Dammit, Larry, I left that "(r)" out as bait ;p
To be serious, there is a profound difference between the occasional typographic error and what strongly resembles functional near-illiteracy. Oh, ok, that's a little strong. How does "severely inarticulate" strike you? Having both lawyers and physicians in the family, and having worked as an independent contractor for KPMG LLP, I agree that there are some linguistically challenged folks out there in suitland. However, they can usually be relied upon to be able to string together a few coherent sentences. One would at least HOPE that someone with a strong legal background would be able to properly spell the word "legal", yes?
Or perhaps you LIKE having an advocate with what seems to be an earned-by-mail GED? shrugging shoulders, moving on
What sense I have wrested from the tortured verbiage of the post in question seems to indicate that BS thinks SR has no case, and/or no hope in hell of getting a trial. That's bull. This could be handled in a small-claims court. It could be handled by trial in-absentia. E-mails are subject to subpeona. If those transmitted defamatory e-mails were sent to a plethora of her clients or people in the community as a form letter (ie: was sent as spam), contain her name or working-name, and contain demonstrably false statements, they constitute a campaign of serial defamation with intent to harm. If any of these e-mails crossed state or national borders it may very well constitute a form of interstate fraud.
Like I said, bull.
It comes down to evidence, not opinion. If SR has more than one e-mail as described above, with headers tracing them back to a person's specific e-mail addy, SR has a case. If, on the other hand, SR does not have such evidence, or if the e-mails were routed through proxy servers... then there is a bit of a problem proving source/origin, and then SR would probably be S.O.L.
Finally, "Common Sense" and the law have little at all to do with one another. eg:
Common Sense - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
Legal Sense - a rose by any other name is NOT a rose.
Do I have a point? Maybe. I have seen internet defamatory campaigns waged before, and one of the common tactics for a slandering aggressor to use is to post misleading and sometimes pseudo-friendly statements in a public forum under a pseudonym. There is a long-standing internet stalking case in a suburb of Atlanta with which I am rather familiar, and it features such nonsense as I have described.
I am not saying that Blacksteel is the one who is defaming SR, merely saying that such a poorly crafted and essentially incorrect post of "leagal" (sic) advice makes my ingrained suspicions twitch their ears.