Interesting tidbit from the mouth of the ca-ca fatcat, Izzy.

[Anonymous]

htt://isabellezehnder-truthaboutcaica.blogspot.com/

Isabelle Zehnder writes:
"If people send emials, as they have in the past, attempts to discredit us, forward them to info@caica.org."

Who is this "US" and "OUR?" that Izzy makes reference to?

If Isabelle wants to refer to Sue Scheff/Pure,  Sunrise Adolescent Transport; and if she wants to solict coaching business and donations--that's her CHOICE !

It doesn't appear that anyone is DISCREDITING her by discussing it.

[Anonymous]

htt://isabellezehnder-truthaboutcaica.blogspot.com/

Isabelle Zehnder writes:
"If people send emials, as they have in the past, attempts to discredit us, forward them to info@caica.org."

Who is this "US" and "OUR?" that Izzy makes reference to?

If Isabelle wants to refer to Sue Scheff/Pure,  Sunrise Adolescent Transport; and if she wants to solict coaching business and donations--that's her CHOICE !

It doesn't appear that anyone is DISCREDITING her by discussing it.

Isabelle Zehnder is the Founder and President of CAICA which she describes is an "Educational and Informational" Website.  

Yet, IMO this email suggests Isabelle Zehnder has some sort of voluntary relationship with a referral and transport company beyond just listing them as resources on an "educational and informational" website.

Second, it's been pointed out the "private" number isn't so private.  It is in fact, the business number for PURE.

[Anonymous]

Does this lady Isabelle have some sort of superiority complex?  Alleging people are "jealous" of her?

That is truly "cuckoo" imo, downright bizarre.

Please, if someone can show me an example of someone being critical of CAICA because they are "jealous", post a link.

[psy]

Does this lady Isabelle have some sort of superiority complex?

Rumor has it, the "Patriotic Negras" have ruled that she is an "ego masturbating bitch".  Hilarity will ensue  

[psy]

Internet Google-Proof PR?

May 25, 2007
By Andy Greenberg
Forbes Magazine

Sue Scheff's business, Parents Universal Resource Experts, places troubled teens in reform schools--and generates a lot of controversy. Disgruntled clients have accused Scheff's company of sending kids to abusive programs, and the Web is full of complaints: A quick Google search used to reveal sites describing her as a "fraud," a "con artist" and a "crook."

Google Scheff's name now, however, and the first few pages of results are far less controversial: They include Scheff's own sites about teen pregnancy, her upcoming book, and, until recently, recipes for broccoli casserole and pork chops.

That last one might seem strange to Scheff's friends, who know she doesn't cook. "The truth is, if it doesn't go in the microwave, I don't make it," she admits.

So who wrote the cooking advice at sue-scheff.net? Not Sue Scheff. That site, and many of the others in the first several pages of Sue Scheff's Google results, were designed by a company called Reputation Defender, which sells what its founder, Michael Fertik, calls "Google insulation." For a fee, Reputation Defender pads the Web with friendly-sounding content like flattering blog entries, personal sites and other positive pages, and then pushes those sites to the top of the Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) results for clients like Scheff, thereby hiding the online insults of her enemies.

And there's plenty of vitriol to hide. In 2004, she filed a defamation lawsuit against one of her critics, Carey Bock, in a Florida state court. Scheff won an $11.3 million verdict last year, but some negative commentary remained on the Web. Scheff says those comments were ruining her business, driving away more than half of her customers. "She had just slandered me up one side and down the other side of the Internet," Scheff says.

So Scheff turned to Reputation Defender. Founded last October, the company says it monitors what's written about clients online for a monthly $10 fee and will have specific content "destroyed" for an extra $30. The removal of content usually involves polite take-down requests that occasionally escalate into cease-and-desist letters and legal threats when necessary, says the company's chief executive, Michael Fertik.

But Reputation Defender recently began offering users a subtler approach: hiding unwanted Web comments with a barrage of positive, Google-friendly content, either created by the company or dredged up from elsewhere on the Web and optimized to appear at the top of search-engine results.

