David
Phoenix,#2General Comment
Tue, December 29, 2009
Hello everyone. My name is David and I am general counsel for www.RipoffReport.com. I am the person who handled the Blockowicz v. Williams case on behalf of the Ripoff Report.
I normally prefer not to comment on the outcome of specific cases. However, the reporting on this case has been horribly inaccurate and incomplete, to the point that it is seriously misleading people about the facts of this case and the reasons for the result. While people can and should debate these important issues, doing so based on inaccurate and incomplete facts is helpful to no one. With that in mind, here are some additional facts which may help you to reach an informed decision about the outcome of this case.
BACKGROUND HISTORY
First of all, this case involved three separate postings on the Ripoff Report site. The first two posts were made in October 2003. Links to these posts are here:
Post #1: October 15, 2003
http://www.ripoffreport.com/dead-beat-moms/megan-blockowicz-aka/megan-blockowicz-aka-megan-s-wfbbc.htm
Post #2: October 31, 2003
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Prostitutes/Megan-Blockowicz-Mar/megan-blockowicz-mary-blockow-47e98.htm
Post #3: April 22, 2009
http://www.ripoffreport.com/liars/lisa-blockowicz/lisa-blockowicz-julie-bevans-7y56d.htm
The first two posts are the source of many of the statements which are allegedly defamatory. If you review them, you will note that both of the posts focus primarily on Megan Blockowicz. Thats important because Megan Blockowicz was NOT a plaintiff in the Blockowicz v. Williams lawsuit. Rather, the only parties to that case were Megans adoptive parents, David and Mary Blockowicz, and their other daughter, Lisa Blockowicz. Why is that important? Because as a general rule, in order to sue someone for defamation, the statements at issue have to be about you, not about a family member.
A second comment about these first two posts both were made in 2003, and the lawsuit was not filed until six years later in 2009. Why is that important? Because most states (including Illinois, where this action was filed) have very short statutes of limitation for defamation claims. The reason for this is because protecting free speech is extremely important, and if someone is really the target of false statements, the law expects them to act immediately before memories fade and evidence is lost. If a plaintiff fails to act promptly and they bring their lawsuit even one day after the statute of limitations expires, the law will forever bar them from suing on those claims.
In this instance, Illinois law provides that defamation claims are subject to a one-year limitations period which begins to run on the date the offending statements are posted, not the date when the plaintiffs discover them. Thus, any claims based on the first two posts would have expired as a matter of law in October 2004 nearly half a decade prior to this lawsuit being filed.
So why didnt the judge see this initially? After all, people reporting on this story have stated that a federal court found the statements to be false and ordered them to be removed. How could the judge make those findings if the statements were really so old? Why wouldnt the judge simply throw out the case, at least as to those older statements?
The answer to that question is that this case did not involve a trial. Instead, the case ended with a default judgment which means that the defendants did not appear (this is treated like a forfeit in sports). For the reasons explained later below, the fact that the defendants did not appear here is not necessarily surprising, nor does it mean they would have lost if they had appeared.
However, when a defendant defaults, the judge basically takes the plaintiff at their word and assumes the plaintiffs claims are true even if they arent true. So what did the plaintiffs tell the judge about the posting date of these reports?
In Paragraph 11 of their Complaint (which you can read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464314/Letter-From-Plaintiffs-Counsel-Complaint , the plaintiffs listed some of the offending statements but they failed to inform the judge that the first two posts were made in 2003. In fact, the actual posting date is conspicuously missing and is not found anywhere in the Complaint. Rather, in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the Defendants update the false posts and reports from time to time, including as recently as March and April 2009, by revising the original reports.
In other words, the plaintiffs Complaint never informed the judge that the first two reports were from 2003. Instead, they alleged that the statements were updated/revised in 2009. If that was true, the statute of limitations probably would not have barred claims based on the older two postings. However, because this case ended in a default judgment, there was no trial and no defense lawyer or anyone else to point out these problems, so the judge simply assumed that the plaintiffs were being truthful.
The plaintiffs later admitted that, in fact, they were aware that the first posts were actually made in 2003, not 2009. In addition, they stated many of the allegations about Megans legal history were true. Heres a direct quote from the declaration of David Blockowicz filed with the court:
In or around 2003, I became aware that Mr. Williams and/or his associate, Michelle Ramey, were posting inflammatory statements regarding Megan and her family on the internet, including at sites such as
razrlazr
detroit,#3Consumer Comment
Fri, December 25, 2009
I read this Ars Technica article:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/justice-elusive-for-chicago-family-defamed-online.ars
and decided to check out the original for myself. After doing so, it looks like the original poster has a personal vendetta against this family. I agree it sounds like a personal problem the original poster has. Give it a rest dude, you sound like a menace to society.
Joe
Austin,#4Consumer Comment
Wed, April 22, 2009
DUDE, YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS BITTER BREAK -UP TO THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOWS. YOU GOT UNRESOLVED ISSUES.