JO's feelings are hurt...so he sues 'em!!!

bert5555

New Member
Free speech...free speech...anybody???

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/s...tml?from_rss=1

Mesa Airlines Inc., the Mainland parent of the Hawaii airline go!, is suing an Aloha Airlines pilot whom it claims has been active in online criticism of the company.

Mike Uslan, who flies for Aloha Airlines, is one of 11 defendants in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, where Mesa is based. The other 10 are identified only as John Does I-X.

The suit appears aimed at H.E.R.O., an organization whose name stands for "Hawaii's airline employees repelling Ornstein," a reference to Mesa CEO Jonathan Ornstein.

A Web site -- dontflygo.com -- operated by H.E.R.O. has posted editorials against Mesa and Ornstein, which founded go! last year.

Mesa's suit alleges that Uslan and his John Doe co-defendants have "caused injury and damages to Mesa" and "directed defamatory statements" at Mesa and its chief executive. It also accuses them of trademark infringement.

In its lawsuit, Mesa asks the court to enjoin Uslan and the other defendants from using the airline's trade names and service marks and "from making false and defamatory claims or statements about Mesa Airlines." It also asks the court to order Uslan to reveal the identities of the owners and content providers for the www.donflygo.com Web site.

Finally, it asks the court to award punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
The Mesa lawsuit asserts that the Hawaii Web site comes under the jurisdiction of the Arizona court because its content is intended "to harm Mesa Airlines' finances and reputation in the state of Arizona."

This week, Uslan filed in a Honolulu court a motion for a protective order to limit the scope of subpoenas and depositions filed against him.

His lawyers assert in Uslan's filing that "the transparent purpose" of actions by Mesa attorneys "is to intimidate Uslan and others," adding that "Uslan is a resident of the state of Hawaii. Mesa obviously filed this lawsuit in the district court of Arizona to make it more expensive and difficult for him to defend himself."
 
What a load of crap. He can dish crap but he doesn't want to take it. I wish JO would get out of the kitchen.
 
Must need to make an extra down payment on the sand for his private beach. This guy has got a brass set on him. That's for sure.
 
This guy has got a brass set on him. That's for sure.

I think having an actual brass set would mean ignoring the criticizm and simply beating out all the other Hawaiian airlines. Sueing is a bit of a pansy move IMO. :laff:
 
Disgusting. He should sue himself with the way it appears he treats his employees. What a stiff.

Wait a minute, my phone is ringing. Could it be JO's lawyers for saying an inflammatory remark about him???:eek:
 
As much as I dislike JO and Mesa - there is a big, big difference between 'free speech' and 'slander'...

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

Speaking from a strictly legal standpoint (and that's all that matters in a court case) - the author of the website had better be able to substantiate every single sentence on the website or JO may very well recover damages (assuming he can prove damages).

I'm all for kicking JO out of town but people need to be careful how they go about it.

Jason

PS - This is one example that emphasises a point I made a few weeks ago in another thread - be careful what you post on the intenet - you never know who's reading it and you may not be able to hide behind your keyboard.
 
Wow, since when do we not have a right to publish our own opinions? I hate how the civil court system works...

Most facts/graphs/charts they have posted come from legitimate sources, it seems.
 
I don't know if we have ever had the right to PUBLISH our own opinions. State them yes, publish them no.
 
As much as I dislike JO and Mesa - there is a big, big difference between 'free speech' and 'slander'...

This is very true. The company I am with now (who treats their employees VERY WELL), has an executive VP who initiated a law suit against a poster on Yahoo! message boards. The person posting had an alias but Yahoo! cooperated and sent him a subpoena which he responded to.

Our company dropped the suit but needless to say, the guy was in deep poop.

You do need to be careful how you exercise your "free speech" becuase there is a line between such and slander.
 
Speaking from a strictly legal standpoint (and that's all that matters in a court case) - the author of the website had better be able to substantiate every single sentence on the website or JO may very well recover damages (assuming he can prove damages).

If the comments are marked as editorials and they are opinions they are protected.

If they are such that they are not factually true and purported to be "news" or factual (i.e. the daily programming on "Fox News") then they are not protected.





However, anyone can sue for anything at anytime. Whether they win or not is another mater entirely.

Being threatened with a lawsuit over something you've printed, if you are in the news/journalism business or publish on a regular basis, is really not that uncommon. I've was threatened with it at least twice over the course of the year I was editor in Chief of my university student newspaper.
 
I'm not a lawyer but I think people misunderstand what freedom of speech is all about. As I understand it, and if I'm wrong perhaps someone can correct me, freedom of speech prevents the government from persecuting you for the views you hold. It does not absolve you of the consequences of shooting your mouth off in public (yelling "fire" in a movie theater for example)

I looked at the site, and what little I saw looked like he was republishing things other people had said.
 
I'm not a lawyer but I think people misunderstand what freedom of speech is all about. As I understand it, and if I'm wrong perhaps someone can correct me, freedom of speech prevents the government from persecuting you for the views you hold. It does not absolve you of the consequences of shooting your mouth off in public (yelling "fire" in a movie theater for example)

I looked at the site, and what little I saw looked like he was republishing things other people had said.

For the most part you're correct. However, the burden of proof in this case lies with JO, he is a public figure therefore his threshold for libel/slander (always hard to prove anyway) is that much higher.

Everyone claims they're going to sue for "libel/slander" very few suits actually hold up and win.

In the case of the media however, where the newspaper or news station is the target of the law suit, most just settle any suit that comes up because the MBA's think it's cheaper to settle every single suit that comes in rather than fight them.
 
So, are there any factually inaccuate things that are on that website which have caused harm to Ornstein? If not, then he's out of luck. If you publish something that's true, no matter how embarassing or humiliating it is, it's gonna be really hard to win a slander or libel case.

If someone's got pictures of Ornstein buggering a goat and they publish it, the only thing I've got to say is don't bugger a goat.

I think a court would say the same thing!

Hell, man. You would think a guy who got nailed for securities fraud would know better but hey, what can you do?
 
If someone's got pictures of Ornstein buggering a goat and they publish it, the only thing I've got to say is don't bugger a goat.
Im having a Wayne's World flashback. Noah's Arcade, notecards, goats, proof..........Are you saying that JO ........ oh my:eek:.
 
Back
Top