libel law

Final Notice For Retraction and Notice of Intent- The Oxford Eagle


Good Evening,

I am affording your publication one final opportunity to retract the untrue and incorrect statement given by Major Alan Wilburn in your article dated 5-30-2017 and can be referenced to here>

The libelous statement reads as follows:
“He made numerous threats on the victim’s life and would drive by their place,” said Chief Investigator Alan Wilburn.

On numerous occasions I have reported this as completely erroneously false, and have alleged that this was part of the staged attack by Lafayette County Sheriffs Department to inject an untrue narrative into publication in a larger scale attempt to influence anyone gullible to simply take and believe what they hear from the news.

I have reached out to the Oxford Eagle several times to have this fact checked and insist on any corroborating evidence to support Alan Wilburn’s damning claims. While I was told it would be looked into, nothing further was said, no supportive evidence produced, and the article remains up and un-retracted.

Previous Recorded Calls made to the Oxford Eagle in regards to demand for retraction can be provided on request

MS CODE 95-1-5 states the following:
1) Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper domiciled and published in this state or authorized to do business in Mississippi so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, of a libel, or against any radio or television station domiciled in this state, the plaintiff shall, at least ten (10) days before instituting any such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant at its regular place of business, specifying the article, broadcast or telecast, and the statements therein, which he alleges to be false and defamatory.

(2) If it appears upon the trial that said article was published, broadcast or telecast in good faith, that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, and there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article, broadcast or telecast were true, and that within ten (10) days after the service of said notice a full and fair correction, apology and retraction was published in the same edition or corresponding issues of the newspaper in which said article appeared, and in as conspicuous place and type as was said original article, or was broadcast or telecast under like conditions correcting an honest mistake, and if the jury shall so find, the plaintiff in such case shall recover only actual damages. The burden of proof of the foregoing facts shall be affirmative defenses of the defendant and pled as such.

(3) This section shall not apply to any publication concerning a candidate for public office made within ten (10) days of any primary, general or special election in which such candidate’s candidacy for or election to public office is to be determined, and this section shall not apply to any editorial or to any regularly published column in which matters of opinions are expressed.


Simply put, does the Oxford Eagle wish to report fairly and decently, or does it opt to be defending its choices in a court of law much like CNN, The NY Times, and many others have been unsuccessful with the same conduct VS Project Veritas?

All My Best,

Matt Reardon

Founder of Outlawed Productions

Producer & Creator of Riding With The Outlaw



See the latest court filings, articles, and video releases at


“When Freedom is Outlawed, Only The Outlaws Will Be Free”

Leave a Reply