Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Late to the party

Okay, so the musical Rent came out ages ago - I haven't been able to afford to rent movies or go to the theater in forever, and I only just saw the movie for the first time the other day on television (yeah, I get that I'm late to the party (hence the title of this entry)).

I've been listening to selections from the soundtrack (free clips are available for listening here: http://rentmoviesoundtrack.com/) nearly non-stop since watching the movie all the way through twice (gotta love cable stations that show movies over and over again - and this was basic cable, too!).

For those of you who've seen the show or the movie, you'll know what I'm referencing by the "support group scene". For those who aren't familiar with Rent, many of the characters have HIV - or full-blown AIDS - and they attend support group meetings to help them deal with the fact that they're forced to live with a deadly disease for which there is no cure. There's a bit where the support group sings the following lyric (and it's reprised at the funeral of one of the characters later in the show, and again after another character has a near-death experience):

There is no future;
There is no past;
Thank God this moment's not the last.
There's only us;
There's only this:
Forget regret,
Or life is yours to miss.
No other road
No other way;
No day but today.

I was struck by the relevance of that particular lyric to my life lately. No, I don't have HIV/AIDS, or anything else immediately fatal; but I do feel that I've been really stuck in a rut, and that I haven't gotten as much out of life as I maybe could have, so far.

I don't know what or how much I can do to change it, but I really like the idea that life really ought to be lived one day at a time, and appreciated as it happens, and I want to try to be better about making sure I do that.

a. ;)

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Challenge!

http://www.kraftbrands.com/upumpitup/

I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, but there's a chance I might be able to go off the shots if I can get down to my goal weight of 150 lbs. As noted in the previous entry (below), I need to lose at least another 117 lbs. (the doctor really wants me to get down to 135, but I've never weighed that little in my entire adult life - I'm a healthy size 12 at 150 - so when I get to 150, we've agreed to re-evaluate the end goal).

I created a challenge at the above linked website to try to get myself motivated to work out more and get fit. I'd have made it a public challenge, but I couldn't figure out how to do so, and I can't link to it directly, apparently. However, there are a lot of interesting challenges, so you might want to just browse.

If you'd like an invitation to join my challenge, either to support me as I work on it, or to work on getting fit yourself, post a comment with an email addy, and I'll send you an invite.

a. ;)

Monday, May 5, 2008

Dietary Goodness, Pt. 2

As noted in Dietary Goodness - Pt. 1:
August 1, 2007 - weight: 325 lbs.
January 30, 2008 - weight: 285 lbs.

As of today - May 5, 2008 - weight: 267 lbs.

53 lbs. down, 117 lbs. to go. Yay me, continued.

a. ;)

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Sarcastic "Surrender"

A girl has noticed that speaking in third person is apparently a great way to motivate Master...I mean, I've noticed that if I sarcastically pretend to be the subservient slave-type-person, the husband-type-person actually gets off his ass and does stuff around the house.

Who knew?

a. ;)

Saturday, March 29, 2008

medical assistance - letter to my state reps

I sent the following letter to my state reps on Thursday:

Gentlemen:

I am a constituent, living in Sheboygan. My husband and I are both currently unemployed, uninsured, childless, and going through a tough financial situation. I don't particularly want a hand-out - what I want is a job, but I haven't been able to find one - but I am an insulin-dependent diabetic who cannot afford her insulin (if I were taking the shots as prescribed, it would cost $190 a month for the insulin itself, plus approximately $65 a month more for the required supplies (syringes, lancets,
test strips)).

Thus, I was dismayed to learn that, in Wisconsin, one must have a child to qualify for medical assistance of any kind, if one is not completely disabled from working. Clearly, my choices, if I need help with the costs attendant to obtaining my insulin, are (1) get pregnant (not a good choice, considering that we cannot afford a child, plus the uncontrolled diabetes and the fact that I'm 39 mean that any pregnancy would be risky), or (2) go without (which is what I have been doing), and/or (3) wait until
my diabetes actually becomes disabling (which may not be far off), at which point, I might qualify, but would no longer be able to work. Do these sound like good choices to you?

I tried to qualify for Lilly's discount insulin program, but it is based on the prior year's tax returns, and, since I made $45,000 last year before losing my job, I made too much, and cannot qualify. It does not matter that I have no money at all, now.

Perhaps the legislature should think about putting into place some way for persons who are not completely disabled, and do not have children, to obtain at least limited medical assistance for chronic and potentially disabling conditions. I would hope that this would be a measure that anyone, of any party, could get behind. Thus, I hope that I can count on both of you to introduce appropriate legislation to make such assistance a reality - and soon.

Thank you for your time and your anticipated cooperation.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yesterday, I got a call from one of the reps' staffers. They will be introducing legislation next week. They agreed that it makes much more sense for the state to temporarily cover the medication costs of someone who is able to work, than to force that person to become disabled and then have the state have to pay their medical bills for the rest of their lives. The staffer is also going to try to find other avenues of assistance for me that I might have missed in my own search for help.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the measure will pass, or that it would become effective soon enough to actually help me; but if it does pass, it'll help a lot of people - I can't be the only person with a chronic, potentially disabling, but completely treatable, condition who can't afford their medication.

Who says it does no good to contact your representatives?

a. ;)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Sometimes....

there's just nothing worth saying.

Such has been the case for the last few weeks. My life right now is unbelievably depressing (I was going to say "unbearably", but clearly, I'm bearing it just fine; no suicidal tendencies here - although, I must say, if I did have any, they'd certainly be at the fore by now).

For the unaware, I'm an attorney. I've been licensed to practice law in at least one jurisdiction since December 1994 (and was admitted in others later). However, I can't afford to open my own firm, and I cannot buy a job.

In my last job, I was a "legal assistant." Basically, my job was to make my (former) boss look good. I did the work, he took the credit. Then he fired me for daring to protest gender discrimination (actually, the stated reason was that the firm could not meet its payroll, and I was an "expensive employee", but, since I was immediately replaced with a temporary employee (for whom the firm had to pay the agency more than they had been paying me), that's fairly clearly nothing but pretextual).

