Skip to comments.Palin attorney threatens to sue over new book (Don't threaten, DO IT!)
Posted on 09/27/2011 4:35:47 AM PDT by tobyhill
An attorney for Sarah Palin is threatening to sue over a new book that he says defamed the Palins and contains "a series of lies and rumors."
John Tiemessen, in a letter to the publisher of Crown Publishing Group Monday, cites an email that author Joe McGinniss allegedly sent a blogger in January seeking substantiation for several rumors that have surrounded Palin's family. That email was posted online last week by Andrew Breitbart.
Tiemessen says McGinniss' book, "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin," contains "most of" the stories that merely "amounted to the wishful fantasies of disturbed individuals."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
She can only sue as long as she stays out of the presidential race. Once in, she is a public figure again.
Todd could sue, in all likelihood.
She's a public figure now. So while the barrier to successfully suing is incredibly high, she is within her rights to do so.
I’d say “be careful.” Oscar Wilde sued the Marquis of Queensbury for calling him a sodomite. The suit went to trial, and guess what? It turned out that old Oscar was, indeed, a sodomite.
That may be true. Just because Palin is a public figure I don't think that automatically means that her spouse and children are. Except for Bristol.
Don’t do it, Sarah. I know this type of guy. He can’t wait for you to sue. He’s an attention freak.
Better yet, keep an eye on the New York Times bestseller - so far it hasn’t shown up. I predict it’s gonna be a dog - except for the few creeps in West Hollywood and Boystown who buy it.
Maybe it’s good that they are only threatening to sue at this point. It could scare a couple of these “sources” (like the basketball player) to come forward and admit there’s nothing to the allegations made in the book. By doing so, their hope will be that they will not be named in any lawsuit. Once one person comes forward, the entire house of cards will collaspe.
Gov Palin has let many things slide in the past but through her lawyers she is calling out McGinnis and RH on this one. It will serve as a great example for those who may be tempted in the future to play the same kind of games with her or her family.
The basketball player story is probably true, but that’s no more damaging to her than anybody, who is single, having a one-nighter with somebody.
One of the most amazing trials in the history of the law. Oscar was very foolish to bring suit but talk about hubris! I’ll say one thing for this great genuis: he learned humility after this terrible episode. And, now that I think of it, McGuinness is as crazy as that little meeskit (sic!) the Marquis of Queensbury!
I don’t think Sarah should sue either. Not because I believe any of the charges in the book but because it gives an extra platform for this pyscho.
She’s a public figure right now according to the legal definition of “public figure”:
n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate).
Obviously case law (the biggie is Sullivan) expands on the definition but it can probably be said that McGinniss hates Palin :-) And if he knew ALL the allegations in the book to be untrue she may prevail, but it appears that the Glen Rice allegations were true and that alone will diminish her chances of prevailing on the suit. Truth is an absolute defense.
But I agree that she can’t run for the Presidency while embroiled in a nasty defamation law suit. No one in their right mind would do so.
Known is conversation traffic from the publisher and author that admits it intentionally went to print without collaboration intent on harm.
Breitbart claims to have even more email correspondence that goes further to that intent.
Defamation of character to the highest degree.
A bone-headed move.
If they do sue then they had better be able to definitively disprove or discount each and every allegation in the book.
If they can't then all they will accomplish is to shine a huge spotlight on all the salacious allegations, whether they can be proven or not.
What are they going to do? Subpoena a statement from the NBA guy? Because if they don't then the author will....and the general public will not be interested at all in what the palins can prove, just in what they can't.
Actually the email that McGinniss wrote states that none of it is true.
The only bonehead here is you....u PDS troll.
On www.bossip.com, in an interview, Rice, the basketball player affirmed that it did happen. He didn’t have a bad word to say about her.
Most of the posts on this thread are entirely missing the point of this letter. The purpose of the letter was NOT to threaten a law suit.
The purpose of the letter was to serve a notice and demand that Random House take all necessary steps to preserve evidence for discovery - INCLUDING correspondence between McGinnis and Random House’s lawyers, for which McGinnis has effectively waived attorney-client confidentiality by sending an extraordinarily ill advised e-mail to a private correspondent in Alaska.
McGinnis has crippled the ability of Random House to defend either McGinnis or the book, and Palin’s lawyer’s letter has unambiguously shoved Random House’s nose right down into the stinking pile. They are going to be extraordinarily motivated to get out from under this.
I think the book will be pulled within two weeks, much as was J.H. Hatfield’s tell all about GW Bush, Fortunate Son. Remember that one?
