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 ...
“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 she’s 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:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/page/sarah-palin-sue-author-publisher-rogue-14611032
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.
Thanks.
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.
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.