He claims there was no discrimination to protest.

Really? None? Well, let's see. When I was hired, I had already been licensed in another state for 9 1/2 years, but didn't have the bar here yet. He told me at the time that every time the firm had tried to have more than 3 attorneys, there had been "problems" (of an unspecified nature), so that once I had the bar here, he would expect that I would look for a new position, elsewhere. Okay, so, at the time, that seemed gender-neutral. However, the following year, the firm hired 2 male attorneys, right out of law school - and the *minute* each of them were sworn in, they were promoted. When I got admitted after them? Well, I got cake - from the other legal assistants (all female) - but no promotion.

And it's not like my work wasn't good enough. For over three years, it was good enough for him to sign his name to the briefs that I researched and wrote for him, while he worked on his farm and went on vacation. It was good enough for him to rely on my investigations and my organization when he went off to trials, often with little or no preparation time of his own. If it's good enough for him to use my work, then my work ought to be good enough for me to be allowed to practice. But, apparently, not in his firm. His firm only promotes men. How, exactly, is that not discriminatory?

If you can see it, drop me a line and explain it to me, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept, and, frankly, I'm failing miserably.

So, since the end of July 2007, I have been unemployed. I had hired an attorney in August to represent me in my claim against my former employer - she turned out to be a worthless piece of work, but she ran up a bill that I'm now obligated to try to pay off - and now I owe her over $5700. I hadn't thought I could be objective enough to handle the claim myself; as it is, I'm handling it myself anyway, so I should have just saved the retainer.

My unemployment benefits ran out at the end of January 2008. I have applied for over 1000 jobs, and had fewer than 20 interviews - no call backs, no offers, no fucking job.

I already had no savings (I'm also still paying off student loans and medical bills).

My husband is also unemployed.

So, we're broke. And when I say "broke", I mean literally destitute. I have fewer than 10 pennies in my changepurse, and -$600 in my checking account (yeah, that's a negative number, as in severely overdrawn). I don't mean "broke" as in "we'll have to cut out going out to dinner" - we did that months ago.

My family can't help. Mom's on a fixed income. My brother's in school and living off an Army pension. They're it. I don't have anyone else.

His family won't help. In fact, his stepfather told him that he shouldn't bother to call them anymore, "since you only call when you need something" - nice, considering that the last 3 times his mother or stepfather called us was when they needed hubby to fix their computers for them, for free - oh, and despite the fact that we're broke, we had to front the costs for the parts and for shipping, but apparently, that doesn't matter. His father gave us $20 in gasoline so we could continue to get to job interviews, and said he might be able to bring our checking account balance "back up to $0", but he'd have to "check his finances" - this from a man who paid over $20k to have cabinets with "air brakes" in his new kitchen in his new $275k house. Ok, dad. Thanks. I won't hold my breath waiting for your call (which, by the way, has not been forthcoming for the past week - just sayin').

So, I applied for food stamps. My stomach aches at just the thought that somehow my life has gotten so bad that I need - and qualify for - public assistance. Seven years of post-high-school education (which, again, I'm still paying off), and I qualify for public assistance. How sad is that?

We were supposed to have the required "face to face" meeting with the case worker last Wednesday. Our appointment was set for 1:30 p.m. I know this, because while on the phone with the case worker to schedule this appointment, I wrote the date and time down on my scratch pad that I keep between my keyboard and the telephone. Here it is: "Food - [case worker's name] - Wed 3/19 1:30 p.m. - Job Center". When we arrived at the Job Center at 1:25, the receptionist informed me that our appointment was at 1:00, and when we hadn't arrived by 1:05, our case worker had left for the week.

Not the day.

The week.

Friday was Good Friday, so the Job Center was closed, and the case worker had arranged to take a personal day on Thursday. Apparently, she decided that she didn't feel like working on Wednesday afternoon, either, so she changed our appointment time in the schedule book (you could still see where the original appointment had been written in and erased, although the receptionist tried to hide it), didn't bother to tell us that it had been changed, and then, when we (unsurprisingly) "didn't show", she left.

The receptionist didn't tell us that she had left immediately. No, she let us wait until 2:00 before she admitted that our case worker was actually gone, and that she had been trying to reach another case worker to see if they could fit us in instead, to no avail. She told us someone would call us at home to reschedule - at 2:15, after we'd been waiting for nearly an hour.

It is now a week later.

I have called and left several messages for the case worker. I have left messages for her supervisor. I have spoken with the receptionist (who assures me that there is nothing she can do, as the case workers set their own appointments). No one for whom I've left a message has returned my calls. No one has called to reschedule the appointment.

Did I mention that this is for food stamps? Did I mention that we're fucking destitute? Did I mention that we have very little food left, and no way to obtain more unless and until this bitch calls me back? Yeah. I'm displeased.

And, of course, tempers are tight around the apartment just now, because hubby, on top of being hungry, is also suffering from five infected teeth (which need to be surgically extracted, which we cannot afford - did I mention that we have no medical insurance, and I haven't been able to buy my insulin for over a month?), is also trying to quit smoking, and has very little in the way of caffeine available to him. He's jonesin', and he's grouchy.

See, for our entire marriage, I've been the responsible one, the breadwinner, the one who solves all problems. He's come to expect that, and I've let him. So, now that I can't fix it, he still expects me to; and when I don't, he bites my head off....and I, never shy to be a bitch myself - well, I bite back.

Of course, I'm pissed that he doesn't even try - to take responsibility, to fix things, to fucking help out a teensy little bit; to get his ass off the computer, and maybe wash a fucking dish now and then.

Eh. I don't like washing dishes. What can I say? He'll have to get off the computer soon; we can't afford cable, much less his World of Warcraft subscription.

Anyway.

I vent to my mother. I try to relate the cute stories, too, but there are fewer of them. She, still suffering from the after-effects of her disastrous marriage to my father (which ended 33 years ago, ffs), urges divorce. I'm not doing it. Even if I could afford the filing fee (and I can't), (a) I made a promise, a commitment, a vow, and that means something to me - I knew what he was like, all his flaws and faults, before I married him, they're just more irritating now that we're poor, that's all; and (b) I know the judges in this county, and I won't put any of them in that kind of position of power over me, thank you.

