John Robinson, Esquire

The vaunted legal mind John Robinson, lately relieved of his gig at WICO, is now proferring legal advice on his blog at http://robinson1320.blogspot.com/. Luckily for the attorneys in Salisbury -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- his legal advice will be no more successful than his abortive radio career.

In his post title "Press -- Pass", the ever-truculent John Robinson, Esquire posts the following:

Just a thought from an insider. PRESS PASS???

If your not press and you get sued in civil court. You must answer a question truthfully. The 5th amendment doesn't work because you are not in a criminal trial. Therefore when your not PRESS and they ask you who told you what? You have to reveal your sources. So sometimes civil cases are not about the money. Sometimes its about proving your point. Or finding out who is pointing the finger!

Makes you think twice about who you tell what to! Now doesn't it!

Of course, John is really referring to Runaround Sue in this post.  The problem is, just as John can't find a rating point with both hands and a flashlight, neither can he post anything relevant regarding the Tilghman v. Albero or Webster v. Albero cases.

Both cases-- based on what has been released publicly-- are defamation cases.  In a defamation case in the State of Maryland, the plaintiff must prove with a preponderence of the evidence (it is a civil case, after all) that statements or writings by the defendent have caused measureable harm to the plaintiff.  Unlike the State of New York, we do not have a libel per se law in Maryland, where the amount or type of harm can be a) subjective and b) totally determined by the plaintiff.

That means that both Mayor Barrie Tilghman and Police Chief Alan Webster have to show to the court that their reputations and character were harmed by untrue claims or lies written by Runaround Sue in such a way that the harm can be measured.  For example, if Police Chief Alan Webster could produce evidence that he was denied a position-- say as Baltimore City's new Police Commissioner -- based on comments made by Runaround Sue, that would be measureable harm to his reputation.

Or, if Mayor Tilghman could produce evidence to show that she was no longer able to effectively carry out her duties as Mayor of Salisbury due to those untrue claims or lies, that would be measureable harm.

Note that these are only two examples.

In either case, the issue of who the sources are does not matter under the statutes in Maryland.  It is not an adequate defense on the part of Runaround Sue only to say "I was only repeating what I heard."  More importantly, it is also not an issue in the defamation claim as the claim is directed solely at Runaround Sue and no other "et als" or "John Does".

Now, it's been a LOOONG time since I reviewed court room procedures in Maryland (at least 16 or 17 years), so if any attorney wants to correct me, please do.  But from what I remember, if Runaround Sue actually takes the stand to testify, plaintiff's counsel can only bring the source issue a) if defendant's counsel addressed in direct examination, or b) it is brought up to impeach.  This is pretty standard stuff.

Furthermore, the burden that damage occurred is on the PLAINTIFF to prove, not the defendant to disprove.  We learned this, if you all will get in the "way back machine" with me, in Westmoreland v CBS.  In the United States, unlike the United Kingdom, libel, defamation, and slander require the PLAINTIFF to prove the damage occurred and to stipulate the nature of the damage.

This obviously brings up two important points:  a)  it is hard to defame character where none exists and b) no sane individual not related to Runaround Sue actually takes him seriously.

Back to John Robinson, Esquire, the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with the case at all.  The issue of it being a civil case or a criminal case is moot.  The issue at hand is the structure of defamation law in Maryland (this is not a Federal issue) and court procedures.  Furthermore, the issue of Runaround Sue's Kinko-printed press badge is irrelevant as well.  Even if the courts OR the law regarded bloggers as journalists, Maryland's shield law (which only covers journalists, not bloggers) only allows the courts to compel disclosure of a source when a compelling state interest exists.

For example, if a reporter for the Baltimore Sun had a source that knew the location of a kidnapped child, the reporter could be compelled to reveal his source.  (Note: this was an actual case from the late 1970s/early 1980s. I forget the name, but I argued it for mock trial in high school before the Honorable Judge Simpson in the late 1980s.  As I recall, Parkside beat Wi-Hi in that trial!  Go Rams!)

No compelling interest exists here. None. Nada. Zip. 

Back to John Robinson, Esquire, again, but on a different angle.

You have claimed for months that you have asked for nothing more than Runaround Sue to leave you alone.  But then you go and poke the panther in the cage?  Then, you include the following little wimper in your self-inflicted whine and cheese party:

He made my life hell - now it is my turn. I will have my day in court. And He will pay. He made my life hell with hundreds of emails and constant lies. Everyone is scared of this liar. I am not. He twists almost everything. How many of his freinds has he turned on? When he lies or screws up he asks forgiveness but when anyone misspeaks inregards to him, the pest threatens to sue. Notice he won't sue me! Because I have openly called him out. Has anyone else stood up to him? No they turn and run from the bully.
Why do you people defend this guy? He is a resident of Delaware who is costing Maryland thousands! I am not scared of this guy why are you? That is the real question.