Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin Sends Letter to Crown/Random House...Not To Destroy Documents...Potential Defamation Suit
Big Government ^ | 9/26/11 | Publius

Posted on 09/26/2011 4:24:38 PM PDT by BCrago66

Attorneys representing former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have written to Crown Publishing, a division of Random House, serving notice of possible litigation for defamation in connection with Joe McGinniss’s recent anti-Palin biography, and warning the company not to delete or destroy relevant documents.

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: busy; circus; joemcginniss; moneymoney; palin; palindefamationsuit; yearsandyears
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 09/26/2011 4:24:40 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

Full Title:

Breaking: Gov. Sarah Palin Sends Letter to Crown/Random House, Warns Not To Destroy Documents Ahead of Potential Defamation Suit


2 posted on 09/26/2011 4:25:18 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

Good!Give`em hell.


3 posted on 09/26/2011 4:27:09 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

She’s a private citizen. Any lies that the publisher allowed to be printed amount to defamation.


4 posted on 09/26/2011 4:30:08 PM PDT by MNnice (Showing fresh signs of liberalitis, the strain of the orbital muscles due to excessive eye rolling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nomad

Good!! Go get ‘em Sarah!


5 posted on 09/26/2011 4:30:17 PM PDT by Texas Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNnice

hm... well I guess that means she’s not running for sure, because if she was running she would no longer be a “private citizen” subject to protection, but a public servant subject to any and all attacks.


6 posted on 09/26/2011 4:31:58 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Get help.


7 posted on 09/26/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

From the Palin Lawyer’s letter:

‘Further, as Mr. McGinniss waived the attorney client privilege and disclosed to third parties what “Random House Lawyers” told him (he needed sources and the book was not publishable without them), we will also be entitled to review your company’s legal correspondence with Mr. McGinniss and his responses thereto.’

BOO-YA!!!


8 posted on 09/26/2011 4:34:09 PM PDT by Bush_Democrat (ATLAS SHRUGGED was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Even if she did run now, she was a private citizen when the book was published.


9 posted on 09/26/2011 4:35:00 PM PDT by MNnice (Showing fresh signs of liberalitis, the strain of the orbital muscles due to excessive eye rolling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Well, her children were defamed also (especially Trig and Track), and they most definitely private citizens.


10 posted on 09/26/2011 4:35:37 PM PDT by Bush_Democrat (ATLAS SHRUGGED was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

hm... well I guess that means she’s not running for sure, because if she was running she would no longer be a “private citizen” subject to protection, but a public servant subject to any and all attacks.

***

The crime happened while she was a private citizen.


11 posted on 09/26/2011 4:35:54 PM PDT by ROTB (Christian sin breeds enemies for the USA. If you're a Christian, stop sinning, and spread the Word..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNnice

The law of defamation will treat Palin as public figure, which typically means people can get away with saying and writing almost anything about you, because the standard for such plaintiffs is “actual malice,” a legal term of art meaning that the defamer must know his statements were false, or speak/write with reckless disregard of whether or not his statements are false. That standard is virtually never met, because defamers don’t admit these things to other people, let alone in writing.

But the idiot McGinniss did.


12 posted on 09/26/2011 4:36:29 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

I think I ran into you yesterday. Weren’t you whining about “haters” showing up on Perry threads and questioning a Perry supporter’s Vanity/Manifesto?

Does your post make you a “hater,” too?


13 posted on 09/26/2011 4:36:43 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (No More RINOs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

There is a two year window in which to file. And there’s no reason she couldn’t file after the election seeing she was a private citizen when the defamation occurred. Don’t get your hopes up.


14 posted on 09/26/2011 4:37:43 PM PDT by bcsco (Take a Cain - and cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
From the article:

In the interim, please take note of the following: It is unlawful to delete emails or destroy records upon being notified of the need of business records for litigation purposes. In addition, courts may impose civil sanctions against a defendant that destroys emails and other documentation. Please immediately provide notice to your employees to save and back up all records pertaining to the Palins and the book “The Rogue.”…

Good for her.

15 posted on 09/26/2011 4:38:02 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

Following the letter from Palin, another letter arrived at Random House, from Holder. It was a two-liner:

Delete what you want.
We’ve got your back.


16 posted on 09/26/2011 4:38:11 PM PDT by samtheman (Palin. In your heart you know she's right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

I hope she takes that despicable creep McGinniss for everything he has. GO SARAH!!!


17 posted on 09/26/2011 4:38:47 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
she would no longer be a “private citizen” subject to protection, but a public servant subject to any and all attacks.

Incorrect. The bar is much higher for public v private but it is still there.

If Crown published lies as fact knowing they had no basis then they are in big trouble. Public or Private that is not allowed.