I don't know how to explain to Mom that the good outweighs the bad, that I remain committed to this marriage and this man, and love him with all my heart despite (perhaps because of) his flaws, in any way that she'll understand. I wish I could, but I can't.

I love my mom, but our priorities are often different. She loves me, but she doesn't understand me. She wants me to leave him, come home, live in her basement....like I could find a job there, in a state where I'm not admitted to the bar, any more easily than I can here? Um...no. I love her for the offer, but. No.

So, yeah, it's not that there's nothing going on. It's more that what is going on is such stupid shit that I can't bear to think about it, much less blog about it.

I'm sick of election news already. My own life is depressing, as noted previously. There's nothing much else going on. So, I'll blog again when things improve, or get notably worse, as the case may be.

In the meantime, here's an interesting site for fun and profit. Color me appalled.

a. ;)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Dietary Goodness

August 1, 2007 - weight: 325 lbs.
January 30, 2008 - weight: 285 lbs.

40 lbs. down, 130 lbs. to go. Yay me.

a. ;)

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

I do not now, nor have I ever, had any problem with either: (1) the United States having interests overseas or (2) going overseas to defend/protect those interests.

What I *do* have a problem with is the hypocritical half-truths that are used to mask the real reasons we go in, when we *do* go overseas to defend/protect those interests.

For example: the public was "sold" on going in to Somalia because we were supposedly going in for "humanitarian" purposes...those nasty warlords were being so mean to the people, and whatnot. What a bunch of hooey. We went in to Somalia because British Petroleum and Amoco own the vast majority of the mineral rights and/or oil production leases in Somalia, and couldn't extract their oil without interference by the nasty warlords' infighting.

I have no problem with going in to protect BP and Amoco, but let's say that's what we're doing. If we were really going to go in somewhere for humanitarian reasons, we should have gone in to the Sudan, where the human rights violations then (and now) were at least 10 times worse than anything going on then in Somalia. But we didn't. Why? Simple: no oil in the Sudan, and even if there were oil there, the topography of the land would make extraction of said oil extremely difficult.

As Gordon Sinclair pointed out in his "One Canadian's View of America", America has gone in to numerous countries to help in the aftermath of disaster. I have no problem with our doing that, either. I do have a problem, however, with our charging those countries (particularly those countries in the Third World) for our help. Aren't we the richest country? Can't we afford to help out countries that aren't as well off? Isn't that how charity is supposed to work? If a country has just sustained a disaster and needs help to rebuild infrastructure afterward, doesn't it stand to reason that they can't afford to pay us back for the help we give? Why don't we just write it off? Put down the expense as part of the cost of maintaining good will?

As for America being the world's watchdog, I think that our role would be much less necessary if the United Nations were in a position to take over that role. But in order for that to happen, we'd have to let the UN take on a lot more responsibility, and we've never, as a country, been willing to do that - perhaps because if we did, we might have to face our own shortcomings. For example, we've still not paid the fines imposed upon us by the International Court of Justice for the mining of Nicaragua's harbors. Let the UN have some teeth. If we're in the wrong, we ought to admit it, and take our knocks like everyone else.

If we stopped being hypocritical and admitted when we make mistakes, the other countries of the world might actually see us in a better light. People elsewhere might very well still hate us for things done in the past, but they might at least have some respect for us going forward.

a.

(Originally written in July 2004)

Friday, January 4, 2008

Civil Procedure 101 - Part 3

Continuing series in an effort to live up to the blog's name. Feel free to use any information contained herein at will.

Disclaimer: for informational purposes only; not to be construed as actual legal advice pertaining to any particular situation.

Subpoenas

A subpoena is a written order issued by an attorney to a witness to appear to give testimony, and/or bring documents to trial or produce documents to the attorney issuing the subpoena. If documents are obtained from a non-party witness, the attorney who obtained them typically will produce them to the other parties in the case.

Costs

In a civil matter, the parties bear the cost of their own witnesses and discovery. As a practical matter, this usually means that the attorney (or, on the defense side, the defendant's insurance company) fronts the cost.

For example, in a motor vehicle accident case, the plaintiff (the person who was injured and filed the complaint) is usually represented by an attorney (but not always - you can always represent yourself). The attorney typically fronts the costs of the litigation, and either bills the plaintiff on a monthly or quarterly basis, or takes the costs out of the settlement at the end.

The defendant, on the other hand, will almost always have car insurance. The insurance company will arrange for representation of the defendant as part of his insurance coverage (the defendant can also arrange to have outside counsel, at his own expense). The insurance company is usually billed by the attorney they retain (many insurance defense attorneys are in-house, or work in "captive" law firms, owned by the insurer) for the costs as they go, and usually an insurance defense attorney will get approval of any costs they need to incur, beyond every-day items like photocopies and postage.

Pre-trial and Scheduling Conferences

A pre-trial conference in a civil matter is a meeting of the parties, their attorneys, and the judge. It takes place in the courtroom, and usually the attorneys and the judge work out a trial schedule, and discuss any pre-trial motions (such as motions in limine) that have to be decided before trial can go forward. The parties are usually present in the event that settlement is discussed, so that if the case can be settled, they can agree to the settlement's terms; then the court can approve the settlement, and the case doesn't have to go forward to trial (or can go forward, but with fewer issues to be decided). An attorney always has to have his client's approval of a settlement offer, before the attorney can accept it, so having the client present saves time.

A pre-trial conference differs from a scheduling conference. A scheduling conference happens soon after all parties have filed their initial documents (complaint and answer, etc), and sets certain deadlines and dates for the progress of the case as it goes forward. After the conference, the court usually issues a scheduling order to document those dates. Once that has been done, a scheduling order can be amended, but usually that requires a motion. A pre-trial conference, on the other hand, usually happens about 2-4 weeks before the trial date.

a. ;)

Civil Procedure 101 - Part 2

In my continuing efforts to live up to the name of the blog. Feel free to use the information provided.

