MyAdvertisingPays Sues TaraTalks

My Advertising Pays News - Time to Fight Back

Hello everyone!

Welcome to our new blog! Please read the following announcement composed by MAP Corporate & our attorneys;

MyAdvertisingPays fights back against slanderous blogging site TaraTalks (MAP), one of the world’s leading online marketing and advertising companies, is striking back against the blogging website TaraTalksToday (“TaraTalks”).  For months TaraTalks has been on a campaign to destroy MAP’s reputation, undermine its integrity, and tarnish MAP founder, Michael Deese’s, standing as a business owner and veteran of the United States Air Force.  Despite numerous pleas by MAP, TaraTalks has failed to retract her false statements and has continued to defame MAP and Deese through her online blog. MAP has decided that now is the time to fight back and stand up not only against the false literature spread about the company, but about the good hearted and hardworking people we are honored to call our affiliates.

MAPS’s corporate counsel is in the process of initiating a federal law suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging libel, interference with business relationship, and false light claims against TaraTalks.  In an effort to keep MAP clients and affiliates fully apprised of our progress in this matter, a brief outline of the counts contained in the Complaint, as well as the applicable law, is as follows.

The Law:

Due to the fact that TaraTalks is an online blog, the residency of the individual hiding behind the computer screen is unknown.  Therefore, MAP is bringing a federal law suit founded upon diversity jurisdiction.  Diversity jurisdiction arises when the Plaintiff to a suit and the Defendant reside in different states or even different countries.  However, because the suit is based on diversity jurisdiction and not a question of Federal Law or the Constitution, the claims contain in the Complaint arise under State Law.  By filing the suit in a federal court located in the State of Illinois, Illinois law will govern the substantive matters within the proceedings.


As a general legal principal, defamation is the publication of false claims about another.  Under Illinois law, in order for a party to successfully bring a defamation claim they must prove the following: a.) that the Defendant made a false statement about the Plaintiff; b.) that the false statements were published (spoken or written) to a third party; c.) when making the statements, the Defendant either knew the statements were false or had reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements; d.) and the publication damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.

Defamation can be broken down into two categories: 1.) verbal defamation, which is called slander, and 2.) written defamation, which is called libel.  Because TaraTalks is an online blog where the false statements have been written and published on the internet, MAP, as Plaintiff, has brought libel claims against TaraTalks as the defendant.

 Within the written defamation categorized as libel, two additional categories of libel can be distinguished: 1.) libel per se and 2.) libel per quod.  Libel per se means that the false statements made are in and of itself defamatory.  In other words, these statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, without further need to prove that harm.  Under the laws of Illinois, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:

  • accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime;
  • alleges that the plaintiff is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
  • alleges that the plaintiff is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties;
  • attributes to the plaintiff a lack of ability or otherwise harms the plaintiff in his or her profession; or
  • accuses the plaintiff of engaging in adultery or fornication.[1]

Alternatively, statements are considered defamatory per quod if the defamatory character of the statement is not apparent on its face, and extrinsic facts are required to explain its defamatory meaning.[2]  If a statement is per quod defamatory, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he or she sustained actual damage of a pecuniary nature.[3]  In other words, when a claim of defamation per quod is made, damages are not presumed.

Because TaraTalks has attacked MAP’s business and has spread false statements covering a wide array of topics from business to personal, MAP and Deese will bring both libel per se and libel per quod claims against the Defendant.

Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Business Relations:

In addition to the two (2) libel claims, MAP and Deese will also bring a claim against TaraTalks for tortious interference with business relationships.  In essence, this claim will allege that TaraTalk’s false comments caused MAP affiliates to terminate their relationship with MAP or prevented potential MAP affiliates from becoming members.  To successfully plead tortious interference, a Plaintiff must prove: the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy; knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. The interest protected is the reasonable expectation of economic advantage.[4]

False Light:

Lastly, because TaraTalks has spread vicious lies about founder and CEO, Michael Deese, he, in his personal capacity, will be brining a false light claim against TaraTalks.  A claim for false light requires that the Plaintiff show the defendant, acting with reckless disregard, placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false manner that was highly offensive to a reasonable person.[5]  TaraTalks has made numerous attacks at Michael Deese’s character and integrity alleging that he has corrupt morals and has defrauded MAP affiliates.  These claims could not be more false.  As a Disabled United States Air Force Veteran, Deese spent years looking for an internet income model that can create a secure and reliable income for his affiliates.  By establishing MAP, Deese has provided thousands of affiliates with supplemental income.  Over the years Deese has created close trusting relationships with his MAP affiliates and takes great pride in the fact that MAP has helped so many men and women of all ages.

In an effort to proceed with honesty and transparency in mind, MAP is endeavoring to create a forum in which MAP affiliates can submit questions or express their concerns regarding the ongoing lawsuit.  MAP’s corporate attorneys will be responding to questions posted on the forum, as well as, providing brief updates of the proceedings as litigation progresses.  It is of the utmost importance for MAP affiliates to feel as if they have a voice in this matter and know that the attorneys handling this matter are working diligently to advocate on their behalf.

We will select appropriate questions submitted via the Contact Us form at the top of this blog and have our attorneys answer them. Then they will be compiled and put on a tab named Legal FAQ’s.

We want to thank you all for your continued support. Please stay tuned here for further updates regarding our lawsuit and for all other news. MAP 2.0 update coming early next week!

Mike Deese
CEO & Founder

[1] Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Pub’g Co., 852 N.E.2d 825, 839 (Ill. 2006).

[2] Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp., 607 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. 1992).

[3] Adams v. Sussman & Hertzberg, Ltd., 292 Ill. App. 3d 30 (1997).

[4] City of Rock Falls v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 359, 363, 300 N.E.2d 331, 333.

[5] Lovgren, 534 N.E.2d at 989 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(E)).