Re: Re: Moral Dilemma

["Terry W" <blazingsaddles@rraz.net>]

Rhonda wrote:

First, just because what you are saying is true does not mean that you won't
be sued.  Which means that you have to incur legal fees to defend yourself. 
Second, in Kansas, at least, it does not work quite the way you describe in
court.  In Kansas, the truth of your statement is an "affirmative defense"
under the law.  That means that YOU have the burden of proving the truth of
your statements.  Which is not to say that I think that this person should
keep quiet.  I just want the risks of speaking out to be clear. 
Rhonda

True,  but I doubt the trainer would sue for slander unless she were telling anybody and everybody and it was getting back to him, but I think we're only talking about people she comes across that mention using this trainer.  He also would have expenses in filing a lawsuit and knows he may be responsible for her expenses as well if he loses in court.  Unless he were an upstanding citizen/trainer who did not do the things he did to her horse (and no doubt countless others),  I doubt it would ever get that far.

Still,  in filing a slander lawsuit against someone,  isn't it the burden of the plaintiff to prove slander,  not necessarily the other way around?  Isn't it "innocent until proven guilty?"

I think having him investigated would be the way to go anyway.  If it panned out,  ultimately it would save future horseowners and horses from his type of training methods which sound illegal to begin with.

TerryW

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.   
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp  
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=