The Delaney Letter

Were There Reasonable Grounds for Believing
That the Statements in the Letter Were True?

Was There a High Degree of Awareness of Their Probable Falsity?

Did the Publisher In Fact

Entertained Serious Doubts as to the Truth of His Publications?

The Letter

We have learned a great deal more this time around what the true facts really are regarding the need for a jail and a wheel tax.

We were misled by one individual in particular regarding the facts the last time. Who Else But Cook?

We were told a lawsuit would not be filed. - Not Cook’s documented position
We were told that voting down the wheel tax would not cost the county any money. Not Cook’s documented position
We were told that the jail could be built without more taxes. Not Cook’s documented position
We were told a lot of ‘stuff’ that turned out to be untrue. Like what?
We even heard there were individuals who believe their names were signed for them on the last petition. Who knows; you tend to hear everything these days.
But we’ve heard enough now to realize we were misled last time and we weren’t the only ones. This Dude actively supported and Voted FOR the wheel tax, Cook opposed the wheel tax. Who else was misled?
You won’t see our names on the wheel tax petition. Who is 'our' because Delaney's wasn’t there the last time, either.
We encourage others who were misled or misunderstood before to not sign either. Who might that be?
And, if you have already signed and wished you didn’t contact Mr. Cook and insist your name is removed. Would that be that 'one individual in particular' person?
Let’s not be fooled this time. Cook fooled Delaney last time?

-end of letter-

Ostensible Factual Summary -

We were misled last time and we weren’t the only ones.
We were mislead by one individual in particular regarding the facts.
One can not trust Cook, he will mislead you with false statements like he did us and others.

We were told, by Cook, a lot of ‘stuff’ that turned out to be untrue.

The Case

The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Did the writer intended to provoke to wrath of Cook, or expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse with the defamatory matter published in The Courier, on the 17th day of November 17, 2005?

The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government, public officials and public figures. But not with actual malice. You Can’t Just Make It Up And Publish Lies!! Duh!

Actual malice exists when a statement is made with knowledge that the statement is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is false and made with 'actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. If a person receives a letter containing libelous matter, he will not be justified in publishing it. However, there are broad protection for misstatements about public figures that are not animated by malice.

Excerpts from U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Defamation.

Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public person, should enjoy a like immunity. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, as today, there were those unscrupulous enough and skillful enough to use the deliberate or reckless falsehood as an effective political tool to unseat the public servant, smear a public figure or even to topple an administration.

That speech is used as a tool for political ends does not automatically bring it under the protective mantle of the Constitution. For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . .' Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.

Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964).

The legitimate state interest underlying the law of libel is the compensation of individuals for the harm inflicted on them by defamatory falsehood. We would not lightly require the State to abandon this purpose, the individual's right to the protection of his own good name reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.

The protection of private personality, like the protection of life itself, is left primarily to the individual States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But this does not mean that the right is entitled to any less recognition by this Court as a basic of our constitutional system." Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 92 (1966) (concurring opinion).

The Program
I choose to exercise my right to protect my own good name.
That’s All I Have Left. I’ve Earned It The Hard Way, Thank you very much.