Sunday, May 24, 2015

HMMM...THE LIST IS GROWING...
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HENRY BEASLEY - ADDED TO THE LIST.
UPDATED AS OF JUNE 10, 2016



Libel is any Defamation which can be seen, such as writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. 


Click images for zoom...

Not sure how many views he gets these days but the most recent number I found was 6178,  from a 7 day period in February 24, 2013. Margulies' Blog incites the public, the community and Trimet employees against his victims or targets.

btw, I've never met her!

Captured from a Union FB site which shows 773 ATU members/co-workers, as of May 19, 2015




As of May 24th, 2015  - 3 DIFFERENT  people - 3 IDENTICAL comments!  

"QUEEN OF CRAZY"

1.) Rantings Blog - 6178 as of 2/24/13.
2.) ATU 757 specific FB Blog - 773 members as of 5/19/2015
3.) Henry Beasley - ATU Presidential candidate's personal FB Blog - 561 Friends

It only take ONE to file liable lawsuit.
Statute of Limitations is EIGHT years.



"Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect regard, or confidence; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory."




In the meantime, you three might wanna get your heads together and figure out how you're gonna prove my mental condition to a Judge or even your own defense team! 




DEFAMATION VS LIBEL, BEASLEY, KERR, MARGULIES

Originally published May 24, 2015 at 2PM 


Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. 



Click images for zoom...

Not sure how many views he gets these days but the most recent number I found was 6178,  from a 7 day period in February 24, 2013. The Blog tends to incite members of the public, community and Trimet riders / employees against his victims.  Additionally, he reblogs many of these articles to his Facebook and twitter accounts which triggers interest from folks who would otherwise not be aware of it.

Never met her!

Captured from a Union only FB site which shows 773 ATU members/co-workers, as of May 19, 2015.



Update - as of August 31, 2015 this posting remains on up Beasley's Facebook


As of today - 3 DIFFERENT  people - 3 IDENTICAL comments!  

"QUEEN OF CRAZY"

1.) Rantings Blog - 6178 as of 2/24/13.
2.) ATU 757 specific FB Blog - 773 members as of 5/19/2015
3.) Henry Beasley - ATU Presidential candidate's specific FB Blog - 561 Friends

Additionally, three  members approached me volunteering to testify against Henry should I decide to pursue this in the court system. All of them said, when asked what his problem was with me, "She's crazy"!!  One of 'em said he kept repeating it, in front of others.  Henry appears to base his opinions of others with Margules' opinion. In my experience, Beasley appears to want to 'fit in', not develop his own experiences with others. Not a free thinker.  

BEASLEY'S involvement is troubling but not any more so than Christopher Raphael Days'.

They're BOTH running for one of the 3 top Union positions.
Day's running for Vice President.
Beasley's running for President.

Day files Preferring of Charges (Blackballing members) as fast as he can.  He even filed 'em against Dan Martin, one of his VP competitors and President Bruce Hansen.  'If you can't wow 'em with a principled intelligent campaign then blackball 'em the hell out of yer way!'  

Henry Beasley signed the petitions for Day, then went through this incredible disappearing act when members asked him Y or N did you sign it?!!  In the end, a day later he finally fessed up after the heat was on!

If you can't negotiate your personal problems with someone other than by attempting to blackball them out of the Union, then you can't negotiate. Probably not a good choice for office. 

Besides the Preferring of Charges, Beasley and Day support and  campaign on a site that allows the degradation of women.


"Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect regard, or confidence; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory."