<>
It seems you have a flawed understanding of the burden of proof.
The risked amount in your feedback to The Pharmacist is 100 BTC. Fact.
You have not shown that you have even traded with The Pharmacist, never mind risked 100 BTC. Fact.
Vod claims that your feedback shows a risked 100 BTC. Fact.
Vod claims that the 100 BTC risk is not substantiated. Fact.
Your lawsuit is based upon this claim:
"Vod is committing libel by claiming that I lied, scammed, and am a criminal."
You have the burden of proof.
You need to substantiate why Vod's claim that you lied is false.
You have the burden of proof.
You're using a similar strategy to Christian apologetics in which they shift the burden of proof onto the one rejecting the claim.
Ignoring the obvious trolling - here is my opinion:
Vod could easily base his defense on "honest opinion" based on what actmyname just said.
Risked BTC and not scammed BTC which is a total diffrence.
I disagree. The definition is clearly stated when you place the feedback.
So you claimed that The Pharmacist stole or tried to steal 100 BTC.
The onus of proof for that claim is on you.
Based on that it is my opinion that you would not only lose. You'd be liable for Vod's legal costs as well.
For your info the defentition of a criminal :
An individual who has been found guilty of the commission of conduct that causes social harm and that is punishable by law; a person who has committed a crime.
There you are wrong again. Because there is a far wider definition of "Criminal".
It can mean anything from being convicted of a crime, having committed an illegal (legal or religious) act or having done something despicable.
It will be a lawsuite from Netherland where my company is registered.
Am just checking your real info since i saw already some people tried to get your info
Considering that you are from Netherland where you claim your company is registered - I wonder what the Dutch law says about releasing personal information about Vod. Europe has some of the strictest privacy laws. Obviously you believe it to be related to your company -
otherwise you'd just lodge it in Poland where you live.Ironically by saying you are going to do the lawsuit from the Netherlands - where libel can be a civil wrong, the statement can also constitute a criminal offense.
https://www.amsadvocaten.com/blog/litigation-2/libel-slander-and-rectification-in-the-netherlands/So
in the Netherlands you could potentially be liable for criminal libel towards the Pharmacist.
You just fucked up your entire case by choice of venue. 
Your post is a joke.But what can somebody expect from you.
First the imague you took out of context is me saving people from Quark scammers.Quark was and still is a pump and dump coin controlled by a scammer group.They of course claim its trolling but the old members here should remember quark very well.So your first try to discredit me failed.
The defenition of "being a criminal" is very clear.
Your image just proofed it.Vod statement is very clear.
You are a criminal Other than that the defenition of criminal won't be taken from the internet where you can find anything to your needs but from the black law dictionary.Just for your info
And no it can not mean anything.Go back to school and learn basics
Next i didn't released any personal information which Vod isn't sharing already in public.So again your next claim is just poor.
I told them i run a company and i got issues with customers asking me if i scammed when reading these comments.I told them it harmed my company so its the company which lost income by defaming me.So its also the company which will file the lawsuite.Easy as that and your next poor attempt claiming its ilegal because i'm currently myself in east europe is the biggest joke i ever read.
If you think i'm not allowed to sue with my company which gets hit because of that defaming cause i'm living currently outside of that country than i can tell you you are totally wrong.
Beside that the judge doesn't care what nonsense you write.
Thats the beautiful going to court that the judge there won't even listen a single second of all that bullshit which is being posted here but will only use the real world law and not some personal defenitions of some people who seems to be limited in design of law
And also one and for the final time if you take Vod's claim serious than you are also obliged in court to take the rest of that page serious.And it clearly says : Negative -
You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
Now reading their comments i don't see a single proof that i scammed someone.They didn't gave a negativ for scamming which they admitted hundred of times.
Vod will be unable to claim in court 1. the trust feedback is to be taken serious when claiming at the same time the negativ feedback is not to be taken serious since some people decided they can also take it for other purposes when the page clearly says You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
The Trust feedback was designed for trading trust which you can clearly see when reading the explanation of "risked btc" .Based on Vod's multiple claims ealier in public that the trust system isn't only to be used against scammers or trades anymore he clearly made the risked btc worthless in those cases which mean the explanation of risked btc will lose its meaning if the trust system is being used for other purposes then it was created and defined.
Let's see how Vod is going to proof that i'm a scammer and criminal.
Having that massiv amount of abuse claims against Vod on his account and on the forum is not going to help him either.
Twisting facts like they are doing here continuously (for example the trustfeed explanation on page is valid if its in their favour and not valid if its against them "trust abuse for non scamming") won't be possible there.