"Say you have 20,000 delighted clients and five clients that hate you," says Fertik. "We'll tell your story on the Internet and find press about you and start promoting that to the top of the Google chain. It's very Internet-specific PR, a very different game." For that labor-intensive service, officially called MyEdge, the company charges a hefty price: Fees start at around $10,000. Fertik says he has more than 25 clients for the service.

MyEdge's success is based not only in creating reputation-boosting pages but also in convincing Google to float those sites to the first few pages of results, the only results that most Web users ever see. But gaming Google can be tricky. The search giant, which declined to comment on Reputation Defender's service, spends significant resources trying to prevent Web site owners from pushing up their ranking artificially. And it will punish sites it thinks are cheating by pushing them into the back pages of search results. (see "Condemned To Google Hell").

Fertik won't reveal the details of MyEdge's tactics, but he says he's confident they don't break Google's rules or those of any other search engine. He also says his company draws the line at publishing lies about individuals or businesses--the cooking site created for Sue Scheff, he says, was an unfortunate exception, one that he removed after talking to this reporter. But Fertik sees nothing wrong with manipulating Google to focus on the positive aspects of someone's persona.

"Google is not God," he says. "It's a machine, a superb machine that benefits millions, but it's still just a machine. And what it turns up can have remarkably deleterious impact on hardworking people and businesses."

Some might still argue that MyEdge misleads Web users or that it muzzles them by hiding negative opinions. But Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Internet free-speech advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sees MyEdge as a healthy alternative to the usual angry-lawyer school of reputation management.

"As long as they're not committing some kind of fraud, I think this is the way to deal with bad speech," says Bankston. "This shows that you don't need to counter speech by attempting to censor it, but rather with better and more accurate information. As the truism goes, the best answer to bad speech is always more speech."

-----------------------

http://suescheff.net/

Book Site designed by "My Edge"

Sue Scheff Blog @ Interview with Forbes

http://suescheffcomments.blogspot.com/

[psy]

The search giant, which declined to comment on Reputation Defender's service, spends significant resources trying to prevent Web site owners from pushing up their ranking artificially. And it will punish sites it thinks are cheating by pushing them into the back pages of search results. (see "Condemned To Google Hell").

I'm fed up.  I'm reporting the bitch:

http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

I suggest everybody here do the same.

BURN bitch BURN !!!

[psy]

Guess what... miss blogs-a-lot deleted her "CAICA is full of it" blog (where she suggested people contact her if they see anything negative about her).  She is changing the content to this:

Does anybody have the original?  Please either post it or PM/otherwise contact me with it.

CAICA has received complaints that we are reporting about this child's death without knowing the outcome of an investigation. We are reporting what the news media is reporting. This child died in a wilderness program and the State of Colorado and his mother believe he died from medical neglect: Colorado authorities say Jensen died from a staphylococcus infection. Personnel at the camp, Alternative Young Adventures, observed signs of the infection, according to a state agency, but neglected to properly care for it. When a full investigation is completed it will be posted on CAICA.

CALEB JENSEN
Died: May 2, 2007, 15 years old
Program: Alternative Youth Adventures, Colorado
Cause of Death: Preliminary cause medical negligence

Caleb's last letter to his mother, just a week ago, read:

"I wish I could go back and be a good little boy, a nice little naive church boy who couldn't steal bubble gum without feeling bad about it. I want to wear Sponge Bob PJs and Teddy Bear slippers and cuddle with my Mommy. I used to think I was too hard of a gangster that nobody could break me, but they found my weakness and I want to go home. Tell Heather and Marie I miss them. I miss you and love you all so much. Please write back. I love you. PS - I want my Mommy." Love, you're baby boy, Caleb

* NOTE: CAICA President, Isabelle Zehnder, has read many letters from children to their parents and has seen a pattern where children appear to be completely broken, begging for "Mommy", pleading to come home. These are not normal letters written teenagers. These are letters written by teenagers who have been broken and who are desperate for help. Sadly, some not only never get the help they need, they have died in the process.

