Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous."
|
And by simply repeating the verdict from the one-sided presentation of facts you mean what?
If you are assuming that the existence of a verdict means that the words are actually libelous, slanderous, and defamatory, then you are mistaken. It only means that for purposes of the law, this particular book will be treated as such. There was no finding of facts. Only a declaration based on the default of the defendant/respondent. The ruling is legally binding with respect to the book. It has nothing substantial to say about the actual content of the book. It does not even dare to profess that another would automatically be treated as libelous simply because they reported the same information. Note, I am not saying simply republish the book as-is. That is prohibited. If you don't understand the difference, go find a lawyer and ask for an explanation.