Ooh look, I'm being blogged about again. The best part is that originally she blamed one of our actors for stalking her, and now she thinks it's me. The irony is that those who claim to be stalking are frequently those who stalk. But bonus points for link to review. (H/T to Anon. for the heads up!)
He originally mentioned me by name, but thinks that just because he no longer does, but merely links to my blog, it no longer counts as defamation.
Also he has left up the label "crazy people" which refers to a blog that names me by my full name.
According to the Wikipedia entry on United States defamation law:
Defamation per se
All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) 
Now since stalking is a criminal offense, his falsely accusing me of accusing others of stalking and accusing me of stalking, falls under the fourth condition " Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)"
And since he calls me crazy in the other example, it falls under the second condition "Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)"
But when my lawyer returns from Labor Day holiday I'm sure I'll learn more.