CT Rush owner in hot water

[Unregistered]

The only place this news was posted was the Patch? It was 6 weeks ago and was just posted here now? What took so long?
FYI, the entire CT Rush club is a ponzi scheme for suckers.

[Unregistered]

The patch posts it’s clause to anything that was not an article from a patch staff member , if you as a community member posted the dates when the carnival was coming to Town , it would still have the clause under the article, you are not a paid writer/contributor to the patch.
Then is pretty well carefull on stories with accusations that are frivolous. You can’t just post a damaging allegation as this without the Patch first looking in to it. If you don’t believe me just try for yourself.This is serious a person could be arrested and charged.


I think this guy is in deep trouble but only time will tell.

Operative word is COULD be charged. Still gossip to me

[Unregistered]

Operative word is COULD be charged. Still gossip to me

Gossip!! they put the guys face and name in the local paper , any normal human being would be crying bloody mercy, Why is JS silent? this is a lawsuit against the paper and the person.

This is huge news.
Number 2 is critical



Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages. .


What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

published
false
injurious
unprivileged

Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

[Unregistered]

published
false
injurious
unprivileged\\

All of the above in the Patch, if not true then whats up?

[Unregistered]

Gossip!! they put the guys face and name in the local paper , any normal human being would be crying bloody mercy, Why is JS silent? this is a lawsuit against the paper and the person.

We're not talking about the state's most brilliant mind here. He very well might file a suit but isn't telling the Patch, that Pulitzer prize winning bastion of journalism.

[Unregistered]

We're not talking about the state's most brilliant mind here. He very well might file a suit but isn't telling the Patch, that Pulitzer prize winning bastion of journalism.

Might— information with the CT courts is available to all. There’s nothing on file , you would think he’d run to News 12 kicking and screaming crying bloody murder after all he’s a reputable business man correct?

[Unregistered]

Gossip!! they put the guys face and name in the local paper , any normal human being would be crying bloody mercy, Why is JS silent? this is a lawsuit against the paper and the person.

This is huge news.
Number 2 is critical



Defamation law tries to balance competing interests: On the one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them; but on the other hand, people should be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously don't all share the same opinions or beliefs. For instance, political opponents often reach opposite conclusions from the same facts, and editorial cartoonists often exaggerate facts to make their point.

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages. .


What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?

The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

published
false
injurious
unprivileged

Let's look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through social media, television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

Thanks perry mason

[Unregistered]

He is trying and orating this goes away but no chance.

[Unregistered]

More to come ...

[Unregistered]

Thanks perry mason

No Perry Mason , just copy and pasted the facts of defamation of character and slander. The Patch article is not to be compared with a text from friend or some he said she said rumor at soccer practice.
This is the real deal, the guys in serious Hot water paper trails don’t just disappear.

[Unregistered]

^^^ and talking about him here might be construed as the same thing. Come back when charges are formally filed, or better if he's convicted/pleads guilty. I know he's awful but we do have laws and procedures.

[Unregistered]

Copying it here since the above article is so short. Sounds like all accusation to me.

"What started as a local and minor lawsuit has now grown into a full fledged lawsuit with multiple criminal complaints ranging from theft of services, fraud, racketeering, tax evasion, and on and on. In addition, it is believed that there has been multiple violations and misuse of the H1 Visa Program.

Many of the complaints against Mr. Salvatore have been sent to the States Attorney Generals Office for further review and investigation."

Interesting...Ridgefield Patch just deleted the article. I guess Johnny boy been on TS monitoring and replying to the accusations. Personally I hope it’s not true for the sake of youth soccer. Taking a club outta the system in FCTy is not something I’d want.

Good job JS.

[Unregistered]

Interesting...Ridgefield Patch just deleted the article. I guess Johnny boy been on TS monitoring and replying to the accusations. Personally I hope it’s not true for the sake of youth soccer. Taking a club outta the system in FCTy is not something I’d want.

Good job JS.

Of course they removed it. Libel.

[Unregistered]

Interesting...Ridgefield Patch just deleted the article. I guess Johnny boy been on TS monitoring and replying to the accusations. Personally I hope it’s not true for the sake of youth soccer. Taking a club outta the system in FCTy is not something I’d want.

Good job JS.

Yet many saw it and it was copied onto this site. Damage is done if JS wants to pursue it legally. Never should have been published to begin with if it's only so called accusations with no proof of anything. Gotta love the internets.

[Unregistered]

Yet many saw it and it was copied onto this site. Damage is done if JS wants to pursue it legally. Never should have been published to begin with if it's only so called accusations with no proof of anything. Gotta love the internets.

Anonymous forums for entertainment featuring posts from idiots like us is one thing. The Patch claims to be a newspaper and an official news outlet. It's editorial staff should be better than that.