Latest Google Searches: Sorry to Disappoint You but No Defamation Here
Three people (or possibly one obsessed person searching three times) searched last night on monica pignotti defamatory blog on adopted children from Russia. The really cool feature that WordPress offers, allows me to see what searches brought people here and although this blog is not defamatory, because this blog contains all those words, I learned of that search.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing in this blog that qualifies as defamation and here in the United States of America we have something called the Constitution that guarantees us the right of free speech and yes, that even means the right to challenge and criticize so-called “experts” and those some may consider authority.
Ronald Federici attempted to sue several people and that has resulted in losses and/or dismissed cases, the latest being one that was heard in Eastern District Court of Virginia on March 4, 2011 that was dismissed by the Federal judge for me on both the grounds of jurisdiction and most importantly, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This happened in March and is old news by now, but since these searches indicate that this false rumor is still flying around, go here to read the documents, including full transcript of the dismissal hearing.
Federici gave it his best shot and hired a top notch attorney who is an expert in internet defamation, Domingo Rivera to represent him. However, the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee stated the following about my internet postings (see p. 32 of the transcript):
The defamation claim, there’s a motion to dismiss filed by Pignotti and Mercer that does not state a claim for defamation or tortious interference with contract rights or business expectancy. I’m going to grant that motion for several reasons. First of all, as it relates to the statements themselves, I do not think that plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts connecting Mercer with any actionable statements.
And as it relates to Pignotti, I do not think that plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate a claim that would meet the requirements of libel under Virginia law and the Chapin versus Knight-Ridder case. The words specifically claimed are not set forth. They’re not set forth with any specificity. The dates are not set forth. They’re insufficient to state a claim.
And looking at them as a matter of substance, some of them — Exhibit H, appears to be Dr. Pignotti responding what she believes to be actions taken by Dr. Federici on her website. These matters would not be –they would be opinion. They would not be sufficient to state a claim for libel.
As always, it is my intention on this and all my other blogs to be completely truthful and this blog contains my opinions and the facts, as I understand them. As I state in the description of the purpose of this blog, if anyone believes I have gotten anything factually incorrect regarding Russian adopted children or any other topic, please do feel free to respond and provide me with corrective evidence, which I always welcome. I will give my full, thoughtful, consideration to any factual rebuttals. Otherwise, I do have the right to express my opinions and the facts as I understand them.
For an example of a statement that would clearly qualify as defamation, see the lies that have been posted anonymously about me that I have been arrested when in fact any background check will prove that I have no criminal background whatsoever. No arrests, no felonies, no misdemeanors, not even a traffic ticket.