Mother: My son fought to live Last letter home before death at remote camp reveals 15-year-old's pain, hope
May 16, 2007
By Nancy Lofholm

"I want my mommy." Dawn Boyd said her son Caleb Jensen's letters said he was feeling better about his life but badly wanted to come home. (Special to The Post)In a last letter to his family from a wilderness camp for troubled youths, Caleb Jensen wrote about the difficulties of surviving in the wild and added a postscript: "I want my mommy."

Caleb's mother, Dawn Boyd of Salt Lake City, received the letter from her youngest child during the week before he died of an untreated staph infection. He was participating in a court-ordered wilderness therapy program through Alternative Youth Adventures near Montrose.

The program's license to operate was suspended after the 15-year-old died May 2.
Boyd said she believes camp staff ignored her son's assertions that he was sick and needed to go home. She also believes the Utah Division of Juvenile Justice Services, which placed her son in the rough and remote program, failed to take into account his frequent problems with staph infections.

"He should have been cared for. He should be alive today," a sobbing Boyd said during a telephone conversation from her home. "I know my baby told them. He always knew when he had a staph infection."

Boyd said her son's letters from camp recently said he was feeling better about his life but badly wanted to come home, "so he could get in his SpongeBob pajama pants and his big slippers and curl up with me and his sisters to watch TV."

Caleb described a different life in camp. He wrote he had to climb mountains every day until he was exhausted. He was able to wash only twice a week using tiny amounts of water. He had to clean his dishes after meals by licking them and then using dirt to scour them.

"That's not how he should have been treated - like a dog or a lizard," said his grandmother, Ella Reese of Troy, Idaho.

Caleb expressed some optimism along with the complaints. "Mom, I think I'm going to make it this time," he wrote in a letter.

Caleb died of a methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection. The bacterial infection traditionally is seen in hospitalized or very ill or elderly patients. Caleb's mother said he had been treated for numerous staph infections since he was a toddler and suffered a related skin problem called impetigo. He was treated for three infections while he was in other juvenile justice programs in Utah before being sent to the camp, she said.

"When I saw my son in the casket and looked at his little face, there was a sore on each side of his mouth under the makeup. ... I knew," she said.

Actions at camp defended

Carol Sisco, a spokeswoman for the Utah Department of Human Services that oversees the juvenile justice programs, said Caleb passed a physical before he was sent to the camp March 28. She said he had a physical in the field the week before he died and a session with a therapist the day before his death. No one reported that he was ill. His mother said he did not report being ill in his last letter.

Caleb's family has been unable to get much information about his death. Reese said they pieced together information that shows Caleb was sitting on his sleeping bag in the camp during a rest day on the day he died. Caleb, who had been exhibiting behavioral problems for several days before his death, told a counselor he didn't feel well and needed to go home. After the counselor moved on, Caleb slumped over.

Less than 10 minutes later when a counselor checked on him, he was dead, Reese said.
Bill Palatucci, a spokesman for Community Education Centers Inc., the Roseland, N.J.-based company that created the youth camp, said complaints from troubled youths are common.

"They hear a lot that youths want to go home. The staff is taught to sort through those and determine the genuine issues and the non," Palatucci said.

Palatucci would not reveal the amount of medical training the four camp counselors have. He said their training meets state licensing requirements.

Community Education Center is contesting the Colorado Department of Human Services suspension of its license to operate the camp. A hearing is expected to be scheduled within the next month. The other 26 participants in the camp have been moved to youth-detention facilities in Utah and Colorado.

Mother gets few answers

Boyd said she is working with an attorney to try to find out more about the death of a son who had been in and out of state custody "for anger issues" since she and her children moved to Salt Lake City in 2004.

She said a representative of Alternative Youth Adventures phoned her to say her son was dead more than five hours after his body was airlifted out of the remote camp. She received few details and no offers of help. A week later she received a two-paragraph letter of condolence.

It ended: "The memory of Caleb will inspire us to continue our good work on behalf of all the juveniles in our care."

Utah human services authorities gave Boyd $1,500 to help with transporting Caleb's body to Utah and with the cost of the funeral. She has not received her son's belongings.

