Skip to comments.Palin Sends Letter to Crown/Random House...Not To Destroy Documents...Potential Defamation Suit
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 McGinnisss recent anti-Palin biography, and warning the company not to delete or destroy relevant documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Breaking: Gov. Sarah Palin Sends Letter to Crown/Random House, Warns Not To Destroy Documents Ahead of Potential Defamation Suit
She’s a private citizen. Any lies that the publisher allowed to be printed amount to defamation.
Good!! Go get ‘em Sarah!
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.
From the Palin Lawyers 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 companys legal correspondence with Mr. McGinniss and his responses thereto.
Even if she did run now, she was a private citizen when the book was published.
Well, her children were defamed also (especially Trig and Track), and they most definitely private citizens.
hm... well I guess that means shes 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I hope she takes that despicable creep McGinniss for everything he has. GO SARAH!!!
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.
that’s not from the Big Government article. If more of the letter is published elsewhere, can you please provide a link?
Heh. I was going to say something but decided to go to the point. Thanks.
“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.
I agree, go get them Sarah!
Well...Bully for her. Excellent.
The good news is that she probably can as McGinness certainly showed malice.
“I guess that means shes not running for sure...”
For sure?! Really?
Wishful thinking or are you a libel/defamation lawyer?
“BOOM....Taste My Nightstick!”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
They make the Rudy-tooters look sane.
She should go after Bertelsmann, which owns Crown and Random House.
I wish she was able to do more to these turds. A lot more.
It seems to me the suit is not Sarah Palin versus..., it is ‘The Palin Family’
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.
The letter is here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Woohoo! Go get ‘em, Sarah. Kick ‘em hard, and when they’re down...kick ‘em harder.
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.
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?????
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.