A ruling at the Supreme Court on Monday found that activist, Moses Sulph was guilty of slandering UDP politician and owner of Brints Security Services Mark King. Sulph was ordered to pay over thirty thousand dollars for damages and court costs. King sued Sulph in March last year after Sulph published a post on Facebook in which he claimed that King’s company, Brints Security, failed to pay employees for extra duties and over time. Love News spoke to one of King’s attorneys Payal Ghanwani, who said that rather than apologize, Sulph made a second statement on social media which cost him an additional $10,000 onto the other fees.
Payal Chandwani Attorney for Mark King: “Mr. King chose to bring this lawsuit, he commenced a suite for libel contained in two posts that Mr. Sulph made on Facebook. The post were related to both Mr. King and his company Brints Security. Mr. Sulph basically alleged that Mr. King and his company are not paying companies adequately and are not paying their Social Security and that Mr. King doesn’t pay overtime pay and holiday pay and so when he made those posts on Facebook we sent him a demand letter saying look it’s all false please remove the post but instead he chose to make a second post attaching the same demand letter and then making certain allegations again about Mr. King and his company so at that point Mr. King hired us to file the claim for the information with respect to the liable which were contained in these two Facebook posts. Mr. Sulph accepted that he posted those statements on Facebook but he said that he relied on the justification which means that the post is completely true and with respect to the second post he said that it was a matter of fair comment. We went to court, we had the trail and at the trail he was unable to prove that indeed that statements that he posted were in fact true. All Mr. Sulph did was at most proved that these statements were communicated to him by former employees of Brints Security but these are the employees are the former employees that came to testify for him and proved that in fact they were ever underpaid or did not receive overtime or any of those alleged statements so that is why the case failed. With respect to the fair comment if you look at the Judges comments the Judge states that his Attorney didn’t even touch on that topic any more with respect to the fair comment and one of the reason why it failed in particular is because fair comment has to be based on facts that are true and it has to be an opinion or a comment on a matter of public interest and in this case these weren’t opinions they were actually statements of facts purported statements of facts. His conduct after we asked him to apologize and after we wrote to him telling him that what you posted in the first post is completely false please remove it he chose to post again and that is why the court gave us aggravated damages to compensate our climate for the conduct that Mr. Sulph chose to use.