18 posted on 09/26/2011 4:39:10 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Can we ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Easily. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat

Bush_Democrat,

that’s not from the Big Government article. If more of the letter is published elsewhere, can you please provide a link?


19 posted on 09/26/2011 4:39:18 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear

Heh. I was going to say something but decided to go to the point. Thanks.


20 posted on 09/26/2011 4:39:55 PM PDT by bcsco (Take a Cain - and cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

“warning the company not to delete or destroy relevant documents.”
Why destroy, Obama will just call for an FBI raid and the
evidence will disappear all on its own. Then they can plead
the 5th. while they laugh in your face.


21 posted on 09/26/2011 4:39:55 PM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nomad

I agree, go get them Sarah!


22 posted on 09/26/2011 4:40:13 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

Well...Bully for her. Excellent.


23 posted on 09/26/2011 4:40:22 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNnice
She's a public figure. That means she does have to meet a higher standard for a successful suit.

The good news is that she probably can as McGinness certainly showed malice.

24 posted on 09/26/2011 4:40:38 PM PDT by Tribune7 (If you demand perfection you will wind up with leftist Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

“I guess that means she’s not running for sure...”
For sure?! Really?
Wishful thinking or are you a libel/defamation lawyer?


25 posted on 09/26/2011 4:40:43 PM PDT by bushwon ("If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it is free"--PJ O'rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

“BOOM....Taste My Nightstick!”


26 posted on 09/26/2011 4:42:02 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNnice
She’s a private citizen. Any lies that the publisher allowed to be printed amount to defamation.

She's a public personality. As such it's much harder to prove defamation than it is for a private individual. But be that as it may, it doesn't hurt to make Random House squirm and jump through some hoops in the mean time.

27 posted on 09/26/2011 4:42:36 PM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

1. I’m waiting for the “she’s thin-skinned” attacks.

2. The defamation standards are based on whether one is a public FIGURE (not elected official, public servant, etc.) She is indisputably a public figure (basically, a famous person). Which just means there is a different standard, not an impossible one.


28 posted on 09/26/2011 4:42:38 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Author of BullionBible.com - Makes You a Precious Metal Expert, Guaranteed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat

In fact, I Googled the language of that additional part of the letter from Palin’s lawyers that you quoted, and the only hits that came up were to your comment.


29 posted on 09/26/2011 4:43:27 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ROTB

“Private Citizen” really is neither here nor there. She has been a “Public Figure” since she was Governer, and has never ceased being one.

In fact Mark Levin said a week or so ago that she has zero chance of getting anywhere with a defamation suit. I don’t think it’s zero, but it’s going to be really tough.

The kids may be a different story.


30 posted on 09/26/2011 4:43:34 PM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

They make the Rudy-tooters look sane.


31 posted on 09/26/2011 4:43:41 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (No More RINOs!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

She should go after Bertelsmann, which owns Crown and Random House.


32 posted on 09/26/2011 4:43:41 PM PDT by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

I wish she was able to do more to these turds. A lot more.


33 posted on 09/26/2011 4:44:12 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I'm a heartless conservative because I love this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROTB

It seems to me the suit is not Sarah Palin versus..., it is ‘The Palin Family’


34 posted on 09/26/2011 4:44:47 PM PDT by BillM (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Why do Freepers keep saying Palin is (or was) a “private citizen?”

Once she decided to run for VP of the United States, and started touring the country with McCain and giving nationally televised speeches, didn’t she cross the line into “public figure?”

She should sue, but I don’t think she can be described as a “private” citizen.


35 posted on 09/26/2011 4:45:09 PM PDT by LyinLibs (All moslems are somewhere on the killing-you spectrum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

The letter is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/page/sarah-palin-sue-author-publisher-rogue-14611032


36 posted on 09/26/2011 4:45:42 PM PDT by CedarDave (My Sarah prediction: Announcing for President between October 18 and 28.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

you may know more about this than me honestly, in the back of my mind I thought public figures (especially political ones) were nearly completely stripped of protection from defamation. But I could be wrong, and probably am since I know almost nothing about the law.

I am just trying to look for any little fact or tid bit that might indicate which decision Palin is likely to reach.


37 posted on 09/26/2011 4:47:06 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Thanks.


38 posted on 09/26/2011 4:48:19 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LyinLibs
She should sue, but I don’t think she can be described as a “private” citizen.

She isn't holding any office, nor running for office. She has a celebrity status, but still, IMO, is a private citizen. In any event her children surely are and they have been maligned as well.

