Posted on 02/29/2012 6:40:30 PM PST by expat1000
This made my day! Thank you!
:)
+
I hope O’Keefe sues the fukc out of them for Millions and wins.
I would love to see that little weasel Loserman have to write a very large check to O’Keefe, and to see O’Keefe on FNC waving it in front of the camera and laughing maniacally while simultaneously bankrupting what’s left of KO financially and career-wise.
Same with that little twink Shuster.
That POS cable channel could become “The Liberty Channel”.
WHERE did he file suit? The article refers to a suit having been filed, but gives no reference to whether it’s federal or state/county court, or in what state/district. That does matter due to the jury pool.
I recall a juror in the Ollie North case basically saying they had to find him guilty because he was, after all, a white conservative; similarly, Scooter Libby’s jury included friends/neighbors of key witness Tim Russert. O’Keefe doesn’t need a jury stacked against him ... tho the discovery part will be most fun for him.
This is pretty cut and dry, regardless of the jury.
If KO went on the air and made these baseless claims, he’s screwed and will be punished financially, probably by a judge.
All the Plaintiff’s attorney has to do is show video of the broadcast, then call a high-ranking LEO or PI to the witness stand and ask him if he has ran a criminal background check on O’Keefe and if these claims have any merit.
When the LEO or PI says these claims are false, the case is over and it’s just a matter of arguing how much O’Keefe’s reputation was damaged, libeled (or is it slandered?) loss of future earnings, especially for such a young, aspiring journalist, and the civil trial is done and the only question is how big of a check these two phags will have to write Mr. O’Keefe.
I knew KO was stupid, but I didn’t know he was also dumb.
No case outside a tv series is ever as simple as you’ve verbally painted. O’Keefe has to prove malice. Malice can be established only thru discovery.
O’Keefe can force a settlement but that is not what he wants until AFTER he has had his discovery. Then he can go for summary judgment on liability, leaving damages for a special hearing. Read the article. What O’Keefe wants is the discovery. He wants access to Gore’s, Olberman’s, Schuster’s and others’ emails. He says he wants to prove their malice in a court of law. He wants to display their behavior and malice very publicly.
He has to get past motions to dismiss to get the discovery.
The court in the person of the judge and eventually the jury really are important. And that’s why WHERE O’Keefe filed suit becomes an issue.
Slander is spoken falsehood, while libel is recorded or written, generally speaking.
>>If KO went on the air and made these baseless claims, he’s screwed and will be punished financially, probably by a judge.
Like was said, O’Keefe has to prove malice not simply that the story was wrong. But if you read the details, there is a major twist here. KO previously reported on the sexual harassment case correctly, so he KNEW there was no rape charge involved. Surely that has got to go a long way to showing malice.
Also, from,http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/29/idUS163636531220120229
According to O’Keefe’s complaint, which was filed in New Jersey Superior Court,
I just adore O’Keefe.
To think there are young people like this out there makes my heart soar.
It will depend largely on whether Jim is considered a public figger under the New York Times standard. If so, he will find it difficult to win.
If that turns out to be the case and James is fair game for any and all smears, then I'm sure that as an experienced videographer he can put together some convincing videos of "public figure" Oberman doing little boys and taking all comers at some filthy truck stop, and post those videos all over the internet.
(shrug)
Why not?
http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm
Libel:
Exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule.
Injures a person’s reputation or causes the person to be shunned or avoided.
Injures the person in his or her occupation.
Examples might include accusing someone of having committed a heinous crime, or of having a disease that might cause them to be shunned.
http://marketing.about.com/od/defamation-libel-slander/a/to-sue-or-not-to-sue.htm (Public figures)
That means the person or media organization making the false statement knew it was false but published it anyway, or should have known it was false. That they demonstrated “reckless disregard for the truth” – they didn’t check, or they didn’t care.
KO knew there was no rape allegation. He reported on the case before, more or less correctly. What'll be his defense for referencing a non-existent allegation of rape? Whatever it is, how believable will it be when O'Keefe's lawyers claim he did it out of malice and for the sensationalist value, knowing it was false?
This is one of the attributes of British law that I think the US should more closely emulate. When defamatory comments like this are made, it should be clearly compensible under US laws. The First Amendment has been sodomized over the years, and this would reign it in a bit.
We were just reading this hours ago.
When a TV network that nobody watches does something bad don’t reward them with press coverage, punish them by letting them stay anonymous. Don’t sue, ignore.
The scoop at Big Government here
has a picture of the filing: Superior Court of NY, Bergen County
There are explicit claims for both libel and slander in this case. Slander for the (spoken) broadcast, libel for the (written) website. (Think libel = library = written stuff.)
Danke. Actually, it’s New JERSEY, not New YORK. There is a town in upstate (rural) NY called Bergen but it’s not a county. Bergen County NJ is a NYC suburb, and probably home to the Current TV network (MSNBC is headquartered in a nearby NJ town, probably to avoid NYC/NYS taxes).
Interesting that we were discussing this just the day before Andrew Breitbard died. O’Keefe is his spiritual heir, but even he doesn’t have all the background/skill/experience of Breitbart. I hope he ends up literally owning Olberman and Shuster and, as a tax write off, Current TV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.