The difference here will be that along with withdrawal and destruction of the book, there will be a substantial cash settlement to the Palins - all with no actual action in court. Random House will not want that - the situation is that bad for them.
Yay! A thought-filled posting! I was wondering about the public figure angle.
Palins attorneys already have the McGinniss email Breitbart has stating that none of it can be proved. Rice never stated anything to McGinniss. Even the NY Times shot that down.
Your PDS is getting the best of you.
Give a live link to a quote please.
That story about you and Barney Frank is probably true. But that’s no more damaging to you than to anyone else who has had a one-nighter with a gross slobbering Congressman.
Oh hey, see how that works?
There is no story about Palin and Rice: it’s a lie by McGinnis which has not been supported by any other evidence or testimony, and which has been denied by the Palin family. You are either credulous or you are a concern troll.
I think, if it happened, it would be better to hammer down the timeline.
To the best of my knowledge, Palin was a single woman in Washington when it happened, so there’s no infidelity here.
If George Bush can be let off for drunk driving thirty years, can’t we overlook a little bit of young hormones 24 years ago?
I think those who would have trouble with this would have trouble with her anyway.
I’m on a Blackberry, so I can’t do that.
If you’re on a computer, you can go to that website and do a search yourself.
If George Bush can be let off for drunk driving thirty years, cant we overlook your youthful indiscretion in Barney Frank’s basement?
Seriously: post a link to your ‘proof’. We’ll pass it to the Palin’s lawyers.
That would be a great tactic! Todd has less public exposure, and is attacked in the book.
In an email MCGinniss admits none of it is true.
Come back to me when you stop being thirteen years old. Then we can have a mature discussion.
It looks as though not too many here remember that Carol Burnett sued successfully. And the Mirror (or whatever publication it was) was not suffering from PDS (or BDS).
except for the few creeps in West Hollywood and Boystown who buy it.
Boystown? My cousins were in boystown decades ago. They were not in trouble, they were orphaned & wanted to go there rather than family. Has something changed? Sometimes things happen right around you and you don’t know it.
Thank you for your public service.
Her intimate life was never a big issue.
Excuse me? YOU are the one spreading lurid gossip as truth.
YOU are the one spreading unsupported lurid gossip as truth.
Glen Rice never said that anything happen between the two of them! He wasn’t even asked!!!!!!!! That irks me that people on FR would state a claim that is simply not true
BTW you forgot the email that McGinniss sent to Jesse Griffin that is the centerpiece of the potential case! Libel case are difficult to prove but in this case that email proves there was malice and that email makes RH liable to opening up their correspondence between RH and McGinniss, something RH would be foolish to allow in discovery phase. They will settle out of court before that happens
You have no link and no proof, and when confronted you started to pretend that your outrageous insinuation about Sarah Palin was no big deal because she was single.
Thanks DJ: I can’t access that site from work but I have saved the link.
I am unable to post a link, because I’m on a computer.
Quit being lazy and google it yourself. :)
I hardly call having a one-night stand lurid.
In a short time, we got to know a lot about one another It was all done in a respectful way, nothing hurried. She was a gorgeous woman, super nice. I was blown away by her. Afterward, she was a big crush that I had.
Jonty30 took quite leap into smut pit.
You may not, but many conservatives do.
Because this time, McGinnis' (confirmed) email to Griffen is the figurative "smoking gun" -- not only does it prove that McGinnis knew he could not substantiate his slime but published anyway, but because he reveals details of his discussions with Random House's lawyers to a third party, apparently he has waived attorney-client privilege and therefore huge amounts of documentation is open for discovery and the lawyers themselves can be compelled to testify.
Also Free Republic is a conservative site and does not promote casual sex.
Is it any wonder conservatives have trouble finding qualified candidates?
We tend to eat them when we find out they have an imperfect past.
I try to remember the story of Christ, the woman and the Pharisees.
I understand your position, but I don’t view it as promoting casual sex.
I’m very big on marriage and protecting as much as possible. And me being celibate, I’m not being hypocritical on the matter.
WE?! YOU are the one claiming that Rice confirmed having sex with Palin when he did no such thing.
I try to remember the story of Christ, the woman and the Pharisees.
That's nice but that story isn't about the adulteress. It's about the Pharisees and how THEY broke Jewish law trying to lay a trap for Jesus.
Post 20:On www.bossip.com, in an interview, Rice, the basketball player affirmed that it did happen.
He did not.