Unfortunately that's not the way that Libel works (in most jurisdictions). In most cases there is what lawyers call an "inversion of the burden of proof" in that the burden is on the person claiming to have been libelled to prove statements were false (in some cases they must prove them to have been KNOWN to be false - mere inaccuracy isn't sufficient).
I fear that to prove libel it will be necessary for you to *prove* (not merely assert) that you didn't know the person alleged. This may not be simple. I also fear that conducting this diatribe in a public forum may not be benefitting your case should it ever come to court.
Perhaps you should focus on conducting your litigation rather than on posting commentaries about it.
€0.03 supplied,
PDR