[Teacher] is an employed teacher who claimed I libeled her and intended to hurt her relationship with her employer (**** High School) However we did not have the Internet and all parties involved actively hid [teacher's] background.
Well...yes, I would tend to agree that calling her a "pedophile" in e-mails to just about everyone connected with the school constitutes both libel and an intent to harm her relationship with her employer. And what do you mean when you say, "we did not have the Internet"? It's not as though this happened in the late 1970s or 1980s (or even the late 1990s when household Internet wasn't all that common). The start date of the period of time to which you referred in your post was barely over five years ago
. The Internet was reasonably accessible to just about everyone in 2007. And
the fact that the communications giving rise to the lawsuit were e-mails
tends to contradict your assertion that you "did not have the Internet."
Her Attorney***** filed suit against me in December 2007 five months after his client (Bojko) was arrested and convicted for reckless driving (8/2007) In fact from the onset of the lawsuit his client was on probation.
During the course of the lawsuit against me his client ([teacher]) was arrested and convicted of a DUI (9/2008) and was put on probation again. (10/2008) [Lawyer] defended [teacher] for this arrest.
You mention this stuff as though it's relevant. You repeatedly
called the woman a "pedophile" despite having no evidence whatsoever that the allegation was true. What does being a crappy driver have to do with that?
To re cap: [Lawyer]'s client ([teacher]) was on probation for two different offenses during the lawsuit he filed against me (12/2007 - 5/2009)
For things that had nothing whatsoever to do with your knowingly false accusations that she was a "pedophile."
Bojko's arrests and convictions would have given the courts reasons to consider her to be dangerous.
Being a crappy driver doesn't make her a "pedophile."
If **** Authorities had done the background check that I repeatedly requested they do, which prompted the libel lawsuit, and given me the results I would have had the evidence to provide to the courts for consideration.
What authorities? The e-mails that "prompted the libel lawsuit" were accusations that the woman was a "pedophile," not
that she was a lousy driver. And what makes you think these "authorities" had to conduct investigation at your bidding or provide you with results. If you wanted to do investigation to prove that the obvious harm you did to this woman's reputation wasn't that big a deal because she already had a bad reputation, you could and should of done that in connection with your defense of the lawsuit (although, as noted above, being a crappy driver doesn't make her a "pedophile," and if this stuff wasn't publicly known, then it wouldn't have been relevant to her reputation).
The fact that [lawyer] not only withheld this information but actually represented *** [teacher] in a manner that presented her as not only a wronged individual but a "clean backgrounded" great teacher whose reputation was tainted by me and her relationship with her employer (the school) suffered because of me all the while hiding her background prompts me to question the validity of the Courts final decision
You can question anything you like, but isn't this more than a little like the pot calling the kettle black since you didn't bother to disclose in your post what the case was really about?
In any event, what did you expect the lawyer to do? March out every bad fact about his client? That's your lawyer's job, not the plaintiff's lawyer's job. Did you serve discovery requests calling for this sort of information? Did you depose the plaintiff about her criminal history and background? Did you or your lawyer bother with any
investigation of your own (e.g., the sort of basic investigation that "adjusterjack" was able to do because you identified yourself and the teacher in your post)? Had you served appropriate discovery and had the plaintiff not disclosed the requested information, then you might have a right to be upset (although, again, the probative value of the stuff you mentioned isn't terribly relevant given the nature of your lies about this woman). However, if you had conducted even the most basic and cursory investigation on your own, you would have discovered this information and could have offered it into evidence.
I also have to wonder exactly what the purpose of your posting here is. You apparently lost the case over three years ago. Even if anything improper had happened, the time to do anything about it is long