"Mark" et al vs. "Mad priest" etal

I must, reluctantly, return to the case of "Mark" vs. Mad Priest, Wormwood doxy, Tracie the Red, Father Jake, et al.

Now we all know that in Western society methods have been developed to arrive at the truth when a disagreement arises. This method is basically the method used in courts of law. Now, we are talking "blogs" in this situation, such blogs not , in actuality, being subject to either common law or statutory law in most cases. However, the methods used to find the truth in courts of law can be quite useful in resolving any dispute, inclusing blog disputes.

To avoid over writing we can refer to the compainant as Mark, which includes Jack, Alice, Frank, Hugomar, Sheldon.Their complaint is joined together as they all use the same email address and in fact are an older man, his wife, and two younger friends of Jack and Alice. Since this is a joint complaint the just mentioned group will be refered to as "Mark" except where necessary to distinquish the different parties. The "defendants" included above will be refered to as MP except where necessary to specifically identifiy a defendant.

The complainant "Mark" et al, contends that "Mad priest" et al have made false and inaccurate statements about him, and, in addition, have clearly implied that "Mark" is engaged in unsavory behavior. "Mark" contends that "Mad priest"et al have known about and conveyed to others false information, clearly knowing such information to be false.

Before this matter is further examined a few elementary elements of finding the truth through a formal process should be stated.

One. There is no evidentiary value in using "color" words. Thus calling someone a "troll" id totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

Two. The number of "supporters" of each side as shown by a calculation of the "commenters" has no evidentiary value.

Three. Making statements with no effort to document them should be dismissed.

Four. While this blog matter has no legal standing the invoking ot the so called 5th amendment against self incrimination cannot be used by the defendant in that he has waived by action such protection by making an issue of "Mark" credibility. There both sides are free to offer any argument based on the proven or admitted character defects of the other side.

Five. It is relavant to examine what personal interest each side might have in stating their case.

Six. Telling an untruth in a particular matter does not mean the statements of the person are false in toto such untrue statements may cast doubt on the truth of other statements of the person.

Seven. The fact that some of the defendants claim clerical status must not give greater weight to their statements.

As we continue, other maxims of a legal nature may be invoked as needed.