Disclaimer: should not be taken as actual legal advice in any particular situation.

Motions

Motions to Dismiss

In addition to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, there are other motions to dismiss: for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, for failure to implead all necessary parties, etc.

In any motion to dismiss, you assume the allegations in the Complaint are true, and you have to demonstrate that there is some other factor that the plaintiff failed to include that impacts the court's ability to hear the case.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Similar to, but completely different from, a motion to dismiss, the motion for summary judgment can also end the case. Where a motion to dismiss has no impact on the defendant, however, a motion for summary judgment is a "win" for the party that succeeds. A motion for summary judgment can be brought by any party. It is usually not filed until after the Defenadnt has filed an Answer, but can be brought at any time.

In a MfSJ, the party filing the motion (the "moving party") sets out the "undisputed facts" and tries to demonstrate that there are no facts still in dispute that need resolution, the only issues are issues of law. If that is the case, the judge can decide the case, or a specific portion of the case, without a trial by jury.

A MfSJ can be filed seeking resolution of just the defendant's liability, and there can then be a jury trial on the amount of damages (this happens a lot, especially in negligence cases where the fact that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries is clear, but where facts regarding the medical treatment and actual damages are not).

Motions in Limine

Motions in Limine are filed to ask the court to set a limit, usually as to what sort of evidence can and cannot be introduced at trial.

Motion to Intervene

A person who is not a party, but who has an interest in a case that they want resolved or protected by the court, can file a motion to intervene. If granted, they become an intervening plaintiff. An example would be: in an motor vehicle accident case, a medical insurer who pays benefits for the plaintiff's accident-related injuries is entitled to recover the amount paid out if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is successful; this is called a "subrogation lien". If the subrogated insurer is not named as a party (they're supposed to be, but mistakes happen), they can file a motion to intervene in the case in order to protect their lien.

Those are the most common types of motions. More later!

a. ;)

Civil Procedure 101 - Part 1

In the interests of living up to the name of the blog. Feel free to borrow liberally.

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only. Should not be construed as legal advice for any particular situation.

Complaint

Litigation is started by the filing of the complaint. In most cases, settlement negotiations have preceeded the filing, and the other side is aware that it may be coming, but this is not always true. The Complaint sets out who the parties are, why the court has jurisdiction over the case, what the basic facts are, what rules/laws were violated, and what kind of relief the plaintiff is seeking. The Complaint is accompanied by a Summons, a document which formally orders the defendant to respond within a certain time frame.

Motions

There are a lot of different types of motions. In the beginning of the case, the motion you're most likely to see is a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim" (in Federal court, this is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), in state courts, the rule numbers vary). In this type of motion, the defendant asserts that even if you assume that everything in the Complaint is true, there is still no claim made upon which the plaintiff can obtain relief from the court.

The example that I've heard most often is kind of silly, but it illustrates the point: Let's say I have a cat that I have named Eliza Doolittle. If I sue you for the wrongful death by murder of Eliza Doolittle, you could file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, on the grounds that even if you take everything in the Complaint as true, the wrongful death by murder of a cat is not a claim for which the court can give me any sort of relief.

Answer

The Answer to the Complaint usually comes after the motion to dismiss (especially in federal court; in state courts, the motion and answer are sometimes in the same document). In the answer, the defendant responds to the allegations of the complaint, and sets out any affirmative defenses that may be available. For example, if the claim was filed after the deadline set by the statute of limitations, the case can be dismissed, but it's an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant.

Counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims

A defendant may also have related claims that he or she wants to raise as well. If the defendant's claims are against the plaintiff, they're called "counterclaims", and usually involve some sort of set-off (but not always). If one defendant has claims against another defendant, it's called a "cross-claim". This is usually something along the lines of a claim for contribution. If a defendant has a claim that's related to the plaintiff's claim, but it's against a person who is not yet a party to the action, the defendant can file a third-party complaint against the person to bring them in.

Discovery

Despite what you may have seen on television, there are not supposed to be any surprises at trial. In the discovery process, each side is supposed to turn over to the other side the evidence they intend to use at trial. There are certain discovery tools that are used to do this: Requests for Admissions, Depositions, Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Subpoenas. The responses to discovery requests are generally treated as testimony, even though the jury may not get to hear it; for example, interrogatory answers are given under oath, but the jury may never hear the answers read aloud in court.

Affidavits

These are documents in which an individual swears under oath before a notary to certain facts set out in the document. Usually these are attached to a motion.

a. ;)

How to impeach a sitting President

What actually needs to happen to impeach a sitting President, and what happens if proceedings are actually initiated?

First, there has to be an actual crime. The Constitution says that a sitting President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". What constitutes a "high crime" isn't exactly clear, but it probably means what are now denominated as "felonies". It needn't be a federal crime, it could be a state crime.

Hence, for example, when President Clinton allegedly lied under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones' case about his actions with Monica Lewinsky, that would be perjury (had he not been acquitted), that's a crime (in that case, a state crime), and that qualifies.

Taking an unpopular action, or failing to take a popularly demanded action, is not necessarily a crime, unless one is required to act (or fail to act) by law. So, 99.9% of what any sitting President does is not actionable in impeachment proceedings, regardless of whether we do or don't like it.

Next, the House of Representatives has to pass a bill of impeachment. This puts the House in the position of sitting as a sort of Grand Jury, examining the evidence to see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the claim, regardless of whatever defenses might be available. Hence, President Clinton was impeached, as was President Johnson (Andrew, not Lyndon), by the House of Representatives. Being impeached does not mean that one is actually guilty (nor does being indicted by a Grand Jury).

If the House passes the bill of impeachment, the case moves to the Senate. The Senate holds a trial, with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presiding (normally, the Vice President, acting as President of the Senate, presides over Senate proceedings; this is an exception).

"Presiding", to my understanding, means that the CJ makes evidentiary rulings and governs the proceedings, but as far as I'm aware, the CJ has no vote on the ultimate decision as to whether or not to remove the President from office, nor does the Supreme Court have any jurisdiction to review the Senate's decision.

