Thursday, December 19, 2013

PREMEDITATE "MALICIOUS" INTENT on the Part of the Perp Community

As a victims of Organized Domestic Terrorism and Domestic Terrorist Activities, being sponsored, sanctioned, and covered up by various members within State, Corporate, and Academia America, via the recruitment of Civilian Radicalized Extremist sleeper cell.  The following legal definitions will pertain to what is being done with Premeditated Malicious Intent -

Malicious means substantially certain to cause injury, being deliberately harmful or spiteful, without just cause or excuse. There are different types of malicious acts which are considered offenses. For example, malicious prosecution, malicious mistake, malicious killing etc . A malicious act is an intentional, wrongful act performed against another without legal justification or excuse.

Malicious conduct means an intentional, wrongful act done against another to cause harm and done without any legal excuse.

Malicious injury means an injury caused by a willful act which is committed with the knowledge that such act would cause an injury to another person. In order to constitute a malicious injury the act must be committed with reckless disregard of the consequences.  

Malicious abuse of process refers to a willful and intentional abuse or misuse of process to attain an objective which is unlawful in it or beyond the purposes for which the process may be legally employed.

Elements of the tort of malicious abuse of process are:
a. the use of process in a judicial proceeding that would be improper in the regular prosecution or defense of a claim or charge;
b. a primary motive in the use of process to accomplish an illegitimate end; and
c. damages. [Durham v. Guest, 145

Malicious mischief means the intentional destroying or damaging of the personal property of another, from actual ill will or resentment towards its owner or possessor. Even though this is only a trespass at the common law, it is now a misdemeanor in most states. A few make it a felony depending on the nature of the property or its value. 

The following is an example of a state statute (Mississippi) defining malicious mischief:
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-67 Malicious mischief 

(1) Every person who shall maliciously or mischievously destroy, disfigure, or injure, or cause to be destroyed, disfigured, or injured, any property of another, either real or personal, shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
(2) If the value of the property destroyed, disfigured or injured is Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00) or less, it shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months in the county jail, or both.
(3) If the value of the property destroyed, disfigured or injured is in excess of Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), it shall be a felony punishable by a fine not exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 10,000.00) or imprisonment in the Penitentiary not exceeding five (5) years, or both.
(4) In all cases restitution to the victim for all damages shall be ordered. The value of property destroyed, disfigured or injured by the same party as part of a common crime against the same or multiple victims may be aggregated together and if the value exceeds One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00), shall be a felony.
(5) For purposes of this statute, value shall be the cost of repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.
(6) Anyone who by any word, deed or act directly or indirectly urges, aids, abets, suggests or otherwise instills in the mind of another the will to so act shall be considered a principal in the commission of said crime and shall be punished in the same manner.

Malicious Prosecution is defined as malicious prosecution for the recovery of damages to person, property, of reputation, shown to have approximately resulted from a previous civil or criminal proceeding, which was commenced or continued without probable cause, but with malice, and which has terminated unsuccessfully. Riegel v. Hygrade Seed Co., 47 F. Supp. 290, 293 (D.N.Y. 1942) 

Malicious prosecution refers to filing a lawsuit for purposes of harassing the defendant when there is no genuine basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins and has evidence that the suit was filed out of harassing motives and without any legal or factual foundation, it may be the basis of a claim for damages against the person who filed the original action. If malicious prosecution is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages.
In some cases, courts have held that an attorney who knowingly assists a client in filing a baseless lawsuit out of malice may also be liable for damages. Before bringing a suit for a malicious prosecution,  the original lawsuit must be decided in favor of the victim.

Malice in law refers to intent unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature in a case where the law would neither justify nor to any degree excuse the intention, if the killing should take place as intended. [Mann v. State, 124 Ga. 760, 765 (Ga. 1906)]. It is an act growing out of the wicked or mischievous intention of the mind; an act showing a wanton inclination to mischief, an intention to injure or wrong, and a depraved inclination to disregard the rights of others.
Malice in law is also referred to as technical malice or legal malice. [Molina v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85215 (S.D. Fla. Oct.


Actual malice is a statement made with a reckless disregard for truth. Actual malice can be established through circumstantial evidence. High degree of awareness of falsity is required to constitute actual malice. If the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff should prove by convincing evidence that the defendant published a defamatory statement with actual malice, i.e. with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” If the plaintiff is unable to prove actual malice, then the plaintiff cannot recover. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991)
One of the standards required for actual malice is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, or acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. Such evidence can overcome a defendant's insistence that it acted in good faith and with the honest belief that the statement was true. Medure v. Vindicator Printing Co., 273 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Pa. 2000) 

No comments:

Post a Comment