39 posted on 09/26/2011 4:48:38 PM PDT by bcsco (Take a Cain - and cure the Pain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
I found this on the internet in regards to this issue.

quote “public figures can sue for libel or slander, but it is exceedingly difficult for them to win. The Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan set the standard, called actual malice. Public figures have to prove that not only was the statement false, but also that the speaker or writer either knew the statement was false or published the statement with “reckless disregard” for whether the statement was true or false.

Since libel or slander is by definition a false statement, truth is a defense. So the plaintiff is the one who ends up on trial, because he or she has to prove the accusations against him or her are false.

For example, if Smith publishes a statement that Jones stole money, and Jones sues Smith for libel, Smith will probably defend himself by saying the statement is true; then he will put forth all of the things that make him think Jones is a thief.

Except in rare cases, court cases are on the public record. So a lot more people will find out that Smith thinks Jones is a thief because of Jones’ own lawsuit. If the media cover the case, millions more people could learn about the accusations that would not have if Jones had not sued.”

so I was sort of right, but not completely.

40 posted on 09/26/2011 4:51:44 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

The book is giant pile of crap filled with what are certainly endless untruths.

Palin should still ignore it. Any court fight just draws attention to the book. It isn’t selling well anyway and will be soon forgotten. These kinds of outlandish and disgusting personal attacks on Sarah and her family are just old hat now. It’s not just this anti-Palin book that’s failing either. Levi Johnston’s book is also bombing and as a new release is sitting at #1926 in books on Amazon.


41 posted on 09/26/2011 4:52:58 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66; Pride in the USA

Woohoo! Go get ‘em, Sarah. Kick ‘em hard, and when they’re down...kick ‘em harder.


42 posted on 09/26/2011 4:54:38 PM PDT by lonevoice (The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, impeach we much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

I don’t believe that there is a difference in the legal rights of a public official versus any other public figure.

Sarah Palin is a public figure and will be one whether or not she runs for President.

In order for libel to be shown against a public figure, the public figure has to show actual malice. It appears that in light of the author’s emails, there may well have been actual malice both by him and by Random House.


43 posted on 09/26/2011 4:55:19 PM PDT by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
if she was running she would no longer be a “private citizen” subject to protection, but a public servant subject to any and all attacks

A "public servant" is an elected official, not a private citizen running for office...........

Please explain how an individual not yet serving the public can be classified as a public servant?????

44 posted on 09/26/2011 4:56:04 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
"but a public servant subject to any and all attacks"

Even a public person has protection against intentional libel.

And, it's clear she can PROVE the author and the publisher knew the information to be both false and harmful.

Prima facie case of libel.

Random House will shortly have a new owner.

45 posted on 09/26/2011 4:56:32 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat

Sorry I doubted you, Bush_Democrat, the part about waiving attorney-client privilege is in there. I’m hoping that discovery of Random House’s legal correspondence will damage that once-respected publisher, and also damage the lawyers who green-lighted this book (unless it was published over the lawyers’ objections.)


46 posted on 09/26/2011 4:57:40 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
I understand and normally you would be right however there are apparently e-mails from the author to the publisher saying that he only had gossip no proof about any of the charges in the book.

This removes what is the usual defense in a case like this which is "Absence of Malice" meaning that their story may be a pack of lies but unless you can prove they knew it was groundless they are protected. This is generally very hard to prove. In this case they have it in writing.

The most famous case I can think of was Carol Burnett v The National Enquirer, she proved that their story had no basis in fact and they knew it. NE had to pay up and say "Sorry!"

Is she running? Your guess is as good as mine. If she was she would sue with this kind of evidence, if she wasn't she would still sue as some of the stuff included attacks on her children.

Personally I have long regretted that dueling is no longer legal.

47 posted on 09/26/2011 4:59:53 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Can we ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Easily. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

You just don’t get it!

Sarah has that damning email from Creepy Joe which should shake RH to the core because usually a libel case is very difficult to prove - in essence her lawyers have put the ball in RH court to resolve this before a case is pursued. The threat of a lawsuit will make RH most likely fold and pull the book off the selves and do other amends — if they are wise


48 posted on 09/26/2011 5:01:53 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; All
"Any court fight just draws attention to the book"

This will also take all books off the shelf...and off Amazon.

It will also cause every news organization in the country to refuse to discuss the particulars...other than the horserace of litigation.

The NYT now has reason to believe the information may be false. So does CNN and Rachel Madcow on MSLSD.

49 posted on 09/26/2011 5:05:30 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

The owner of Random House is German conglomerate Bertelsmann. Mega-corp. Palin could win 100 million and make a dent, but only a dent. But Palin suing would at damage its reputation, and serve as a warning to all publishers who want to remain “respectable.” The slime of the world, Larry Flynt, Gawker, etc., will go on as before.


50 posted on 09/26/2011 5:08:06 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson