After Online Defamation Suit, Dismissal of Malicious Prosecution Claim Upheld 267
Christoph writes "I'm the Slashdot user who was sued for defamation (and six other claims) by a corporation over negative statements on my website. I prevailed (pro-se) in 2008. The court found the other side forged evidence and lied. In 2009, I sued the other party's lawyers for malicious prosecution/abuse of process (the corporation itself is dissolved/broke). One defendant had stated in writing their client was lying, but the trial court dismissed my claim for lack of evidence. I appealed, and this Tuesday the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, completely ignoring the defendant's written admission (and other evidence). They further found it was not an abuse of process to sue to 'stop the publication of negative information and opinion.'"
Okay. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Judges used to be lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is, you tried to sue a laywer. The funny thing about judges: they used to be lawyers. You remember that old joke claiming that sharks don't eat lawyers out of "professional courtesy"? Same goes for judges. You can sue a doctor, a corporation, or your ex-wife, fine, but if you sue a laywer the entire legal profession closes ranks and roots for the home team.
Yes. The Thin Armani Line.
Re:Well done! (Score:1, Funny)
It's like a hooker only the only person getting fucked is you.
Uhh... Thats exactly like a hooker.
Re:oh, i get it (Score:2, Funny)
why -!? simple...
slashdot = stagnated
Re:Cry some more please (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with comparing engineers to attorneys is you can hire an attorney to put that chalk mark anywhere you want it. (or an economist)
Well, maybe if lawyers spent more time chalking up economists we'd all be better off.
Re:Cry some more please (Score:3, Funny)
How are you drying your lawyers? Because without drying I find them quite soggy to begin with, and even with my current drying technique, I find they absorb liquids (like milk or gravy) all too readily.