[billiefan2000]

Omaha 'Watchdog' Won't Be Muzzled By Lawsuit - Omaha News Story - KETV Omaha (http://www.ketv.com/news/25688040/detail.html - broken link)

OMAHA, Neb. -- An Omaha watchdog said a lawsuit lodged against him by the president of the Omaha fire union is a personal attack designed to shut him up.

David Nabity, who represents the group Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector, is seeking help from the public to fight the defamation lawsuit brought by Steve LeClair

The lawsuit stems from an October radio interview in which Nabity accused the fire union president of theft by deception.

The comments came in the wake of a scathing review by the state auditor, who found minimal and nonexistent financial record keeping within the Fire Department. The records were in such bad shape that an audit couldn't be conducted, the auditor said.

more... Omaha 'Watchdog' Won't Be Muzzled By Lawsuit - Omaha News Story - KETV Omaha (http://www.ketv.com/news/25688040/detail.html - broken link)

[McBain II]

I knew this would end up happening.

[Clessers]

typically for a deflamation suit to win against a member of the media the plantiff must prove malice. I doubt malice will be proven.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Clessers

typically for a deflamation suit to win against a member of the media the plantiff must prove malice. I doubt malice will be proven.

First off, it's public figures, and that's not entirely true. That said, Nabity is going to end up defending against a Per Se Defamation suit, and he's already lost that one for all intents and purposes.

Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.
Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

• Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
• Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
• Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
• Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se.

Defamation of Character