specifically

As for the Platt-Maxim libel issue, I will go through this only once. I have reason to believe that the following summary is correct:

The preamble of the jointly signed settlement states that both sides seek a non-adversarial resolution, and goes on to say that the previously-agreed corrections and apology published by the defendant will constitute a complete repair of all wrongs done to plaintiff.

Thus, when the text was published, any wrongs were completely COMPLETELY REPAIRED, and the matter was SETTLED.

The agreement only talks about "perceived sufferings," does not list or measure any "actual sufferings," and does not assess malice, intent, damage, and so on, because both parties have waived all those issues. It is a settlement--an alternative to a law suit. Words such as "libel" or "defamation" do not appear even once in the five pages. To suggest otherwise would be grossly misleading.

If Maxim still chooses to believe that a libel occurred, she is entitled to her opinion, but she should express this as an OPINION, not as a FACT. She waived the opportunity to go to trial, and therefore libel was not proved. Indeed it never can be proved, regarding the issues that were enumerated, since the agreement provides a complete release and is binding on all successors and assigns.

Therefore, the factual statement "I was libelled" would be defamatory to the other party, since the case was never even argued before a court, let alone proven, and Maxim does not have the power to prove it on her own.

Maxim is entitled to her opinion that Platt admitted libel, but here she should be rather more careful, since it's hard to see how she might make a sincere mistake about that, unless she can find such an admission and present it as proof. (I believe she cannot.)

Since both parties signed the agreement, 15 months ago, this would suggest that the matter was resolved at that time, with both sides concurring (I would like to emphasize this) that it was *time to move on.*