This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 11/14/2003 9:04:54 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Just three days before Arnold Schwarzenegger is scheduled to be inaugurated as governor of California, the lawyer for one of the women who went public with groping allegations against him on the eve of October's recall election says she's preparing to take legal action. "I think there will be a lawsuit," Venice, Calif., lawyer Paul Hoffman told the New York Sun on Friday. Hoffman represents former actress Rhonda Miller, who worked as a stunt double on the sets of two of the former action star's films in the 1990s. Hoffman said he was in the process of drawing up papers for a libel claim that he expects to file with the court "pretty soon." Miller claims that the actor-turned-politician took pictures after lifting her shirt, then pinned her to a make-up chair. But Hoffman told the Sun that her legal complaint will be based instead on Schwarzenegger's denial of the charge, which included several emails sent to the press by his campaign. The messages alluded to online court records which claimed Miller had an arrest record that included prostitution and theft charges. Miller, however, has denied the allegations. "It's not rocket science, from a legal standpoint," her lawyer said. "They basically accused her of being a criminal. That's slander, or in this case, libel, per se." Asked about the impending lawsuit, Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for Governor-elect Schwarzenegger, told the Sun, "We're not commenting on any of it."
Yes, there must be exceptions.
The messages alluded to online court records which claimed Miller had an arrest record that included prostitution and theft charges.
What the Schwarzenegger aide did was to advise that a public-records search for "Rhonda Miller" would yield some interesting results. The aide didn't say that it was the same Ms. Miller; THAT was a matter for the reporters to decide. Bottom line is, no lie was told, period. Get ready to write Arnold's lawyers a check, hon.
Not if it's true, it isn't. And exactly who did the "accusing"? And is the spreading of truth "accusing" someone of anything?
Excellent turn of phrase. I like that.
Libel per se relates to damages. A plaintiff does not have to show damages - the statement is presumed injurious enough IF IT IS NOT TRUE and meets the other elements.
There are a boatload of reasons not to bring an action against Arnold on this besides the fact that, well, there is no case. The case would publicize the woman't arrest record even more than it has been - though her reputation probably isn't on her mind. Defamation cases are notoriously difficult to win and you usually have to pay out of pocket to get someone to represent you (though here there are political motivations which would probably make some liberal represent her pro bono). When she loses - and she would - the public will just conclude that the charges were true (David Irving in England had this happen to him recently and lost everything). I also think a court could conclude that this woman, raising her claims in the heat of a campaign, became a "limited public figure" for purposes of this issue.
Let's just say I wouldn't mind representing Arnold in any such action and that bringing it would be foolish and purely political.
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.