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."

Counterstrike?

Countersuit?

--Rob

From his site

I would also like to add that if you or anybody you know is ever sued by Lee Kaplan or his questionable affiliates, you should contact a lawyer immediately to explore any and all available options. The earlier the better. Some ideas you might want to look into: (1) countersuing in an amount that is sufficient enough to move the case out of small claims court (greater than $7,500 in California) and/or (2) removing the case to federal court on the grounds of a first-amendment defense.

Looks like things would have gone better if he hadn't made some legal mistakes.

Re:From his site

You consider that to be a 'legal mistake'?

It looks to me like instead a complicated legal maneuver designed to get around a clear hole in the fairness of the legal system.

I would not consider failing to countersue or failing to move the court to be a legal mistake, using the definition of mistake as failure to engage in proper actions.

Re:From his site

Yes I consider it a legal mistake. Not contacting a lawyer is the most basic legal mistake there is.

Re:

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

Re:From his site

"Not contacting a lawyer is the most basic legal mistake there is."

And a system where the legal code is so complex that we have made it a crime for non-certified professionals to attempt to interpret it (in most every state, lobbied for by the same lawyers who want to get paid exhorbitant fees to defend you and to to prosecute you, thank you very much), is a system of INjustice.

Re:

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

Re:From his site

Sir, based upon your post, which I took as legal advice absent any statement to the contrary, I opened up a private medical practice in my home. Now, I have been arrested by the police for impersonating a doctor.

I trust that I will be compensated by you for this in some way.

Re:From his site

You know what's worse? People with health issues should contact doctors! How oppressive is that? And they don't let passengers fly commercial jets!

I'm with you. It's utterly ridiculous that there are aspects of life which can be performed more effectively by the highly trained. INjustice INdeed!!!1

-b

Re:From his site

"One lawyer in a town starves to death. Two lawyers in a town live in luxury."

The article did say

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.

Re:

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 th

Re:From his site

$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.

Moderated Informative - you've got to be kidding

Where do we start... First the cheap shot - seems like you enjoy dealing with pricks, learn that in the marines?

Ok, now that that's out of the way. A buyer walked on you and you "gave them another shot". You're an idiot. You take the deposit and walk

Re:Moderated Informative - you've got to be kiddin

A buyer walked on you and you "gave them another shot". You're an idiot.

No, I am called a human and I gave a husband and wife another chance. To me it sounds like you are an @sshole and a dick. I personally am financially OK, so I wanted to help this family. They were Asian and recently moved to the states.

Oh, and I almost forgot - how the hell does someone bail out of buying your house "one week after closing"? How dumb/confused are you? If it was "one week after closing" the house would have already been sold, deed transfered, etc - that's what happens at "closing".

What I meant to say was it was one week after the official closing date. I gave the family a second chance because I am not a dick like you living in my mommy's basement. I have owned 6 homes in the central FL area. Go look up the average home price there. Yeah, you are out of your league.

It sounds to me like you should just rent and leave property ownership to the adults.

No, I am doing very well, owning homes. Much more than you could understand. I own several homes in central FL, the prices of the homes are from $280,000 to $550,000. I guess by "adults" you mean "dicks that don't care about a human family"? Sorry, I am not a dick like you. If I lose $5,000 on the price of a home, but a good family is able to move in, I am happy. However, I am sure a dick like you would rather pocket that extra $5,000. Oh, well, there are dicks in this world and I am sure you are proud to be one.

Re:Moderated Informative - you've got to be kiddin

No, I am doing very well, owning homes. Much more than you could understand. I own several homes in central FL, the prices of the homes are from $280,000 to $550,000. I guess by "adults" you mean "dicks that don't care about a human family"? Sorry, I am not a dick like you. If I lose $5,000 on the price of a home, but a good family is able to move in, I am happy. However, I am sure a dick like you would rather pocket that extra $5,000. Oh, well, there are dicks in this world and I am sure you are proud to be one.

If you're so happy with you decision, quit bitching 'bout it!

A legal 'mistake' was being found guilty

It was a failure for this individual to not protect himself. Let's count the ways: 1) should have retained counsel 2) should have counterclaimed immediately 3) could have chosen a different venue 4) could have chosen a different court , 5) might have been

This is a racial dispute.

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

Kaplan is the pro-Israel writer.

Regards.

See Topic: YRO

It means "Your Rights Online." Actually it's not even abbreviated on the main page before the title of the article.

A blogger vs. another blogger?

Hmmmm, could that be it? Blog, from "web log..." Issues of free speech involved (at least, that's the argu

Right of Appeal

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

Re:

Nobody denied him his rights, he just didn't know how to exercise them, apparently.

Anyway, SCC is a real court. Now, do you have a right to appeal to the supreme court for your jurisdiction? Likely so (even if it is eventually, through other layers of cour

Unbelievable! The guy's website is still there

I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal.

Maybe on the merits? Mr. Salahi's website describes Mr. Kaplan as a "fraudulent journalist," which is another way of alleging he's incompetent to do his job, which the law calls "libel per se."

