G. Gordon Liddy Loses Case On Appeal

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ^ | March 1, 2002 | Court

[The Anti-Democrat]

PER CURIAM OPINION:

This defamation case, filed by Ida Maxwell "Maxie" Wells against G. Gordon Liddy, reaches this court for the second time. Wells's defamation claims are based on statements Liddy made alleging that Wells was involved with a call-girl ring while working as a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1972. The district court initially granted Liddy's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Wells, an involuntary public figure, could not prove that Liddy acted with actual malice. Wells appealed and this court held that under the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could con clude that Liddy acted with actual malice. See Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 542-44 (4th Cir. 1999). This court further held that Wells was a private individual, and therefore, that while a showing of actual malice was required to recover punitive and presumed damages, she needed only to prove that Liddy was negligent in making the statements to recover compensatory damages. On remand the district court held a trial, but the jury was unable to render a verdict. Based upon the trial record, the district court granted Liddy's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that no reasonable jury could find that Liddy was negligent in making the allegedly false statements. Because we determine that the evidence does not preclude Wells from proving that Liddy failed to take reasonable steps in assessing the veracity of his statements, we reverse the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE TO READ THE REMAINDER OF THIS LENGTHY OPINION

[tracer]

The G-Man did not "lose on appeal." The court document reported here apparently set forth the decision of the Appeals Court to "remand for further proceedings consistent with (its) opinion."

So don't count Gordon out just yet. However, it is unfortunate that, as a cursory look at asset title records shows, he holds properties under his own name in Arizona, while all of "his" other assets are listed under that of his wife....

[The Anti-Democrat]

He lost the appeal; you are correct that the case goes on. But call it what you will, this is not good for him, since he had won below.

[Bonaparte]

Thanks for the update. I hope G-Man cleans her clock at re-trial. Too bad that John "The Weasel" Dean and his call-girl wife got off the hook.

[lawyamike]

That's what losing on appeal means. Liddy wanted the case dropped on summary judgment. The court said that he is not entitled to it. There's nothing wrong with the title.

[tracer]

By gum, you're right. Thanks for setting me straight.

Hey, they won't even let me play the part of a lawyer on TV...

[tracer]

Yea, verily. And he didn't do himself any favor by crowing about his temporary victory all over the airwaves a few months ago....

[yarddog]

Actually I think the title is a little misleading even if it might not technically be so.

It does give the impression that Liddy has lost his case when it has not even gone to trial. He has simply lost a round and one in which the opponent had a very low threshold of proof.

[Barnacle]

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE TO READ THE REMAINDER OF THIS LENGTHY OPINION

Are you kidding? Just reading what was shown was torture enough. - Man, am I glad I avoided law school.

[TBP]

Liddy was basing his statements on the book Silent Coup, which was written by two liberal Democrat erporters. I think they pretty much prove their case solidly. This particular claim is part of their overall case that Watergate was not Nixon's operation, but John Dean's. According to the book, Maureen Dean was part of this ring, and Dean wanted the evidence removed. Of course, he didn't tell the operatives who went into the Watergate that, and the allegation that McGovern was getting some money from Cuba provided good cover. But I believe the authors of Silent Coup. By definition, that also means I believe Liddy.

BTW, it seems that on the night they were caught in the DNC offices at the Watergate, the "plumbers" were removing the bug. It had been in place, collecting intelligence, for some time.

[TBP]

"John Dean is a very intelligent, very clever, very shrewd liar."

[Chemnitz]

Wasn't it well known that John Dean married Maureen so she could NOT testify against him? I recall that he took money from the campaign to pay for the honeymoon. Yet he is a liberal hero. I think it was a set-up from the beginning, but that doesn't mean I liked Nixon.

[FreepinFreddy]

It would appear from the excerpt that Liddy is not defending the claim on the grounds of truth. He is instead arguing that no reasonable jury could find that he published the statement with actual malice. It seems Liddy's conceded that she was not a ho.

[Young Rhino]

Wasn't it well known that John Dean married Maureen so she could NOT testify against him?

The marital privilege is that of the spouse invoking it, and can be waived. In other words, John Dean couldn't prevent Maureen from testifying because Maureen could waive the privilege if she chose to do so.

[FreepinFreddy]

And I agree that the title of article is misleading. I would submit that the only way a party who prevailed in the trial court could "lose a case on appeal" would be if the appellate court reversed with directions to enter a judgment for the other party. I know that wasn't clear, but we're probably mostly lawyers on this thread anyway.

[Young Rhino]

Relax. It is the Fourth Circuit, arguably the most conservative in the country.

Morever, the standard for summary judgment construes all of the facts in favor of the nonmovant in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is a heavy burden to prove for the person seeking summary judgment.

At trial, the plaintiff won't enjoy the same presumption. A setback for Liddy, but definitely not a loss.

[Militiaman7]

Well I like Nixon and considering all the underhanded, dirty, dishonest, illegal stuff the demonrats and their waterboys, the unions, have done over the years,Watergate by comparison was childsplay.

[Soaring Feather]

yup agree!

[Donald Stone]

I'm curious,if the Fourth Circuit is arguably the most conservative in the country,how would you rate the Eleventh Circuit,liberal or conservative or somewhere in between ?

[Chemnitz]

Clinton's record was the worst possible. No comparison. But I did not like Nixon's policy in Viet Nam, Henry Kissinger, or Nixon's economics.