And, by the way, that's all that happens, should the President be found "guilty" in the Senate trial: he's removed from office. Period. He does not immediately go to prison/jail.

Neither President Clinton nor President Johnson were removed from office by the Senate (Johnson actually escaped that fate by only one vote; for more info on his impeachment and trial, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/grant/peopleevents/e_impeach.html).

If a sitting President were to be removed from office by the Senate, it would be up to state or federal officials (depending on what the alleged crime was that had caused the impeachment proceedings) to institute criminal proceedings afterward. A sitting President may not be tried for a crime while in office other than by impeachment proceedings, so if he is to go to jail for the alleged crime, he must be tried again by the judicial branch, after being removed from office in the impeachment proceedings.


a. ;)

Clinton and Perjury

Was President Clinton convicted of perjury?

The answer to that question is: Unequivocally, NO, he was NOT. He was ACCUSED of having committed perjury, in the Articles of Impeachment. He was acquitted of all charges in the Articles in the Senate trial. Period.

However, Judge Susan Webber Wright, the judge in the Paula Jones case, did find Clinton guilty of civil contempt of court (not a crime) for having given a misleading answer in his deposition in that case. Civil contempt, NOT perjury. He was "sanctioned", not "fined". While this may seem to be picking at hairs to the non-legally inclined amongst us, it actually does make for a big difference in the legal system.

From the Court's decision (all emphasis mine):

What began as a civil lawsuit against the President of the United States for alleged sexual harassment eventually resulted in an impeachment trial of the President in the United States Senate on two Articles of Impeachment for his actions during the course of this lawsuit and a related criminal investigation being conducted by the Office of the Independent Counsel ("OIC"). The civil lawsuit was settled while on appeal from this Court's decision granting summary judgment to defendants and the Senate acquitted the President of both Articles of Impeachment. Those proceedings having concluded, the Court now addresses the issue of contempt on the part of the President first raised in footnote five of the Court's Memorandum and Order of September 1, 1998. See Jones v. Clinton, 12 F. Supp.2d 931, 938 n. 5 (E.D.Ark. 1998). For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby adjudges the President to be in contempt of court for his willful failure to obey this Court's
discovery Orders....

On November 13, 1998, while the impeachment proceedings were taking place in the House of Representatives, the plaintiff reached an out-of court settlement for $850,000.00 and withdrew her appeal of this Court's April 1st decision granting summary judgment to defendants. See Jones v. Clinton, 161 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 1998). Thereafter, on February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted the President of both Articles of Impeachment....

On two separate occasions, this Court ruled in clear and reasonably specific terms that plaintiff was entitled to information regarding any individuals with whom the President had sexual relations or proposed or sought to have sexual relations and who were during the relevant time frame state or federal employees. See December 11, 1997 Order, at 3; Pres. Depo. at 53-55, 66, 78. Notwithstanding these Orders, the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process. The President acknowledged as much in his public admission that he "misled people" because, among other things, the questions posed to him "were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed." ...

Certainly the President's aggravation with what he considered a "politically inspired lawsuit" may well have been justified, although the Court makes no findings in that regard. Even assuming that to be so, however, his recourse for the filing of an improper claim against him was to move for the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff. See, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 708-09, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (noting the availability of sanctions for litigation directed at the President in his unofficial capacity for purposes of political gain or harassment).

The President could, for example, have moved for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 if, as he intimated in his address to the Nation, he was convinced that plaintiff's lawsuit was presented for an improper purpose and included claims "based on `allegations and other factual contentions [lacking] evidentiary support' or unlikely to prove well-grounded after reasonable investigation." Id. at 709 n. 42, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1), (3)). The President never challenged the legitimacy of plaintiff's lawsuit by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 11, however, and it simply is not acceptable to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process, understandable as his aggravation with plaintiff's lawsuit may have been. "A lawsuit is not a contest in concealment, and the discovery process was established so that `either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.'" Southern Ry. Co. v. Lanham[/i], 403 F.2d 119, 130 (5th Cir. 1968) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)).

In sum, the record leaves no doubt that the President violated this Court's discovery Orders regarding disclosure of information deemed by this Court to be relevant to plaintiff's lawsuit. The Court therefore adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)....

The Court now turns to the issue of appropriate sanctions. Several of the sanctions contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) are unavailable to this Court as the underlying lawsuit has been terminated. The Court cannot, for example, order that the matters upon which the President gave false statements be taken as established, nor can the Court render a default judgment against the President, both of which the Court would have considered had this Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants been reversed and remanded. Moreover, as the Court earlier noted, the determination of appropriate sanctions must take into account that this case was dismissed on summary judgment as lacking in merit — a decision that would not have changed even had the President been truthful with respect to his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky — and that plaintiff was made whole, having settled this case for an amount in excess of that prayed for in her complaint.

Nevertheless, the President's contumacious conduct in this case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and the chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system. "[O]ur adversary system depends on a most jealous safeguarding of truth and candor," United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 463 (4th Cir. 1993), and "[t]he system can provide no harbor for clever devises to divert the search, mislead opposing counsel or the court, or cover up that which is necessary for justice in the end." Id. at 457-58. Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the misconduct of the President in this case, but to deter others who, having observed the President's televised address to the Nation in which his defiance of this Court's discovery Orders was revealed, might themselves consider emulating the President of the United States by willfully violating discovery orders of this and other courts, thereby engaging in conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976) (noting that "other parties to other lawsuits would feel freer than we think Rule 37 contemplates they should feel to flout other discovery orders of other district courts" if contumacious conduct was left unaddressed) (per curiam); Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763-64, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980) (noting that Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently, both to penalize those whose conduct warrants sanctions and to deter those who might be tempted to sanctionable conduct in the absence of such a deterrent).

Accordingly, the Court imposes the following sanctions:

First, the President shall pay plaintiff any reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this Court's discovery Orders. Plaintiff's former counsel are directed to submit to this Court a detailed statement of any expenses and attorney's fees incurred in connection with this matter within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Second, the President shall reimburse this Court its expenses in traveling to Washington, D.C. at his request to preside over his tainted deposition. The Court therefore will direct that the President deposit into the registry of this Court the sum of $1,202.00, the total expenses incurred by this Court in traveling to Washington, D.C.

