If the Epstein victims start releasing names and get sued, is it a criminal or civil case?

[Sogo]

If it's civil, they sure aren't gonna get hit up for billions or even millions, cause I'm sure most of them don't have it. What kind of penalty would follow if the fine is out of the range of any possibility?

TIA

[Progressive dog]

1. The truth is always a defense.

They have no reason to make up names.

[Sogo]

2. I think something can be true and still claimed to be defamatory.

Eg., Trump's birthday letter in Epstein's birthday book. Trump is suing WSJ for 10Billion for publishing it.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation.

The fact that Trump is suing doesn't mean he will win. He can claim whatever he wants - but as long as the WSJ can prove what they published was true, he will lose.

[Progressive dog]

8. So Newspapers should not report

stories that someone might sue them for? Trump has lost just about every court case he has filed.
Did Epstein sue the victims for defamation? What about Maxwell? Would the accused actually be ready to take the stand and keep their names in the news as accused sexual abusers of children who escaped arrest?

[underpants]

4. That's not going to stop lawsuits.

Lawsuits cost money and time.

[Progressive dog]

6. Lawsuits will keep the name in the news.

I doubt that those named will want to go to court.
It will take a lot of courage on the part of the victims, but I'm sure they know more about possible lawsuits than you or I.

[underpants]

16. Agreed. It's going to take courage and there is a governor

Who wants to be the name and face against them?

Look at the Johnny Depo case. Who wants THAT?
But, these are very rich and “successful” men who aren’t used to living by any norm (obviously) or not being in control.

[Attilatheblond]

3. Panicked old duffer in Oval Office might try it both ways.

Seems he is trying to outlaw speech, so along with a civil suit, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to have them arrested for the 'crime' of not being afraid of him anymore.

[Brainfodder]

5. Don't care, as long as they publicly hit us with the names.

Don't forget DISCOVERY!

[NJCher]

9. this is not a problem

see this video. Go to the 3:15 point.

For those who don't want to click, Massie is going to say who is on their list. In other words, the victims will not say anything; it will be said for them by Massie. It is being done this way to protect the victims from harassment and lawsuits.

I previously posted above at:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20618185

[Sogo]

10. Thank you!

[Jarqui]

11. I don't see what criminal law they would be breaking ....

(I'm sure some lawyer could try to twist something but it is pretty unlikely under these circumstances)

The victims who have assets or a house probably should avoid making a claim as they have something to lose.

Those who do not have much in assets, they get basically a free crack if a lawyer helps them or they can handle it pro se. That makes them harder to discourage. A lawyer might take the case on a contingency basis. They have little to lose financially. They may well get a settlement out of court with a counterclaim.

But the BIG fear for the accused and those associated with them would be discovery. A bunch of the Epstein files could find their way into the proceedings. And a bunch of the testimony and evidence could come out in court - like we saw with the E Jean Carroll lawsuit. Even if the accusers lose the case, a bunch of the story gets out about what Epstein and those who befriended him were up to with these young girls. Maybe some of the victims band together.

The danger for those that come forward is they could wind up like Epstein. I suspect a bunch of the victims - many who we will probably never know about - got bought off or scared off.

Epstein & Maxwell have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. The legal bar for a civil action is much lower: preponderance of the evidence. So these accusers may have a decent shot at prevailing.

[Ocelot II]

12. Civil, not criminal, and truth is a defense to defamation.

Defamation (libel and slander) is, by definition, the publication of a false statement that harms the reputation or business of another. Anyhow, Rep. Massie said he'd read the names during a House session, and that would be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

[Sogo]

13. Thank you. Very clearly explained....

[writerJT]

14. Thank you. Nice summary.

[Wiz Imp]

15. Lawsuits by definition are civil cases

Criminal cases only happen when formal criminal charges are filed against a defendant by Law Enforcement.

[in2herbs]

17. It is my understanding that the survivors can create the list and escape any lawsuit, etc.,

by having it release by members of the House when in session as the members have the required immunity.

I don't think there will be a problem with a House member or members walking up and down the aisle naming the names.

[mucholderthandirt]

18. It would be a civil case, slander and or libel (spoken or written).

The defense for libel is truth. If you can prove what you say, you pretty much win, though lawyer fees will likely be horrendous. I suspect there will be all sorts of funding for any of the victims who chose to name names.