Anyway, the offending website is still up, so presumably Mr. Kaplan can sue Mr. Salahi yet again and win a second judgment for another $7,575.

no dog

Re:

If you read the student's blog, he was not sued for defamation -- in fact, he was sued for "tortious business interference".

Re:

Just to keep some perspective: I catch flak for negatively mentioning Ubuntu once a month in slashdot posts. Imagine if I put up a website!

small claims court is NOT evil.

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.

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.

Re:

I wanted to say, "An ad hominem attack is likely to be a tort. If it was an ad homonym attack, it's likely to be a torte." But that's a homophone.

Maybe he should hire a lawyer

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:

Okay, I take that back partially. After going through the court records, he did get his appeal in Superior Court, and he lost. Why he feels the need to whine about it on Slashdot is beyond me.

Re:

So the statement that he was not allowed to appeal is false? It seems to me that this story does not rise to any reasonable journalistic standard. Perfect for slashdot.

Just a possibility

I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal.

Maybe because you didn't have enough money to hire a real lawyer? Another victory for the $ystem.

Non-story.

A man was libeled, he sued, he won. The defendant appealed and lost. Happens all the time.

-jcr

Not related to blog

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.

So was he really guilty?

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

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

You lost, big guy

You lost. Then the case was reviewed by another judge, and you lost again.

Sounds to me like you're guilty. You might want to leave Lee Kaplan alone from now on.

Re:

That's Republican logic. Just ignore the facts and manufacture a reality. Deny and assert. Repeat until reporters' heads explode.

The man just said that the evidence accepted by the court was false. No matter what the judge said in small claims court, he wa

Re:

You contradict yourself or you don't know the meaning of the words you are using. Finding innocent and acquitting are not the same. Courts rarely if ever find you innocent. Acquitting just means they are unable to prove you did it with current evidence.

Re:

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 ca

Re:From the horse's mouth

Supposing I were your attorney, I would suggest to you in the most polite possible language, that you should never ever discuss a case with any third party other than me or perhaps your spouse.

I'm not your attorney, so instead I'm going to say: YOU ARE A GODDAMN FOOL FOR DUMPING FURTHER MATERIAL REGARDING A CASE ONTO THE GODDAMN INTERNET. Accusing someone in the public press of criminal conduct (read: AS IN THE ABOVE GODDAMN MESSAGE WHERE YOU GODDAMN PRINT A GODDAMN PERJURY CHARGE FOR CHRIST SAKE) is not only very actionable in court, but can put you on the receiving end of a libel case that can result in findings the SIZE OF A GODDAMN HOUSE. No, I'm not GODDAMN KIDDING. How would you like to own a GODDAMN QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS? But you're going to keep running your fingers over your GODDAMN KEYBOARD, aren't you!?!?!?

C//

Re:

On point 1 -- this seems like a case of perjury doesnt it? Isnt that pretty serious?

Re:

Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,
I'm going to be REALLY nice here and assume there is some substance under your ramblings, not just pure trollage.

What exactly did Salahi lie about in court?
Please enlighten us, since you were there. Just claiming someone lied, on

Get a lawyer. Get a lawyer. Get a lawyer.

Get a lawyer.

I just can't repeat it often enough. Sure, depending on the law a lawyer can't represent you in small claims court, but he can certainly prepare you for it behind the scenes, greatly increasing your chances. Besides, just preparing you costs a lot less.

Get a lawyer.

The confusion over what court is what and how appeals go simply endorses the point.

Get a lawyer.

Before it's too late (like after you lose).

Or maybe it's not too late. Think "countersuit," especially if you're right about him falsifying evidence. You might have a nice little defamation case on your hands.

Get a lawyer.

Re:

What do you mean? This is clearly news of astounding, ground breaking importance to geeks everywhere. Are you implying that it may simply be a boring column-inch whine-fest of a petty dispute between a college kid and a hack that no one cares about? Do you

Re:I have a tag suggestion

Agreed. Some guy commits the very definition of libel and is sued for libel. He appeals and the appellate judge still thinks he committed libel. It happens all the time. From what I know, they're not going to let him appeal to a higher court, because the higher courts read the case and say: "This is a clear act of libel and it's only seven and a half grand." Why the hell should we care? You ARE responsible for what you say, even on the internet. Case closed.

Muslim Arabs are semites too, dumbass

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).

Re:

I think anyone who won't even be told _why_ they lost or have the ability to appeal deserves some sympathy.

Regardless of the merits or guilt of the case, the small claims system has an issue here that has clear abuse potential.

Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly...

He had the ability to appeal. He used it. He lost again. It'd be nice to know why, sure, but that's not what matters here. He was sued in small claims. There's a hard limit to how much he can lose, which is probably less than all the advertising revenue he's going to get off of being Slashdotted. Odds are, that's why he started posting inflammatory stuff about public figures. It looks to me like he was begging for a lawsuit and all the attention and ad revenue it would bring, but small claims just isn't that newsworthy, so he was stuck. Sucks to fail at gaming the system.

Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly...

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.

Re:

That state of mind is not reserved just for liberals... In my experience, it seems just about anyone who labels them self as anything (liberal, conservative, etc.) has that "my way or the highway" thinking.

I very, very strongly disagree. If you ask me wha