Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in Massachusetts

Re: Accused of a crime 3 times falsley

Truth is a defense to claims of defamation (including the spoken kind - Slander). If these allegations are false, you may have many causes against this individual, and perhaps others.

Re: Accused of a crime 3 times falsley

A unique "twist" you may face in bringing a defamation claim is that the defendant engaged in protected "petitioning activity" under the Mass. ANTI-SLAPP Act. It has been used to sting individuals with large lawyers fees and make them liable in follow-up actions for "malicious civil prosecution" or "abuse of process" when they bring a claim (that prior to the enactment of the anti-SLAPP Act) would normally have been allowed to go to trial. In some cases, Mass. Appeals Courts have upheld ant-SLAPP Act dismissals of good claims; this even when the defendant's claimed "Petitioning Activity" (in your case that would be the police complaints, and related statements, etc. by your false accuser) was based entirely on falsehoods. This sounds unbelievable but is true. The Anti-SLAPP Act has been used by local governments to literally turn the rights of individuals on their heads and sting them for their own lawful petitioning activities, (this when the petitioning activities involved whistle-blowing against local government officials/employees). You should be extra-cautious because the anti-SLAPP trend has seen this type of suit become sometimes much more trouble than worth; this because of the unusual ways in which the anti-SLAPP Act has been applied. If you engage in free speech yourself, (that is exposing the wrongful acts of your accuser), you must be absolutely sure that your case will not be turned "topsy-turvy" by the unfair use of the anti-SLAPP Act against you. This may be quite difficult. If the supposed defendant says they reasonably believed it was you who was involved in the mailings and all that they were doing was petitioning the government for enforcement of their rights (whether this is actually true or a bald faced lie); that may be enough for them to escape liability for their grievous moral wrong under the anti-SLAPP Act. You may want to consult more than one attorney regarding this difficult area of law, and are cautioned about people who bring falsehoods in courts of law being believed, to your loss.

Other than these cautions, you may have a good defamation claim. Also, if you brought a claim for "malicious prosecution of a criminal complaint" there is the question of whether you were actually put in jeopardy? In other words, the claims did not proceed to court and you did not receive a "not guilty" finding after trial. Thus your own claims would not rise to the level of malicious criminal prosecution. You may not have the legal ammunition to withstand an ant-SLAPP attack. The anti-SLAPP act was originally intended to protect individuals from being sued by corporations when, for example, the person opposed a commercial development in town. It has, unfortunately, been expanded to have unbelievably far reaching effects that CHILL FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH and also may be seen to VIOLATE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL JURY TRIAL RIGHTS in some cases.