In addition, the Court will refer this matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct for review and any disciplinary action it deems appropriate for the President's possible violation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Relevant to this case, Rule 8.4 of the Model Rules provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to, among other things, "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," or to "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." The President's conduct as discussed previously arguably falls within the rubric of Rule 8.4 and involves matters that the Committee on Professional Conduct may deem appropriate for disciplinary action....

Mr. Clinton then entered into a voluntary agreement with the Arkansas Bar, under which his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for five years. He is eligible for reinstatement this month (Jan '08).

a. ;)

Tax-time lecture

I'm an attorney. I took 5 tax classes in law school (I'm still not exactly sure why...), and I've worked as a tax preparer for a major firm, as well as having tax clients in my law practice, so I've seen tax records in various states of preparedness. If you want to make it easier on yourself, do this:

1. Buy an 8"x11" spiral notebook with the perforated pages. Today.

2. Whenever you get a receipt that you even think *might* have something deductible on it, tape or staple it to its own page in the notebook, and write next to the receipt what you think the deductions are.

3. At tax time next year, tear out the pages with receipts on them, and take them all in to your tax preparer.

You'll have everything in one place, and they'll be able to sort identical-sized pieces of paper, instead of reciepts of varying sizes (which have a tendency to float off of desk tops, etc.). Once the taxes are done, the pages are also easier to file away than individual receipts are.

The other alternative is to do *everything* through your checkbook, and just mark potentially deductible items on your statements. The problem with that, though, is that sometimes you have more than one thing in the purchase amount; you go to the drugstore to pick up a deductible prescription, but you also buy soda and a book. If you have the receipt, you know the exact amount you paid that you can deduct. You can, of course, write the deductible amount in your check register, but what if you forget to do it right away?

Lecture concludes. Hope it helps!

a. ;)

For the husband-type-person

Honey,

Have I told you lately that I love you? I hope you know that I'll stand by you, for the glory of love, in good times and bad.

You'll always have free hugs when you need them, whether it's New Year's Day, or October (and yes, I'll wake you up when September ends).

You are the only one for me, now and forever. And I will not take these things for granted. If you leave, I'll be right here waiting for you.

And while you might think this is silly, it's quite "sirius". ;)

I will always love you, Baby.

a. ;)

Diet

In 1995, I was diagnosed with hypoglycemia. I then weighed 427 pounds (I look at that and shudder, believe me). I was given the following diet advice by my nutritionist and endocrinologist. If you have low blood sugar, or normal blood sugar, this may also help you. I followed it, and I lost over 100 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years (yes, I still have more to lose, but now I'm diabetic - my pancreas gave up on me, as previously noted in this blog - and so this diet doesn't work as well for me now, and if you also have diabetes, or are "pro-diabetic" or "pre-diabetic", it probably will not work for you, either).

Standard disclaimer: doctor's advice should be obtained and taken seriously prior to starting any diet or exercise plan. Seriously. Don't take my fucking word for it. Check it out with your doctor.

The trick, I was told, is *not* to cut back on eating - indeed, I was told to consume AT LEAST 4000 calories a day (reason why follows) - but to eat 6 meals a day, and each meal MUST be within the following caloric guidelines: if you look at your meal in terms of the percentage breakdown of calories, 43-45% should come from carbohydrate, 45-48% from protein, and 8-12% from fat, and the fat should be from omega fatty acids as much as possible. Within those guidelines, eat whatever you want; if you want ice cream, have a reasonable amount of ice cream - just have a salmon steak first.

To figure out the percentages, you have to do some math, because unfortunately no one labels their products properly (I hate the US FDA, btw). One gram of carbohydrate has 4 calories. One gram of protein has 4 calories. One gram of fat has 9 calories. So, if you are trying to decide if you should buy or eat a food product, and you're reading the label and it says it has "Total Fat 7g 11%" that sounds like it should work, but it probably doesn't. The "11%" figure is based on if you eat exactly 2000 calories in a day, which no one does, and which you should not be doing, if you're following this diet *grin*.

I'm looking at an actual label now, so I'll use that for reference.

Total fat: 7g
Total Carbohydrate: 36g
Total Protein: 5g

To figure out the caloric percentages you need, do the following calculations:

Step one:

Fat: 7 x 9 = 63 calories from fat

Carbohydrate: 36 x 4 = 144 calories from carbs

Protein: 5 x 4 = 20 calories from protein

Total: 63 + 144 + 20 = 227 = total number of calories in the product - but remember that that's per serving. The container says there are 4 servings per container, so multiply by 4: 227 x 4 = 908 total calories if you eat the entire container, of which 252 are from fat, 576 are from carbs, and 80 are from protein.

Step Two:

Then, to get the percentage, divide the fat, carb, and protein calorie figures by the total number of calories:

Fat: 252 / 908 = 27.7%
Carb: 576 / 908 = 63.5%
Protein: 80 / 908 = 8.8%

27.7 + 63.5 + 8.8 = 100%.

So, if you're supposed to be eating 45-48% protein, 43-45% carb, and 8-12% fat, this particular product would not be a major part of the diet. You could still eat it, but probably would want to not eat an entire serving, much less the entire container, and definitely with something VERY low in carbs, high in protein, and low in fat (say, a tofu burger, no bun - ick).

(By the way, the product I was referencing? Haagen Daaz Extra Rich Light Blueberry Cheesecake ice cream. My favorite, and I probably shouldn't even eat a single bite of it. Ever. *sigh*)

The reason to eat more, instead of less, is that a calorie is not a unit of weight measurement; rather, it is a unit of heat/energy measurement - so, it's not "X number of calories per pound" but "X number of calories per British Thermal Unit", and "X number of BTUs needed to burn off X amount of stored fat". If you don't eat enough calories, you don't have the energy you need to burn off the fat you've stored.