Sisco, of Utah's Human Services agency, said officials there can't help Boyd without more facts. "The hard part is that we don't know all the answers yet. We don't know yet if there was staff negligence or if this was something that couldn't be caught," she said.

Staff writer Nancy Lofholm can be reached at 970-256-1957 or ncarlisle@sltrib.com


Utah teen's wilderness camp death may have been due to staph infection
May 10, 2007
By Christopher Smart

A 15-year-old Salt Lake City boy may have died from a severe staph infection while enrolled in a youth wilderness program near Montrose in southwest Colorado.

Colorado authorities continue to investigate the May 2 death of Caleb Jensen in a rugged, mountainous area while at an Alternative Youth Adventures camp.

Autopsy results may not be available for another week or more, said Scott Wagner, chief investigator for the Montrose County District Attorney's Office. But a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Human Services said the youth "showed observable signs of staphylococcus infection that were neglected."

"We suspended their license yesterday," said Liz McDonough of the outdoor program. "That obviously is very serious, and we took what we believe is appropriate action."

A spokesman at the Roseland, N.J., headquarters for Alternative Youth Adventures said the program's staff had acted appropriately. "We are at a loss to explain this at this point," said William Palatucci. "We are cooperating fully with the investigation. We know this is a good program. We've never had any fatalities."

Preliminary indication from Mesa County Coroner's Office is that he died of "natural causes," Wagner said, meaning his death was not homicide, suicide or due to accident.

"That leaves it pretty wide open," Wagner said. "The cause of death has not been determined."

The youth died near the Montrose County/Mesa County line. Mesa County authorities were first to respond. It was later determined that Jensen died in Montrose County.
Jensen's death is being investigated by the Montrose County Sheriff's Office. But Undersheriff Kevin Walters referred inquiries to the DA's Office. The investigation is standard procedure, Wagner said. No "request for prosecution" has been made, he said Thursday.

Utah authorities enrolled Jensen in the two-month Alternative Youth Adventures program, according to Carol Sisco, spokeswoman for Utah Juvenile Justice Services. "He had gone through the courts in Utah and was ordered into our custody," she said. "We placed him in the Colorado program."

Jensen passed a physical exam when he entered the program on March 28, Sisco said. "This is a program we've used in the past," she said. "And as far as I know, this is the first fatality. According to the Web site for Alternative Youth Adventures, the program "provides a healthy, protective environment within which troubled youth will have the opportunity to achieve.


Utah teen's death has wilderness therapy program under scrutiny
May 11, 2007
By Christopher Smart

A 15-year-old Salt Lake City boy who was ordered by Utah officials into a wilderness therapy program, where he died last week in southwest Colorado, may have been killed by a severe and untreated staph infection.

Colorado authorities continue to investigate the May 2 death of Caleb Jensen in a rugged, mountainous area near Montrose while participating since March 28 in a course for troubled youth. Autopsy results may not be available for another week or more, said Scott Wagner, chief investigator for the Montrose County District Attorney's Office.

But a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Human Services said the young man "showed observable signs of staphylococcus infection that were neglected."
"We suspended their license yesterday," Liz McDonough of Alternative Youth Adventures said Thursday. "That obviously is very serious. And we took what we believe is appropriate action."

Utah authorities enrolled Jensen in the two-month Alternative Youth Adventures program, said Carol Sisco, spokeswoman for Utah Juvenile Justice Services.
"He had gone through the courts in Utah and was ordered into our custody," she said. "We placed him in the Colorado program."

Some wilderness-based teen-therapy programs have come under scrutiny in Utah during the past several years as a result of a handful of deaths and other incidents. State laws now require stricter licensing guidelines for such Utah-based operations.
A spokesman at the Roseland, N.J., headquarters for Alternative Youth Adventures said the program's guides and counselors had acted appropriately.

"We are at a loss to explain this at this point," said William Palatucci. "We are cooperating fully with the investigation."

Alternative Youth Adventures has been in operation in Colorado since 2000.
"We know this is a good program," Palatucci said. "We've never had any fatalities."

