Now It's Really Serious!!!

Everyone who has been harassed or defamed by Tori Gifford, please contact me: juststopthelies@yahoo.com.

I am already in contact with some of you, but there are others I still need to hear from. Thanks!
My responses are in red.

CEASE AND DESIST

May 1, 2012

VIA E-MAIL

ATTN: Just Stop The Lies Blog (If you know my identity, why is it not listed here?)
juststopthelies.blogspot.com
juststopthelies@yahoo.com

Dear Sir/Madam:

You are hereby directed to

CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF

TORI GIFFORD’S AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS’ CHARACTER AND REPUTATION.

 

Ms.Gifford
has learned that you have engaged in publishing private, destructive,
and defamatory rumors about her and her family members, both deceased
and living.

Under Texas State law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation. Defamation consists of

1. publication of a statement;
2. that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff;
3. with the requisite degree of fault.

To prove a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant published a statement of fact, (2) the statement was defamatory, (3) the statement was false, (4) the defendant acted negligently in publishing the false and defamatory statement, and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. See Brown v. Swett & Crawford of Tex., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 373, 382 (Tex. App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998)); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).

Your defamatory statements involved publishing the names and addresses of Ms. Gifford’s family members;  publishing Twitter updates regarding Ms. Gifford’s deceased father; publishing personal photographs of Ms. Gifford’s children without their consent; publishing any and all information concerning Ms. Gifford’s prior offenses; and publishing personal information of Ms. Gifford and her family members to the extent that it has put her and her family members in immediate danger in the community of Waterville, Maine.  

Sec. 73.005.  TRUTH A DEFENSE.  The truth of the statement in the publication on
which an action for libel is based is a defense to the action.

• Names and addresses are public information. You posted your own name, and the name of your spouse was posted by you here.

• I am not responsible for the Tweets regarding your deceased father. 

 

• Criminal history is publicly available online, and you openly discussed your own prior offenses on your blog. You represented your offenses to be true; the only discrepancy between information made available by you, and information available elsewhere, are dates. Screenshots of the discussion provided by you are available here. The information posted by me was simply republished; the accuracy and availability of the information needs to be disputed with the original sources. (Sun Journal and Kennebec Journal).

• The decision to start blogging as the "sister-in-law" of one of Justin DiPietro's former roommates was a decision made by you. You made statements regarding Mr. DiPietro's anger with regard to you blogging here. You also stated that members of your family were unhappy with this decision. You were conceivably in immediate danger the moment you started blogging, and you have a picture of your minor child on the Facebook page that is associated with "justiceforayla." Any person who uses a search engine with the term "justiceforayla" will return your Facebook, and a photo of your minor child. By nature of your online activities, you revealed your own identity and placed yourself in danger.

• It should also be noted that the information you are demanding to be removed from this blog has been republished here. If you are truly endangered by virtue of these posts, then I assume you have also sent a demand to have the information removed from that site. Timely proof of such a demand should be forthcoming if required by a court.

• The photographs of your children are clearly not defamation. A claim regarding those photographs would be better suited for a copyright or invasion of privacy claim. However, if the host of this blog (Blogger/Google) demands that the photos be removed, I will have no problem doing so.

Accordingly, we demand that you (A) immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of Tori Gifford and her family and (B) provide us with prompt written assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of Tori Gifford’s character and reputation. If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, Tori Gifford is entitled to seek monetary damages and equitable relief for your defamation. In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that Tori Gifford has asked us to communicate to you that she will pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney’s fees.  Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable.

A) I contend that I have not defamed anyone. B) I will not be providing assurance of anything.
I believe this request to be flawed and retaliatory. Pllease be aware that any costs incurred by me will be paid by you, if your claim fails in a court of law.

Note: this document is misleading. The letter states "Tori Gifford has asked us to communicate to you;" yet the letter is signed by Tori Gifford and originates from her email address. If she has attempted to intimidate me by alluding to a lawyer that she does not have, the record should reflect that.

Before taking these steps, however, Ms. Gifford wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue your illegal conduct by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. Accordingly, please sign and return the attached Defamation Settlement Agreement within ten (10) days to the parties included in this email correspondence.

There was nothing attached to your email.While I appreciate you allowing me ten days to respond, I will not be abiding by this request. I think this is a matter better suited for litigation. While asking to have your own personal information removed, you run a blog that has published defamatory information about individuals on more than one occasion. Your blog also defames other people's character by its very nature; you have made no effort to remove the  offending material. You have further encouraged your posters to dig up more information about individuals. I would like a court to examine the totality of these circumstances. I would also like for a court to consider whether or not you are able to bring a claim on these merits, considering your own behaviors. I would also like to proceed in court, so that the identity of another blogger, and the owners of harassing social networking sites, can be revealed. If it is not you, that person may be the subject of a similar claim to the one you are bringing. Asking a court to respect your privacy rights while you disrespect the rights of others’ is unprecedented.

Sincerely,


Tori Gifford

I would also like the record to reflect that I am willing to honor this request, without a court order, if the complainant removes all references to this blog (JustStopTheLies, JSTL, Obscure, Seeking Truth) from her social networking or blogsites.  Furthermore, the personal information of other people (first/last names, addresses, telephone numbers, spouses, children, photos, etc.) must be removed from the same mediums. Without such an agreement, I find this request too hypocritical to even entertain. This is noted as a means to show that I am willing to compromise and negotiate. In blog talk, this would be calling a truce.