Trustee files suit accusing fallen auto giant Denny Hecker of f...

Denny Backer wrote:

This is just a plain ole civil suit. The big 3 lease outfits are the real criminals Deny pledged his personal estate on oyhrt propertirs He's not to blame.
Stop beating up on an honorable man. a man that has given to the poor and to the average joe throughout his career.
Put the Real Criminals in Jail.......

Denny Backer - you must have been on his payroll to kiss up like that. grow up and see the light. Its idiots like yourself that can't handle the truth. The guy gets what he diserves.

baggers wrote:

The only good thing coming from our economic recession, it is bringing to light the crooks and scammers that built their fortunes on a ponzi scheme. The Madoff's and Heckers are being exposed as the crooks they are. They weren't satisfied making a good living, they wanted a greedy extravagant living, and to hell with everyone that got in their way!! Their punishment should be, the rest of their lives living in poverty, just to see how their victims have to live!!!!

The greed that has gone on in this country for over ten years is what is killing it. There is plenty to go around for everyone, except about fifteen percent of the country isn't satisfied with that. It's why former Russian leader Gorbechev said capitalism is on the way out. This time he might be right, and it's sad because a few have spoiled it for alot of hard-working honest people.

Libel or Slander: Libel is written, slander is oral.
Historically, defamation consisted of slander and libel. Slander is defamation by speaking, and libel is defamation by means of writing. After the invention of the printing press, the permanence of the written word meant that libel caused far more damage than slander.
Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false."defamatory" statement?
A statement which causes harm to reputation.
A statement is defamatory if it "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation. When the defamatory meaning is not apparent on its face, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving such extrinsic facts. 2. Defamation Per se
Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. When a plaintiff is able to prove defamation per se, damages are presumed, but the presumption is rebuttablle

What Constitutes Injury to Reputation?
The plaintiff must establish proof of damage to reputation in order to recover any damages for mental anguish;If an individual's reputation cannot be further damaged, a defamation suit serves no purpose, wastes judicial resources, and hinders First Amendment interests.
The "libel-proof" plaintiff. A plaintiff is "libel-proof" when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications. At the point the challenged statements are published, then, plaintiff's reputation is already so damaged that a plaintiff cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements.

Rather the statement upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.
In extreme cases, a plaintiff's general reputation may be so bad that a court will hold a plaintiff libel-proof on all matters. statements.
Defamatory statements must be communicated to a third party. This element of defamation is virtually always satisfied when claims are made against newspapers and broadcast media.
The defendant knew or should have known that the communication was false. Defamation allows recovery for unfair damage to reputation.
As a consequence, if true statements are made about a person which damage their reputation, they cannot maintain a lawsuit. Virtually all states today apparently require that the alleged defamatory statement be false before a defamation action may proceed.For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:We hold that a private individual may recover actual damages for a defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false. The conduct of defamation defendants will be judged on whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Libel, by definition, consists of publication of a false and unprivileged fact.. U.S. Supreme Court has expressly reserved the question of whether the U.S. Constitution requires purely private defamation plaintiffs to prove falsity in all cases. No Defamation by Implication. Failure to report all the facts may lead to a defamatory conclusion by the reader. But unless the overall substance of the statement can be proven false, no defamation claim will arise. "Negligence Is Standard Of Liability
In Minnesota, the defendant is liable if it "knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care" that the defamatory statement was false. Jadwin, supra. This is the standard formulation for liability based on negligence, that is, liability arising from failure to take due care.
This is a low standard of liability. However, First Amendment considerations substantially limit the application of this standard.
Defenses to Defamation, Truth:Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. This is simply the flip side of the requirement that plaintiff prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement.
The First Amendment,Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven. The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense. Matter of Public Concern: Actual Malice must be proven.
In cases where the media defendant is treating an issue of public concern, the First Amendment also requires proof of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure.
Matter of Public Concern: Plaintiff Must Prove Statement is False.
Proof of falsity required when media defendant addresses topic of public concern; regardless of public/private status of plaintiff. Actual Malice must be Shown by "Convincing Clarity."Where the plaintiff is a public official, he must prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth with "clear and convincing proof".

Mr. Hecker ,

You have one lock solid case of defamation ,slander and libel lawsuit to file!
Look forward to seeing the publicity on that, I can only imagine it won't be alott though due to the fact it will be in your favor. Seems as if the Minnesota tabloids (startribune,pioneer press, KSTP, WCCO) are only interested in the lower economic's of education.. shame on them for thinking that the Minnesotians are "uneducated"..... But .... I am guessing that's where the" Ya Betcha" came from.

- Hamile university took a poll - the question " What information outlet do you most turn to for local"

1. ANSWER .... I don't all of the local news is a waste of time.

The first amendment was not to be mutilated. Unfortunetley we have many unfortunate people in the world. Keep those people in your prayers.. sometimes when your born with the DUMB'S... it never seems to disapate just grows...