Preliminary indication from the Mesa County Coroner's Office is that Jensen died of "natural causes," Wagner, the D.A.'s investigator, said - meaning his death was not homicide, suicide or caused by an accident.

"That leaves it pretty wide open," he said. "The cause of death has not been determined."

The youth died near the Montrose County/Mesa County line. Mesa County authorities were first to respond. It was later determined that Jensen died in Montrose County.

Jensen's death is being investigated by the Montrose County Sheriff's Office. But Undersheriff Kevin Walters referred inquiries to the district attorney's office.

The investigation is standard procedure, Wagner said. No "request for prosecution" has been made at this time, he said Thursday.

Jensen passed a physical exam when he entered the course on March 28, said Utah Juvenile Justice Services spokeswoman Sisco.

"This is a program we've used in the past," she said. "And as far as I know, this is the first fatality.

According to its Web site, Alternative Youth Adventures "provides a healthy, protective environment within which troubled youth will have the opportunity to achieve their full potential through the use of treatment and education services that focus on positive change."

http://isabellezehnder-truthaboutcaica.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous]

Psy - Google had this cached - is this the one you were looking for?

ISABELLE ZEHNDER: TRUTH ABOUT CAICA

I am writing this short Blog in an attempt to right a wrong. After all, that's what CAICA and Isabelle Zehnder are all about - helping to right wrongs.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007
At closer look
 
I have researched the Blogs (mentioned below) and found they were created by someone claiming CAICA reported about a death before knowing what happened. CAICA provided information that is in the news, nothing more, nothing less. This was about the death of Caleb Jensen. I said I believe his death was due to medical negligence a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Human Services said Caleb "showed observable signs of staphylococcus infection that were neglected."

"We suspended their license yesterday," Liz McDonough of Alternative Youth Adventures said Thursday. "That obviously is very serious. And we took what we believe is appropriate action."

I have made it very clear I will continue to update CAICA with the news about Caleb - whether's it good or bad, in favor or against the program. I have nothing personally against the program if it's good. But if they neglected to seek medical attention for a boy who was obviously very sick, and it is proven this is true, then I will report that and hope the program will remain shut down. In time the truth will come out.

Posted by Isabelle Zehnder at 2:06 PM  

Labels: alternative youth adventues, caleb jensen, death, medical, negligence, wilderness program


CAICA is full of it
 
I am writing this short Blog in an attempt to right a wrong. After all, that's what CAICA and Isabelle Zehnder are all about - helping to right wrongs.

Someone created Blogs entitled: Truth about CAICA: CAICA is full of it, and Truth about CAICA: Best Intentions. Both were in an attempt to discredit CAICA and me. Interestingly both were deleted. However, descriptions of them linger on the Internet.

People forget what they post on the Internet can be traced back to them, and that Internet Defamation is just as bad as any other form of defamation. People are being held accountable for Internet Defamation as they are any other form of defamation. Recently Sue Scheff won an $11.3 M Jury award because she has been slandered and defamed on the Internet for years. The judge and jury wanted to send a strong message to peole who think it's quite alright to splatter their venemous and untrue thoughts on the Internet for the world to see. The message was, "you can't go around destroying lives on the Internet".

Laws are changing and we are seeing more jury awards in favor of people who have been slandered and defamed on the Internet - some are holding forum moderators accountable. It's only just begun, in my opinion, and I believe lawyers will soon be taking these cases on a contingency fee basis which will enable more people to file suit against those who defame them.

This time the wrong is against CAICA and against me, and I believe it is time I come forward and let people know what I believe is happening.

I have been a Child Advocate for years, people who know me trust me. They know I work hard and always have the children and family's best interest at heart.

It is no wonder people are working hard to discredit me and CAICA. If a person takes a moment to reflect what I as an advocate have done, and what CAICA as an organization has done, and continues to do, it is easy to understand why there are people who spend time trying to discredit us on the Internet.

All of my friends and colleagues believe I should be flattered that there are people out there who are spending so much of their time trying to discredit CAICA and me.

Why are they doing it? For one because CAICA is fighting a multi-billion dollar industry. Isabelle Zehnder and CAICA are not afraid to research the truth and then to expose the truth.

