I think many of you have seen my post about the

name him in all caps.

prevents lawsuits. Make sure you are not being defamatory and go for it.

In journalism, weasel words don't excuse lazy reporting.

Using "alleged" requires journalistic privilege, which means you have the ability to report what officials allege. You can't just allege crimes yourself in a letter to the editor.

I could see myself making that mistake.

It's lesson No. 1 in my Low Down Dirty MSM ... I mean, Journalism I class.

especially naming him, shine the light on this cockroach.

that doesn't open you up to any action on his part.

good (from a legal perspective) to put up no trespassing signs.

After a search warrant was served by a 5 agency group a year ago, I put up a series of cameras that are all connected to my own computer. It never gets shared with anyone but my wife. Ring was worthless IMO.
I could spend time telling you why, but that's for another day.

on our walk throughs. Not a fan of ring but as indicated above, your own surveillance is a great idea. IMO

In court, judges caution lawyers and witnesses against providing irrelevant inflammatory statements. If I had written the original letter, I would have simply said that candidates for school board should have children enrolled in the public school system. I would not have mentioned the term "home schooled." I would de-escalate the situation.

The problem with not calling out someone like this is they just keep moving along. As a person who held public offices for over 22 years I can clearly tell you to call the person out without using there name state enough facts and they will not be able to resist coming out on their own.

And if the OP does write another letter, make sure the information is completely factual. Do the man's children attend a private school, or are they homeschooled. The OP has to get this right. At this point, another factual error could be construed as a "reckless disregard for the truth," which opens the OP to legal action.

Poking the bear rarely turns out well. The calmer you are the crazier he appears which will come in handy if he pulls any other stunts. If you do something then it starts to look like tit for tat and judges don’t like dealing with that.

should not be on a public school board. IMO his only objective would be to make them less effective, i.e. sabotage. I am not a lawyer, but I do not see amy legal legal concerns for you. Best not to use up your energy in a battle with a magat. May I suggest something my mother in law told me once (the wisest person I knew, and she had a had grade education, vs. my mother was a Smith College grad). Work for the people you want to see elected. Keep that your primary focus, and remember it is ok to throw barbs like...,'school board members should have kids in our schools and they should empathically state their support for our schools, and If they do not, they should not be elected.'

Good luck.

Call him out. He is just bullying...stating fact is not libeling/slandering someone. He's got nothing. Bullies depend on people backing down to their threats.

Bite your leg off.

So, sometimes de-escalating can be a mistake.

Game theory: "Tit For Tat" -- That's the winningnest strategy most of the time. When they go low, you go about as low; when they go high, you go about as high. Losing strategy: don't retaliate, turn the other cheek, meet swords with flowers, etc. That just teaches them that they can bully and win. On the other hand, hurting them when they're being nice, or stomping them when they've only poked you a little -- this is (said to be) a long-term losing strategy also (works on cockroaches though).

So my suggestion is to respond firmly and assertively. In the context of an election, I think it's fine to point out candidates' flaws, including unsuitable temperament. Of course you have to be careful: In some parts of the country, if you describe someone as a complete and utter jackass, that would endear them to a significant minority and might increase their vote total.

you get from the sheriff's office? In my rural county, response time ranges from one day to never. Actually had to shoot over the head of a guy who was lurking in my backyard. He finally ran off. IMHO, there's a high degree of mental illness among people who live in rural areas. Having a "barky" dog seems to help repel the nutcases.

To answer a question you asked in the other thread - yes, he can sue you. That doesn't mean he even has a case that will pass the laugh test. But if he sues you, it will cost you money to defend, even if you ultimately win.

As for winning, politicians have a harder time, since they have thrust themselves into the public arena. But if he can be identified from your letter, not naming him specifically won't kill his case.

The same is true if you write another letter. If you do so, make sure you are absolutely factual in anything you say. (Truth is an absolute defense and, as a politician he actually bears the burden of proving what you say is false as part of his claim (making it easier to get an early dismissal))

That said, if I were in your shoes, especially if you think he had any chance of winning, I'd probably send the letter and name names. Most threats of litigation don't materialize, and I would want to do what I could to keep him if the school board.

maggot (opps, I misspelled) is eventually going to mess w/ other people the same way as they're doing you, and eventually he's going to get into trouble.

It's just their nature to be confrontational (and a jacka&&) w/ everyone (not just w/ you). Ignore him. And don't answer the front or back doors! My other half tells me this all of the time, don't answer the door! We always know who's coming and thus, we'll answer the door then, but if not, then forget it. I don't care if they pound on the door or such. They have no right to invade my privacy or threaten harm to me, etc.

Sorry that you have such a hothead living near you.

Stay safe and watch out for that asshole