The reason to eat 8-12% fat is that the human nervous system depends on fat to keep the synapses flexible and firing - it cannot use stored fat for this, there must be a constant new influx, but the nervous system doesn't need *much* and what it needs are the omega fatty acids; it doesn't need trans fat at all. What it doesn't use, it stores, so you eat some, but you keep it low.

The other point is to absolutely avoid any product that tells you that it is "sugar free", if the ingredients list includes any of the following: sorbitol, mannitol, sugar alcohol, dextrose, fructose (or any other "...ose" - if it ends in "ose", it's a sugar, period), or splenda.

Aspartame / Nutrasweet is the *only* (per my endocrinologists - all 3 of them, different clinics, different states!) sweetener that does not affect insulin uptake or output in exactly the same way as sucrose or glucose.

Anyway, within 2 weeks of starting that "percentage" diet, my blood sugar went from the permanent basement level that it had been reading, of 20-30, back to a normal reading, of 80-85, and I felt 10,000% better than I had before being diagnosed, with energy through the roof. Once my blood sugar got back to normal, almost all of my other hormonal problems ceased to bother me (until my pancreas gave up).

If the above helps you, great. If it doesn't, well, too bad, so sad. It helped *me* for a long long time. And if it wasn't interesting, why are you still reading this? *grin*

a. ;)
I've been listening to the song "Missing" by Evanescence a lot lately. Here are the lyrics:

Please, please, forgive me
But I won’t be home again
Maybe someday you’ll look up,
And, barely conscious, you’ll say to no one,
“Isn’t something missing?”

You won’t cry for my absence, I know;
You forgot me long ago.
Am I that unimportant?
Am I so insignificant?
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?

Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you love me
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?

Please, please, forgive me
But I won’t be home again
I know what you did to yourself
I breathe deep and cry out
"Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?"

Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you love me
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?

And if I bleed, I’ll bleed
Knowing you don’t care
And if I sleep, just to dream of You
I’ll wake without you there.
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t something....

Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you loved me
I’m all alone.
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?

To me, the lyrics are very evocative of the story of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he waited for Judas to come to betray him. If I recall correctly, this was right after the Last Supper. I can't recall exactly when Christ told Peter that Peter would deny him three times, but I think that was right around the same time, either at the Supper, or before the disciples all fell asleep in the Garden, failing to keep Christ company for even the hour he requested of them.

I'm thinking that with a few changes to the lyrics, the song could actually be used to act out the story, perhaps at Easter Sunday services; our church generally does do a theatrical presentation on Easter Sunday, and the 5:00 p.m. service each Sunday features a Christian rock band, so I'm fairly sure I could get people interested.

These are the lyrics as I have tentatively rewritten them for that purpose (changes in italics):

Judas (as he is leaving the Last Supper):
Please, please, forgive me
For what I’m about to do


Jesus (to Judas as he goes):
Maybe someday you’ll look up,
And, barely conscious, you’ll say to no one,
"Isn’t something missing?"

Jesus (to Thomas & Peter, as they enter the Garden):
You won’t cry for my absence, I know;
You forgot me long ago.


Jesus (to God & Himself):
Am I that unimportant?
Am I so insignificant?
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?


Jesus (to sleeping disciples):
Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you love me
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?

Judas (as he kisses Jesus to identify him):
Please, please, forgive me

Judas (to God):
Lord, I offer up my sins
For the expiation.

Jesus:
I’ll redeem them with my blood

Jesus (to sleeping disciples):
Isn't something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?
Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you love me
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?


Jesus (to Judas and Roman guards):
And if I bleed, I’ll bleed
Knowing you don’t care
And though I'll die, for the sins of all of you
I’ll come back again.

Jesus (to sleeping disciples):
Isn't something missing?
Isn’t something...

Even though I’m the sacrifice
You won’t try for me, not now
‘Though I’d die to know you love me
I’m all alone.Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?

I'm not sure the meter and rhyme scheme are quite right; suggestions?

a. ;)

Defamation Information

I hereby post, as a public service, the following facts regarding defamation (please note that "slander" and "libel" are both included in the wider term "defamation"). Feel free to disseminate this information at will; I ask only that you cite the sources that I have provided.

a. ;)


Defamation is a public communication that tends to injure the reputation of another. It includes both libel (written defamatory statements) and slander (oral ones). The definition of defamation varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but “there is common agreement that a communication that is merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurts only the plaintiff’s feelings, is not actionable.” Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander and Related Problems 2–9 (1999). People should be tough enough not to be injured by such statements, which would flood the courts if actionable. Id. at 2–10.

The U.S. Restatement (Second) of Torts defines defamation as a communication that “‘tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.’” Id. at 2–11 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1977)). England, birthplace of the common law, has a similar definition. One court framed the question as whether "‘what has been published . . . would tend in the minds of people of ordinary sense to bring the plaintiff into contempt, hatred, or ridicule or to injure his character.’” Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd, 1 All E.R. 1011, 1015 (H.L. 1993) (U.K.) (quoting South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v. North-Eastern News Association Ltd, 1 Q.B. 133, 138 (Q.B. 1894) (U.K.)).

Other common tests include:

“‘lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking people generally,’ ‘injuring the plaintiff’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule,’ and tending to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided.’” Geoffrey Robertson & Andrew G.L. Nicol, Media Law 46 (1992).

Elements shared by most jurisdictions include a statement, publication to a third party or parties, and a potential to injure the plaintiff’s reputation. . . . The questions for the court include: is the statement true, does it matter if it is true, how will readers interpret it, and what was the mens rea of the person who made it. . . . Once an action reaches trial, the common law has traditionally offered three defenses to defamation: truth, fair comment, and privilege. For a more detailed discussion of these defenses, see Robertson & Nicol, supra, at 70–95; see also Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., 3 W.L.R. 1010, 1015–17 (H.L. 1999) (U.K.).

Truth, or justification, is a complete defense for statements of fact. If defendants can prove the truth of a defamatory statement, they cannot be held liable for damages. Perfection is not required, however. In Britain, for example, the defendant only needs to show that the statement is “substantially correct.” See Robertson & Nicol, supra, at 73–76. The defense of fair comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. The court does not need to agree with the opinion; instead, it must determine “whether the views could honestly have been held by a fair-minded person on facts known at the time.” Id. at 79. . . . A true statement is never defamatory.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml

Defamation refers to false statements of fact that harm another's reputation. It encompasses both libel and slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. . . . The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm.