CAICA fights against all abuse to children who are out of their parents' control. This includes residential treatment centers, therapeutic boarding schools, wilderness programs, positive peer culture programs, behavior modification programs, Christian programs, and so on. This is a growing multi-billion dollar per year industry. Never before has there been such a comprehensive website on this topic.

This has created some anger, resentment, and some jealousy. There is no doubt people will work to discredit us. If you run across anything that just doesn't make sense, and that you feel is not in line with the CAICA you know, or with me, then just e-mail or call me and ask. Why allow people who have their own interest to put doubt into your minds about something that is good.

If people send you e-mails, as they have in the past, attempting to discredit us, please forward them to info@caica.org.

Posted by Isabelle Zehnder at 12:40 PM  

Labels: caica, coalition against institutionalized child abuse, parents and teens unite, positive family solutions, pure, sue scheff

[psy]

Psy - Google had this cached - is this the one you were looking for?

Exactly the one.  Thanks.

[Anonymous]

What Irony - Cached by Google - gotta love it!

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

[Anonymous]

For the sake of discussion...  interested in your thoughts..

The subject of defamation.  It appears that someone can not be sued if the subject in question can prove the statements made are true in nature.  For example: if a woman who may be of large content, some may say obese or fat.  Not only can it not be considered defamation, because it could be true in nature, also it may not be perceived in a negative connetation.  We all know that some mens magazines specifically have size women for viewing pleasure.  The author of a post who may say a person is "fat or obese" is simply stating a fact, it falls on the reader and their perception of the word fat or obese if it is negative.  The same would apply for statements if someone looks like the opposite sex or possible has a mustache.  If the statement is true it would not be considered defaming, if I understand from the description below.  

Also, it would apply to a business.  If you will not below it discusses the legal term for "Qualified priviledge".  I think the statement below says it best:

"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest;

I believe the information that was released in the form of an email to be of public interest.  If a person is posing as a non-profit and accepting donations yet refering to businesses behind the scenes.  It is important for the public to know.  It is well known in this industry that referals are well paid for.  This could be considered a conflict of interest and it is an important for the public to know.  I don't think anything in this thread or forum outlining the found content would be considered defaming.  hmm..

Info:
Slander and libel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Negligence
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence  · Eggshell skull
Negligent emotional distress
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Statutory Torts
Product liability  · Ultrahazardous activity
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Nuisance
Public nuisance  · Rylands v. Fletcher
Property torts
Trespass  · Conversion
Detinue  · Replevin  · Trover
Intentional torts
Assault  · Battery  · False imprisonment
Intentional emotional distress
Consent  · Necessity  · Self defense
Dignitary torts
Defamation  · Invasion of privacy
Breach of confidence  · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Economic torts
Fraud  · Tortious interference
Conspiracy  · Restraint of trade
Liability, Defenses, Remedies
Vicarious liability
Volenti non fit injuria  · Contribution
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Damages  · Injunction
Common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence
Topics in journalism
Professional issues
Ethics & news values
Objectivity & attribution
News source & libel law
News & reporting & writing
Education & fourth estate
Other topics & books

 
Fields
Advocacy journalism
Alternative journalism
Arts journalism
Business journalism
Citizen journalism
Fashion journalism
Investigative journalism
Literary journalism
Photojournalism
Science journalism
Sports journalism
Video game journalism
Video journalism

 
Social impact
Infotainment & celebrity
'Infotainers' & personalities
News management
Distortion & VNRs
PR & propaganda
'Yellow' journalism
Press freedom

 
News media
Newspapers & magazines
News agencies
Broadcast journalism
Online & blogging
Alternative media
 
Roles
Journalist, reporter, editor, news presenter, photo journalist, Columnist, visual journalist
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 v • d • e
 
“Libel” redirects here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation).
For "liable", see Liability.
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

Contents [hide]
1 Vocabulary and general concepts
1.1 Truth
1.2 Privilege and malice
1.3 Similar but different delicts and torts
1.4 Criminal libel
2 Origins of defamation law
3 English law
3.1 Development of English defamation law
3.2 English admiralty law
3.3 Modern law
3.4 Burden of proof on the defendant
4 United States law
5 Singapore law
6 Scottish law
7 Defenses
8 Defamation per se
8.1 History
9 Australian law
10 Canadian law
10.1 Criminal defamation
11 See also
12 References
13 External links
 


[edit] Vocabulary and general concepts
"Libel" comes from Latin : libellus ("little book")[1][2]
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

[edit] Truth
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving a defamatory statement to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however. If the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public. [4]

See also: Substantial truth

[edit] Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made maliciously.

