I would say you're 100% wrong about PD Taylor
That's fine. You have your opinion. Since you show to be from Tulsa area, neither you nor I are voting in the Oklahoma County election, so it probably doesn't matter.
I have been in tulsa since December. I know both Mr Taylor and Mr Whetsel and can assure that Mr Taylor has never been a John Whetsel crony ,probably more like a thorn in his side and probably a factor in Mr.Whetsel deciding to retire. If you have proof to back up your assertion then produce it , other wise you're another guy on the internet spouting off about something you know nothing about
I also know Whetsel. The guy was an ass when he worked in Choctaw, and hasn't changed. Most folks in Choctaw voted for him in his first run for Sheriff just to get him out of Choctaw.
If you have proof that Taylor was not involved in Whetsels' thievery, then produce it. If you have proof of Taylor bringing evidence to prosecutors, then produce it.
If you believe that Taylor worked cheek by jowl with Whetsel, as his Undersheriff, and knew nothing of the shady doings, then I have a bridge for sale.
Other than that, you are nothig but a Taylor shill, hoping to get another Good Ol Boy in on a lucrative retirement scheme.
no you are a person slandering a man on the internet with no proof what so ever. I have no burden of proof you are the one making unfounded accusations .
Slander ? Let's see -
slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.
Or, fair comment ?
fair comment
n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated, and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously---with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. Fair comment is a crucial defense against libel suits which is put up by members of the media.
To be slander, the statement must be untrue. Prove what I said was untrue.
Then, read the first sentence of Fair Comment. " A statement of OPINION, based on FACTS WHICH ARE CORRECTLY STATED...".
Now, show me the incorrectly stated facts.
Now, read the second sentence of Fair Comment .
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously---with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm.
Now, go suck an egg. Or, go shill some more for your boy. Either way.
Similar threads
