Sheehan threatens to sue 'American Mourning' authors

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/24/2006 | WND Staff

[bboop]

She made a bargain with the devil for fame and a platform. And she is reaping the fruits of that bargain.

[Bonaparte]

"That's the other side of her two-pronged burden of proof as I understand it: (a) that the claims are false and (b) that the authors acted with malice"

In essence and in most US jurisdictions, I think that's it -- "malice" here being defined as either knowing the claims were false or recklessly disregarding whether they were true or false.

If Sheehan initiated this, she would have some very high hurdles to jump if it ever actually went to trial (it won't).

Moy is a journalist and they have conditional privilege in publication that most citizens do not enjoy (see 1st Amendment, New York Times v. Sullivan, et seq).

Sheehan, while not an elected official, is nonetheless a public figure and in that sense, has much less legal cover from published criticism.

There is a strong argument to be made that Morgan's and Moy's book serves a significant or even vital public interest or public good. Sheehan could challenge this, but it could be dangerous to do so.

Last but not least, Sheehan must show actual damage -- unless the court granted motion for summary judgment of defamation per se (which also won't happen). She would have to show that she was significantly hampered in the profitable practice of her usual or principal occupation, that she suffered much more than trivial harm.

If she files, it will be for the same reason that kerry filed against the Swifties and will be dropped once it's served it's twin purposes of election year propaganda and intimidation of critics. She could also be counter-sued, just as Kerry & Co. are.

I believe all Sheehan would accomplished by suing is to triple sales of American Mourning and hand Morgan and Moy a bigger stage and microphone than they already have. In fact, the more Sheehan protests the book, the more interest she will create in it.

[at bay]

"In fact, the more Sheehan protests the book, the more interest she will create in it."

There is a God.

Sheehan speaks tonight near where I live and despite the inclination to don a hazmat suit, sit with my back to her and drape the flag which she so despises over my shoulders facing her, she really isn't worth the effort.

[at bay]

unless the court granted motion for summary judgment of defamation per se (which also won't happen).

No, it won't happen, because only an attorney can get per se relief.

[Bonaparte]

"... because only an attorney can get per se relief."

That's correct and I think we all understand that Sheehan will not be acting as her own counsel.

That said, it's common (in fact, usual) to read judicial opinions, decisions and the like with phrases like, "defendants Rogers and Hammerstein petitioned for certiorari" -- even though it's understood that the defendants did not prepare the legal documents or carry out any other legal tasks involved in the petition process.

Here's an example. Scroll down to 3rd paragraph under heading, "Twombly."

[at bay]

Actually, what I meant was that only attorneys, as far as I know, are entitled to per se liable relief, for the damage to their reputations, as I was once sued by an attorney for liable (it was dismissed, he lost) who later fled the state.

[Bonaparte]

"...what I meant was that only attorneys, as far as I know, are entitled to per se liable relief.."

Any litigant can move for that.

[Bonaparte]

Here is a thumbnail explanation of what libel per se is.

Let's say you stated, "Hermione Street Walker, of Jaybird Trailer Park, ain't nothing but a big fat whore."

Let's further agree that this was not a privileged communication and you said this in broadly disseminated written or verbal form.

It would not matter what explanatory circumstances or evidence accompanied that statement. Truth would not be a defense nor would Hermione have to show evidence of actual malice, because the statement per se would tend to subject her to "ridicule, contempt or disgrace."

I have not yet read American Mourning, but I'm certain the authors did not label Sheehan as a "dirty old lady," "deviate" or "pervert" or characterize her as "sleazy," "immoral" and the like. In this respect, writing anything more than a simple recitation of well-documented, objectively stated facts obtained from a non-privileged source would expose the authors to adverse summary judgment of libel per se.