Interesting..

[Anonymous]

The search giant, which declined to comment on Reputation Defender's service, spends significant resources trying to prevent Web site owners from pushing up their ranking artificially. And it will punish sites it thinks are cheating by pushing them into the back pages of search results. (see "Condemned To Google Hell").

I'm fed up.  I'm reporting the bitch:

http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

I suggest everybody here do the same.

BURN bitch BURN !!!

just didnt want this to get buried among the long posts.

[psy]

The search giant, which declined to comment on Reputation Defender's service, spends significant resources trying to prevent Web site owners from pushing up their ranking artificially. And it will punish sites it thinks are cheating by pushing them into the back pages of search results. (see "Condemned To Google Hell").

I'm fed up.  I'm reporting the bitch:

http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

I suggest everybody here do the same.

BURN bitch BURN !!!

just didnt want this to get buried among the long posts.

I'm going to write a letter tonight, and I'll post the letter here so people can use it as a template.  Google cares a lot about technical information so it is probably helpful to include it.  Once the template is here, people can start submitting complaints about Sue, and Reputation defender.

[psy]

Izabelle Zehnder.  You are FUCKED.  This feels so good to type.  

A friend of a friend of mine (with a deeper voice) called up Sunrise (referred to a friend by Izabelle Zehnder, proof on page 1) as a prospective parent claiming to have a kid who needed transportation to Cross Creek Manor (WWASP).  I do have proof and It will be submitted to ISAC as soon as possible, thought the information on the identity of those who performed this call will remain confidential.  As a blogger (in your own words Izzy) I am entitled to freedom of the press and confidentiality for my sources.  Whether or not the court upholds that, I will not release the identities.  As a part time journalist, I protect my sources, and my friends.  I don't do dirt lists anymore.

Information about Sunrise academy:

Owner: Julie Thompson
 - Owned company for two and a half years
 - Formerly worked for Teen Help as admissions coordinator
 - Assured "parents" that CCM was an excellent school
 - said she would place her own daughter there
 - said her company was 20 minutes away from CCM
 - knows a lot of people that worked there

She was willing to transport the imaginary child for a fee.  She quoted a specific fee (will not be more specific to protect the identities of the participants in this).  She said she would be able to transport the child in less than 24 hours.  She said her workers could be in and out of the house in 4 minutes.  She stated that he/she would be woken up in the middle of the night, and not allowed to use the bathroom until the child arrived at the airport.

Julie Thompson stated that her service was UNLICENSED but _good_.

THIS IS WHO ISABELLE ZEHNDER DIRECTLY REFERS PARENTS TO.

THIS IS NOT SPECULATION THIS IS FACT.[/color]

I will testify to this under oath, and I do have proof.  You know how I work.  Don't fuck with me on this.  Shut down CAICA, leave, and never every show your fat hog ass around this industry ever again.  I have FAR more than you think.  Pray to god parents you referred to these services don't sue you, and your traitor friend blind.  And stay the FUCK away from survivors.  They aren't there for your PR.  How DARE you call yourself an advocate.

Once Teen Help...

[Anonymous]

I just recieved this Email from Izabelle Zehnder:

Dear Michael,
 
Thank you for your e-mail. Could you please confirm this is your mailing address:
 
Michael Crawford
11728 Fairfax Woods Way Apt. 1201
Fairfax, Virginia
22030
Thanks,
 
You friend

Creepy that was.  Classy Izzy.  Real classy.  Go fuck yourself.  I am not intimidated.