty?

[Snaller]

According to these guys:

http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=1663 [dafka.org]

Quote:

The student set up a smear website against Kaplan where he fabricated stories that Kaplan had been sued for libel, posed as a congressional staffer and engaged in criminal activities.

Hello? If that is the case, it sounds like he deserved to loose.

From the horse's mouth

[yamansalahi]

Well, I am the defendant in this case. Though I've been a slashdot reader for at least 8 years, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post a comment, let alone create an account. I've looked over some of the comments above and it looks to me like one thing that the summary misses completely are the merits of the case. I suppose it is partially my fault because I haven't written about that yet, though anybody that looks through the court documents can see what is going on. I would advise people to please take a look at the court documents and consider the content of the blog before jumping to conclusions. A note for those who think the website wrongs in focusing on Lee Kaplan: the title is a parody of the group CampusWatch, with which Lee Kaplan was once affiliated, if he is not today.

I will not respond to some of the other ridiculous things people have said above regarding politics and terrorism.

Here is a brief summary that I think Slashdot readers especially will find illuminating:

1) On the defamation charge

Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he presented them knowing that.

My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links.

The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source.

For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.

2) On tortious business interference

Lee Kaplan alleged that e-mails I sent to his webhost complaining about defamatory material he posted about me (alleging I was a member of the US Nazi Party) were actually e-mails sent to his employer. QuantumMedia is listed on every page on his websites; I had every reason to believe this was his webhost and I had every right to file an abuse complaint.

Later, Kaplan claimed that after my e-mails, the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise to hire him as the editor for a sports blogging website called SportsBlogger.com. In my opinion, the likelihood of such a job existing at all is slim--I still believe the story to be entirely fabricated, and I think that that is a reasonable conclusion given that: 1) I have never seen, or been able to find, any sports writing by Lee Kaplan; 2) SportsBlogger.com did not exist last summer, and it does not exist this year either. What Kaplan showed in court as evidence of a passworded website-in-development was simply the standard default page for a new blog, populated with Latin text. 3) Lee claims he lost a $40,000 job offer, but sued e for only $7,500 in small claims court. 5) In an e-mail to me, Haim Kamer wrote that he had not spoken to Kaplan in 5 years. One month later he wrote a letter to the court under oath contradicting that statement. 6) There was no contract ever presented in court proving that such a job offer ever even existed. 7) if you really think about it: what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, s

Re:Right of Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Salahi did appeal this case. Three times. Each time the new judge found against him after a complete trial. He had legal advice from day one and is lying here the same as he did on his blog. Kaplan had a good case. Creating a blog then smearing somene with false accusations of illegal activity on it, plus threatening that persons business assocaites is not freedom of speech, it's criminal.

Re:From his site

[Kjella]

Ever notice how lawyers on slashdot, even when they're 99% more likely to be correct than the average slashdotter, point out that "this is not legal advice"? Giving poor or wrong advice can lead to huge economic losses or even jail time. Usually they have a very costly insurance in case they screw up. and in practise I doubt anyone would insure anyone but a certified professional. And even if that were true, then incompetent legal advice isn't a defense in court and so you might not be able to "undo" the damage with money. Limiting it to civil cases won't help - what's the damage if you lose custody over your child because of crap legal advice? Could it really be fixed with money?

I mean, it's one thing if I give some scabbled-on-the-back-of-a-napkin opinion here, it's quite another if I started charging you money for the service of legal advice. To compare it with another profession with much the same requirements - would you be happy if the guy next door could claim to be a doctor and offer medical advice? What would you think happens the day he overlooks clear signs of a serious disease or injury? It won't be pretty, that's for sure. There's a lot of good legal resources which speak for the general case, in the same way as medical symptoms of various diseases. But if I'm asking about my case specificly, I'd like a certified professional and I sure as hell don't want any slashlawyers who think they're qualified to have an opinion. Sorry.

Re:From his site

[JimDaGeek]

$3,000 won't even allow you to break even.

I had a buyer bail out of buying my home one week after closing. I showed up, my wife showed up, the lawyer and realtor showed up... just not buyer.

We gave them another shot. They didn't show up again. Now, during this time, I had a home I was buying and was supposed to close on. The seller of that house was a realtor and a real prick. When he heard what happened, he raised the price $10,000 USD. So, my buyers that didn't show, now cost me $10,000 USD. On the second no-show, the prick I was buying from raised the price another $5,000 and demanded I give him our down payment of $10,000 as CASH with no chance of getting it back. Which we did since we wanted the house.

We found other buyers, closed and bought our new home. The first buyers gave us $5,000 down. They wanted it back. However, the contract said that if they failed to buy, they lost the deposit. I went to a lawyer, it would have cost me at least $5,000 to try to get the $5,000 out of escrow! That didn't include any other "fees" like licking a freaking stamp ($20) or answering a phone call ($50) or sending an email ($75), yes, our lawyer charged me $75 to send a one line reply to my status update email!

Well, I am done bitching. Most lawyers are scum. They don't care about your rights. They want the big bucks. Do you really think all those ambulance chasers care if you are really injured or not? Nope. They only look at how much they can make the insurance companies settle for.

I am not a lawyer hater, I just think 98% are trash money chasers and are totally screwing up our legal system.

Re:From the horse's mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise

what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, spelling, and technical errors?

I don't think you're in any position to criticise about spelling errors considering you somehow mangled "reneged" into "renigged".

Re:From the horse's mouth

[fm6]

I'm not going to comment on the merits of your dispute with Kaplan. But I find your characterization of the small claims process to be very strange. From your blog:

I will also never have recourse to object to the second ruling because small claims cases, when they are appealed, are simply heard before another judge in small claims court. It is more of a re-trial than an appeal. Having exhausted that route, I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected.

Have you even talked to a lawyer? If your had, you'd know that Small Claims verdicts can be appealed to Superior Court.

Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly...

[anagama]

We can't have the whole story on the appeal. In CA apparently, he can appeal to superior court for a new trial. Random info off the web [nolo.com]. After a verdict there, I bet the same appellate procedures that apply to any trial would apply to his, i.e., he could appeal to the CA Supreme Court, and if he's really lucky, it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I should say though, I have no actual knowledge of CA law.

No Rights Violated!

[sciop101]

No 1st Amendment Rights Violated! The journalist did not like what the blogger said about him!

The journalist sued for damages (bruised ego?) and won. The blogger appealed and lost the appeal.

Again, No 1st Amendment Rights Violated!