Basic requirements of a defamation case:

A defamation plaintiff must usually establish the following elements to recover:

Identification: The plaintiff must show that the publication was "of and concerning" himself or herself.

Publication: The plaintiff must show that the defamatory statements were disseminated to a third party.

Defamatory meaning: The plaintiff must establish that the statements in question were defamatory. For example, the language must do more than simply annoy a person or hurt a person's feelings.

Falsity: The statements must be false; truth is a defense to a defamation claim. Generally, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof of establishing falsity.

Statements of fact: The statements in question must be objectively verifiable as false statements of fact. In other words, the statements must be provable as false.

Damages: The false and defamatory statements must cause actual injury or special damages.

Defenses and privileges

There are numerous defenses and privileges to a defamation claim. Many of these vary from state to state. Sometimes, a particular party has carte blanche to make certain statements even if they are false. This is called an absolute privilege. Other privileges can be established as long as certain conditions are met.

Some of the more common defenses and privileges include:

Truth or substantial truth: Truth is generally a complete defense. Many jurisdictions have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine, which protects a defamation defendant as long as the "gist" of the story is true.

Statements in judicial, legislative, and administrative proceedings: Defamatory statements made in these settings by participants are considered absolutely privileged. For example, a lawyer in a divorce case could not be sued for libel for comments he or she made during a court proceeding.

Fair report or fair comment: This privilege varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally, it provides a measure of protection to a defendant who reports on the deliberations of a public body, such as a city council meeting.

Libel-proof plaintiffs: This defense holds that some plaintiffs have such lousy reputations that essentially they are libel-proof. The theory is that one cannot harm someone's reputation when that person already has a damaged reputation.

Rhetorical hyperbole: Some courts will hold that certain language in certain contexts (editorial/opinion column) is understood by the readers to be figurative language not to be interpreted literally.

Retraction statutes: Nearly every state possesses a statute that allows a defamation defendant to retract, or take back, a libelous publication. Some of these statutes bar recovery, while others prevent the defendant from recovering so-called punitive damages.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/index.htm

Please note that since "slander" is an oral communication, it is impossible to "slander" someone by writing something (or typing something) about them on the internet. That would be "libel", a defamatory written statement - assuming the other requirements of defamation are met. If the written statement is true, the statement is not defamatory at all, as truth is a complete defense to defamation, as the following cases attest.

From POSNER v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, (S.D.N.Y. 3-21-2007), Slip op., at 20:

. . . "Under New York law "it is `fundamental that truth is an absolute, unqualified defense to a civil defamation action,' and `substantial truth suffices to defeat a charge of libel.'" Weber v. Multimedia Entertainment, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 0682 (JGK), 2000 WL 526726, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2000) (quoting Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1986)).
From BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, (S.D.Fla. 1-24-2007), CASE NO. 04-80090-CIV-COHN. Slip op., at 6:

In Florida, "a communication is `defamatory' if it tends to harm the reputation
of another as to lower him or her in estimation of community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with the defamed party." LRX, Inc. v. Horizon Associates Joint Venture ex rel. Horizon-ANF, Inc., 842 So.2d 881, 885 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2003). However, truth is "a defense to defamation. . . . Id. at 886-887, quoting Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So.2d 170, 183 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000).
From DENNISON v. MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY, (W.D.Ky. 11-3-2006), Case No. 5:05CV-182-R. Slip op., at 21:

The elements of defamation in Kentucky are: (1) defamatory language; (2) about
the plaintiff; (3) which is published; and (4) which causes injury to reputation. Columbia Sussex Corp. v. Hay, 627 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Ky.Ct.App. 1981). In Kentucky, truth is a complete defense, thus a defendant able to prove the truth of the statement at issue cannot be held liable for defamation. Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781, 795-96 (Ky. 2004).
From LEONARDI v. FREEMAN, (S.D.Ohio 10-11-2006). Slip op., at 7-8:

. . .the elements of defamation, including libel and slander, in Ohio are the following: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. Akron-Canton Waste Oil, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Oil Serv., Inc., 81 Ohio App.3d 591, 601 (1992). A defamatory statement is a false statement "causing injury to a person's reputation, or exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or affecting him adversely in his trade or business." Matalka v. Lagemann, 21 Ohio App.3d 134, 136 (1985). In order for the statement to be considered libel per se, the words used in the publication must have the tendency to injure the plaintiff in his trade or occupation. Wilson v. Harvey, 164 Ohio App. 3d 278, 286 (Ohio Ct.App. 2005). Libel per se is defined as actionable in itself, i.e. it is libel by the very meaning of the words used. Wilson v. Harvey, 164 Ohio App. 3d 278, 285-286 (Ohio Ct.App. 2005). Actual malice and damages are presumed in an action for libel per se and thus need not be proven. Id., citing McCartney v. Oblates of St. Francis deSales (1992), 80 Ohio App. 3d 345, 354, 609 N.E.2d 216. Plaintiff asserts that the alleged defamatory statement is false. Defendant asserts that it is not false, and that Defendant repeated and reported exactly what Plaintiff said. Although truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation, this is a question of fact for a jury to determine.
From BAUMAN v. MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL, (S.D.N.Y. 9-29-2006). Slip op., at 25-26:

. . .Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims based on the purported falsity of these
assertions fail. See Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 0682 (JGK),
2000 WL 526726, *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2000) (finding truth an absolute defense to
defamation).
From MAPINFO CORPORATION v. SPATIAL RE-ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, (N.D.N.Y. 2006). Slip op., at 33:

Under New York law . . . it is `fundamental that truth is an absolute, unqualified defense to a civil defamation action.'" Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Commonwealth Motor Parts Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 355 N.Y.S.2d 138, 141 (1st Dep't 1974)). Further, "`substantial truth' suffices to defeat a charge of libel." Id. (citation omitted).