'The Obama Movement'

This is the last batch of PUMA vids, but I think the best.  This is MamaPuma, spokesperson for PUMAPAC.  Again, Brad Mays was shooting this for his film, and I hope it makes it in. 

Before you watch these, remember this:

THE OBAMA MOVEMENT’S CALL FOR DEATH TO WOMEN WHO OPPOSE HIM WATCH

Also, remember the opening to that trailer, and my previous commentary on it.  During the interview, I didn't realize how strong this all was.  The fact that Ann (MamaPuma) argued that semantic distinction so forcefully, coupled with the later (on the record) revelation that she's a lawyer, cast this in a new light.

Note, also, that she argues that it is impossible to know whether the person who solicited Barack Obama's murder was or was not an Obama supporter.  Even granting that gargantuan technicality, how does that make it OK for Darragh to claim he was?

Christina's post paints a very cynical picture of all of this, indeed.  Look back a few posts to the video of that bare room with the air mattress in it.  Remember the woman in the middle of the 2nd video in this post.  Remember all of the women who gave 'til it hurt to pay for this effort.  Remember, with me, the line of PUMAs who met my eye apologetically as they filed out of the PUMA house following the rude welcome some of them gave me when I showed up, at their invitation, to interview Darragh Murphy.

You can think what you will of their motivations, but we can all grant them, most of them, a sincere devotion to what they think is an imortant cause.  Was it all just done to protect Zbridge's tax breaks?

In his first major election campaign after the Democrat Convention at Denver, Colorado last week, Sen. Obama stressed that he and his running mate Sen. Joseph Biden are serious about cutting off tax breaks for those companies which ship jobs overseas. Instead he said, that tax incentives will go to those companies that invest and create more jobs in the US.

Comments

[Bill]

wow

[Christina]

I can't really put my finger on what this audio is more indicative of- their manipulation tactics, or their craziness.

Possibly both.

[Bill]

I nominate Tommy, Christina & Kevin K for a joint Pulitzer

[Tommy Christopher]

I'll settle for the joint.

BTW, do you guys all know about the radio show?

[not a fan of PUMA]

First, bravo Christina, Tommy, Kevin, and all!!!

I apologize to you all for this long post, but, I HAVE to say this. Ann Walsh is apparently a lawyer, and she is clearly involved in the content of that blog and identifies herself publicly (to the press) as a PUMA Leader. She has had the audacity to threaten Christina with a potential libel suit. When lawyers are involved in an endeavor, I can assure you most judges hold them to a bit of a higher standard than the average joe.

Here, for your perusal, are some BASICS of defamation law, found on the internet here: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html, with some commentary/thoughts in brackets (commentary mine). This isn't some legal opinion or legal advice or anything like that, it's just some thoughts from your average "not a fan" about all of this based on the stuff out there on the net talking about libel law.
----------------------------------

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another; [oh, say, maybe claiming an entire group of people were making death threats against you on the assumption they were coming from this group]
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); [oh, say, publishing such a claim on your blog]
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and [the "Obama movement" whoever that implicates, or "Obama supporters" as many of us are, are PRIVATE individuals, and, arguably, maybe, a "class" in legal terminology, and, so far we have seen no PROOF of the truth of these claims, or, NO proof showing if such threats were even made, and they have so far shown NO connection proving "Obama supporters" made these threats]
Damage to the plaintiff. [I'd think one can show reputational damage when being accused of making death threats, amogst other things, right?]
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish. [I'd think that being characterized as a bunch of angry death-threat makers is damaging, what do you all think?]

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;[maybe, LIKE BEING ACCUSED OF MAKING DEATH THREATS]
--------------------------------------
So, apparently, Ann is a lawyer seasoned in defamation claims, right-- she is emailing Christina about just such an issue? I hope she can mount a great defense to such claims as well, as I'd think there could maybe be a claim here from the little I have read. It is clear that the PUMApac bloggers took this accusation as truth from their posts and their statements on camera. It is clear Darragh posted it as truth, not as a joke, an opinion, or as fiction. It is NOT clear that they have the facts to back any of these claims up.

The charge they make on the blog seems to me to be a very serious one. Anyone have any thoughts on if/how/when anyone might want to reasearch and then possibly file a defamation claim on this one-- defending all "Obama supporters" now accused of these horrendous actions?

[pumabot]

TC,
What radio show?

[pumabot]

Sheesh,
I was born and raised in South Eastern Massachusetts and I Hate that stupid accent.
Anywho,
This just goes to prove that the apple doesn't fall to far from the tree.

[Tommy Christopher]

NAFOPUMA,

you might be onto something. If PUMAPAC had deeper pockets, you could probably even get someone to handle it on contingrncy.

First, you need a class of plaintiffs, "the Obama movement." They have to have standing, you have to prove harm.

She immediately assumed, without knowing what the piece said, that it was very carefully worded. It would need to be.

However, reading the snippets I included in the film, from just a cursory review of 1 post, it doesn't seem that careful to me.

I'm not even sure there need to be individual plaintiffs, just someone willing to file on their behalf, and a judge to give the class standing.

[Tommy Christopher]

Radio show info:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/03/tommy-caleb-and-denise-to-co-host-radio-show/

[not a fan of PUMA]

Tommy,
Maybe there are also other possible claims here as well, for those who donated to funds for things that did not ever materialize?

Anyone with suggestions please do chime in. I'll also ask some folks I know who know this stuff and see what they think.

-Not a fan

[not a fan of PUMA]

As I have heard said by some lawyer friends, if they want to "lawyer up" well...hope they can take what they dish out, right?

[Tommy Christopher]

The problem, beyond whether there is a case, is getting someone to take it. There's no money to be made, so unless someone wants to do it pro bono, not gonna happen.

[not a fan of PUMA]

Seems like a good case for some law students with a bit of guidance from someone seasoned. Or maybe a progressive law center, taking it on principle. I'll look around...

[Liz I.]

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.

Even if "Obama supporters" is/are a legal person/legal persons, there is no (quantifiable) harm.

The best way to stop all this crap (and the best revenge) is to donate, talk to your friends and neighbors, get out the vote, vote, and win the election.

[Liz I.]

Errata:

Sorry, I should have written "Obama movement" not "Obama supporters".

I am distracted by Republican terrorist porn.