Since my answer to js post was eliminated on ihub

Since my answer to js post was eliminated on ihub I post it here. She had posted a link to the defendants argument in the libel case against ihub-of which she admits she was 1 of the personal defendants,as we already knew

My post:

What u fail to adequately disclose is that all the substantive arguments here are by the defendants
who made a defacto summary judgment motion (surprise surprise)

and since the plaintiff was found not to have responded to defendants motion in time plaintiffs substantive arguments were apparently not even heard from my quick perusal

the case law pointed to is bizarre and contradicts everything I ever heard and read and was taught about libel
the 9th circuit is in a world of its own -the 1 that struck down the flag salute etc-to which 533 of 535 members of congress responded by boldly Singing God Bless America and saying the flag salute from the capitol steps and passing a resolution rebuking the 9th circuit

The real standard for libel should be somewhere between simple negligence(standard for a private person) and reckless disregard for the truth -applied to public personalities who make their living off of their fame-like rock stars and actors and thus have a more liberal standard--that certainly does not apply to officers of these relatively unknown penny companies-so the standard should be closer to mere negligence

but if those who believe this diseased opinion=oh my opinion only-
and thus believe u can say ANYTHING WITH IMPUNITY EVEN ITS A LIE AND THEY DONT EVEN BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES,THEN WHY SHOULD ANYBODY EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE POSTS OF THOSE WHO ATTACK THE COMPANY

All I can say to plaintiffs is dont bring libel suit in California until the opinion is overruled by later cases in a higher court

No wonder nothing but unsupported invective is used to attack these companies