James Shortt Legal Threat

#1
We've just had the following letter in which makes interesting reading:

This law firm represents James Shortt of Republic of Ireland. Many statements about James Shortt which have been posted on your website are untrue or defamatory. These statements have been made maliciously to injure James Shortt in his trade, office and profession. These comments are reasonably identifiable as directed to James Shortt Under Nebraska Revised Statutes 25-839, words imputing an indictable offense are actionable per se. Words that are defamatory per se include those that imply that the plaintiff has been engaged in criminal activity. It is clear that as the operator of arrse.co.uk you have published false statements concerning James Shortt that have caused injury. This letter constitutes a demand for the removal of those false and libelous statements. In accordance with NRS 25-840.01, James Shortt demands removal of these libelous statements within three weeks (21 days) of this notice.

Despite the limited liability you may claim under 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we believe that you face liability if you fail to remove these defamatory posts from your service after republishing subsequent to having being noticed of the offending material, and this letter serves as a notice. In accordance with NRS 25-208 defining the statute of limitations, and in accordance with the single publication rule as it applies to republication, our records indicate that these defamatory statements have been published as recently as 7/26/2011.

Your conduct constitutes tortious interference with the business and contractural relations of James Shortt. As such they are actionable and expose you to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages.

Following we have noted the uniform resource locator(s) to the malicious, and libelous, statements posted on your site; some of the statements also evidence tortuous interference. If James Shortt is forced to file suit to stop your wrongful conduct, he will also seek an award of his attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Location of offending material

[Every thread on ARRSE & Navy-Net that mentions him]

These posts exceed the bounds of free speech. Your failure to delete these false statements, or your facilitating their reproduction after notice of their falsehood, constitutes further publication and malicious intent.

We ask for your co-operation and assistance in this matter. Understand that our client does not intend for this matter to go unresolved and that he will take any and all legal action to have these posts removed. Pse do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours

Thomas Ferneau
Ferneau Law Office
Not sure why this fellow comes to mind?

41573_59739738024_8671_n.jpg

Any suggestions???
 
#2
If you need any legal advice on libel related matters then message me.

The letter isn't badly written but it is a little ambiguous.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#3
Why instruct an American law firm to handle this, I thought James Shortt lived in Ireland
 
#7
Would it exceed the bounds of free speech for me as an individual to state that I believe Jim Short to be a ******* liar?

And someone who has, in my own opinion, obtained business as a result of knowingly misrepresenting his past?
 
#8
Why instruct an American law firm to handle this, I thought James Shortt lived in Ireland
If he has a reputation in the US and the contents of the website materially affect it then he could argue the US courts have jurisdiction.

Imputations of criminal activities punishable by imprisonment are actionable per se so he wouldn't even need to show damages.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
IF it did go to court is he is going to have to defend against all the accusations and that could be awkward if he has, allegedly, mis-spoken or mis-represented himself. I wonder if this is him punting to see if the threat is sufficient to stop or if he has really thought this through.

One for the legal eagle I would say.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#12
If he has a reputation in the US and the contents of the website materially affect it then he could argue the US courts have jurisdiction.

Imputations of criminal activities punishable by imprisonment are actionable per se so he wouldn't even need to show damages.
Thanks, sounds a bit of a roundabout way of doing things, perhaps he's afraid that pursuing this through the UK or Irish courts would not give him the best chance of success then.
 
#13
If he has a reputation in the US and the contents of the website materially affect it then he could argue the US courts have jurisdiction.

Imputations of criminal activities punishable by imprisonment are actionable per se so he wouldn't even need to show damages.
Would it affect matters if the reputation was built on spurious claims?
 
#14
I really wouldn't worry about it. A law firm in Nebraska? FFS.

He can sue me if he likes. I think he's a lying **** and anybody stupid enough to spend money on his jap-slapping, bodyguard courses should be ashamed of himself. He is a liar, a con artist and a ****.
 
#15
A true warrior has died and a fake f*ckhead tries to flex it's muscles. If J Shortt lived to be 200 years old he would still not of gained the amount of respect that John Mac had.
 
#16
Thanks, sounds a bit of a roundabout way of doing things, perhaps he's afraid that pursuing this through the UK or Irish courts would not give him the best chance of success then.
He would get the most sympathetic hearing in the English courts as they have the most claimant-friendly libel laws.

Without having read the contents of any of the threads it is difficult to make any authoritative commentary.
 
#17
Maybe I dreamt it, but I seem to recall a ruling in the US courts to the effect that the libel law doesn't exist to guarantee anyone a livelihood. Basically, if it's true that he's a **** then damage to his business as a result of someone publicising his cuntishness isn't actionable.

Mind you, it's not my livelihood that's at stake.
 
#18
Presuming it is now too late to allow the defence of doli incapax, might one be tempted to consider the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram, 1971?
Well as an avid believer in the authority of all things Private Eye, that was my first thought!

Having said that the prospect of breaking rocks whilst a tobacco chewing redneck calls me 'boy' means I'd probably best take an alternative approach.......
 
#19
Would it affect matters if the reputation was built on spurious claims?
Yes somewhat, but that depends on what he's been accused of on ARRSE.
 
#20
No. I'm Spartacus. If they let us know what is defamatory. I will be more than happy to post it everywhere I can. Including twitter.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top