Talk:Sally Morgan

Now, I'm not saying that Sally Morgan is a fraud, just that she shares and possesses many, if not all, properties of persons accused of fraud. bomination 15:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Defamation out cry, form letter style
1. Rights Owner(s) : A. SALLY MORGAN / B. SALLY MORGAN ENTERPRISES

2. Rights Agent : WEB SHERIFF

3. Infringed Rights : PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION / BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION / COPYRIGHT - as applicable / RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY - as applicable

4. Infringing Materials : PUBLISHED DEFAMATORY STORY / POST(S) - CONTAINING, INTER ALIA, LIBELLOUS ALLEGATIONS, LIBELLOUS INNUENDO & MALICIOUS FALSEHOODS / FALSE STATEMENTS IN BREACH OF LINODE.COM'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & RATIONALWIKI.ORG'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE (PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)

5. Infringed Individual(s) / Entities : A. SALLY MORGAN / B. SALLY MORGAN ENTERPRISES

6. Infringing Activity :

A. DEFAMATION (LIBEL - INJURY TO PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION BY REASON OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS & INNUENDO OF FRAUD)

B. DEFAMATION (MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD - INJURY TO BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION BY REASON OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)

C. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION WITH & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES - as applicable)

D. RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF NAME AND / OR LIKENESS PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF NAME AND / OR LIKENESS IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION WITH & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES - as applicable)

E. BREACH OF LINODE.COM'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE INFRINGEMENTS & ACTIVITIES)

F. BREACH OF RATIONALWIKI.ORG'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE INFRINGEMENTS & ACTIVITIES)


 * TRADEMARK RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ** : ALL COMMON-LAW AND PENDING TRADEMARK RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE TRADING NAMES / MONIKERS 'SALLY MORGAN', 'PSYCHIC SALLY' ARE HEREBY STRICTLY RESERVED.

7. Infringing Web Site : RATIONALWIKI.ORG

8. Infringing File Location(s) :

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sally_Morgan

Web Sheriff and all those reputation management protection rackets deserve RW articles themselves, but that is not really relevant for this individual.

The e-mail also included this "threatening" though unrelated bit of info:

COURT CASE NOTE : THE LIBELS / DEFAMATION IN QUESTION AND COMPLAINED OF BELOW HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A SUCCESSFUL LAW SUIT IN THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON, ENGLAND AND PURSUANT TO WHICH A. THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT / RIGHTS OWNER (SALLY MORGAN) WERE WITHDRAWN, B. SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES AND LEGAL COSTS WERE PAID TO THE COMPLAINANT AND C. A PUBLIC APOLOGY WAS ISSUED TO THE COMPLAINANT BY THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPER / DEFENDANT CONCERNED.

PLEASE REFER TO SALLY MORGAN -v- ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS (CASE REFERENCE # HQ12D00028)

A COPY OF THE RELEVANT COURT DECLARATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE FOLLOWING URL :- 

Should be rolled into the article perhaps? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Appears to be helping our web reputation: - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently these are a regular thing. Note lack of clear claims in the email - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How many threats have you had now? We in double digits yet? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stopped counting the legal threats, there have been, many. Its the death threats I have started keeping track of! Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Update
I wrote back and complained about there form letter and being unclear and finally got a response, the relevant exerpt:

"The entry that has been written for our client / principal, Sally Morgan, is laden with innuendo and, by stating over-and-over again that you are NOT labelling Sally a fraud, the clear and paradoxical implication is that she IS indeed a fraud, who deliberately and dishonestly misleads her audiences. The same claims were also made by the Daily Mail newspaper - effectively Britain's largest newspaper - and, for your information, Sally Morgan Enterprises then instigated (successful) legal proceedings in the High Courts of Justice. As a result, the Daily Mail were obliged (in June of this year/ 2013) to retract their allegations, apologise and pay both damages and legal costs to our client / principal."

Expert from my reply:

"Thanks for sending something a bit more clear. Your form letter was difficult to parse as you included every possible violation whether relevant or not and stuck an "if applicable" at the end. For future reference you might want to investigate the clarity and effectiveness of such approaches. Perhaps a check box?

Now that we are aware of your specific concerns we were able to take a look. I think the word you were looking for was "sarcasm" for the style of the article. No one is denying that the article in question contains the opinion that Sally Morgan is a fraud.

I would note that there are two fundamental material differences between the current circumstances and the cited case against the Daily Mail. The first, is that the Daily Mail made a very specific factual claim about the use of electronic communication at a specific show. We, however, do not make any specific, de novo factual claims. Second, and most importantly, the jurisdiction for the court case against the Daily Mail was in the UK. As I am sure we are both aware the libel/defamation law in the UK is horribly regressive, antiquated, and primitive. In the United States, however, truth is ALWAYS a defence.

So unless your telling me Sally Morgan is a real, honest, totally legit psychic, I am not sure there is much overlap. "

Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I love you. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 11:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Update 2
They have decided to appeal to our hosting service directly, I will be curious to see how far they actually plan to fight this. 206.192.168.26 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the 2010 Speech Act render all those acts futile, anyway? --Scherben (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimers
I've added some links to Sally's own disclaimers. I don't know if it world be worthwhile to get some screen captures of these things in case they change. I lack the technical ability to do such things.--Coffee (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)