The Delaney Letter, Part II

Our Readers Write
Personal Opinions
November 24, 2005

We stand by our statements of Nov. 17 in Our Readers Write. At no time did we state, infer or otherwise mention Ted Cook, except to note him as the one heading the petition and the one to contact if you wanted your name removed.

Anyone who attempts to apply the letter to Mr. Cook has no reason to do so, including Mr. Cook. We apologize if anyone assumed otherwise.

Steve Delaney
Phillips Drive
Savannah

We stand by our statements of Nov. 17 in Our Readers Write.

That would be that Cook mislead Delaney, et. al., by telling specific untruths that led to Delaney and others to opposing the wheel tax in 2004 and warned others to not let Cook mislead them to oppose the wheel tax in 2005. Oops, Delaney didn’t oppose the wheel tax in 2004, he didn’t sign the petition and, in fact, supported the wheel tax in 2004 and 2005.

So be it, stand right there. If, in fact, Steve is the author of the letter, why does he speak in the plural with things like, we stand and our statements, instead of I stand and my statements? Who else is Steve speaking for? Who are the real authors of the letters?

At no time did we state, infer or otherwise mention Ted Cook,

Who were you talking about? Here’s your sign. The law has been relaxed to allow the plaintiff to merely allege the gist of the defamatory communication. Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 8.01; Handley v. May, 588 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). That would be, Cook lied to us, don’t let him do it to you.

Let’s consider whether the Letter was defamatory. The question of whether the Letter was understood by its readers as defamatory is a question for the jury, but the preliminary determination of whether the Letter is capable of being so understood is a question of law to be determined by the court. Cook has concluded it is defamatory and knowingly false.

It don’t matter what Delaney intended or thought with his innuendos, what matters is what a reader of the letter thought the innuendo was. Let’s see, if one were to ask, if you talk about the wheel tax issue and ‘one individual in particular’ at the same time, who do you think the majority of folks in this part of the country would probably think you are talking about? Especially in the Courier’s Readers Write section. Duh!

The letter is libelous, it constitute a threat to Cook's reputation. The words can reasonably be construed as holding Cook up to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. They carry with them an element of disgrace.

Trial courts are permitted to determine that a statement is not defamatory as a matter of law only when it can say that the statement is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in any defamatory sense. Gonna be hard to get past that.

Trial courts in defamation proceedings possess one additional adjudicatory prerogative that they do not possess in other civil cases. They have the independent authority to determine, based on all the facts, (a) whether the communication at issue is reasonably capable of conveying the particular meaning or innuendo ascribed to it by the plaintiff and (b) whether that meaning is defamatory in character.

If the letter is not reasonably capable of conveying the particular innuendo, why write this letter of apology? The disclaimer should have been in the first latter.

except to note him as the one heading the petition and the one to contact if you wanted your name removed.

No way to connect Cook to that ‘one particular person’ just because Delaney noted Cook ‘as the one heading the petition and the one to contact?’ Right!

Anyone who attempts to apply the letter to Mr. Cook has no reason to do so, including Mr. Cook.

innuendo - n. In law it means "an indirect hint." "Innuendo" is used in lawsuits for defamation , usually to show that the party suing was the person about whom the nasty statements were made or why the comments were defamatory.

Cook has good reason to do so, Cook knows at least the next leg of the truth behind the letter.

We apologize if anyone assumed otherwise.

How does one apologize to anyone for contributing to a wrong assumption, when the assumption your are apologizing for is the assumption you wanted them to assume?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Ted