CONDIT SUES DUNNE FOR $11M

New York Post ^ | 12/17/02 | DAN MANGAN

[kattracks]

December 17, 2002 -- Gary Condit slapped Dominick Dunne with an $11 million slander lawsuit yesterday, accusing the Vanity Fair writer of falsely claiming he was involved in intern Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder.

The suit says Dunne - a chronicler of crimes of the rich and famous - dished dubious dirt about lame-duck California Rep. Condit, including suggesting that his links to Arab diplomats and motorcycle gangs led to Levy's demise.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Condit is a moron. Good luck proving "actual malice" since you are a public figure.

By commencing suit, all he is asking for is trouble.

[kattracks]

If this goes to trial Condit might be called to testify, right? And maybe his aides too?

This could get very interesting.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Condit would have to testify if subpoenead. There is no right not to testify in civil cases. Especially when you are the plaintiff. He'll be deposed too before testifying. I really don't know what he thinks he can get out of this except bad press.

[martin_fierro]

So far Condit has sued Dunne and NBC's "Law & Order".

Who's next? I suspect it'll be the guy (LeBoutellier?) who was pushing the story that Levy was kidnapped/killed, at Condit's request, by some homosexual Caribbean biker club.

In any event, Gary, civil discovery can be a bitch.

[dougherty]

I really like Dominick Dunne and have many of his books in my library. Just imagine the book he will eventually write about all of this. It ought to be one his best, lol.

[kattracks]

I like him too. I'd like to see a book from Mark Fuhrman on this case.

[MistyCA]

I would be really surprised if Mark Fuhrman was not working on this case. One of the best outcomes of the Simpson case was unleashing Fuhrman :)

[dalebert]

Good news. More good news from the Condit.

[DonQ]

"I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen," Dunne said earlier this year.
But "Dunne had no reliable or credible source for the slanderous statements," says the Manhattan federal court suit....

The reliable source was Condit himself, who refused repeatedly to explain his relationship with Levy except to say that he "was not the perfect husband". He was stonewalling every step of the way, even dawdling on interviews with the FBI and DC police. Even John Gotti didn't act that way. Condit even dared to seek re-election on the premise that returning him to Congress would make him more conveniently positioned for the continuing investigation ... as if he wouldn't answer questions if he lost the election.

Someone should have warned Condit that bringing a suit like this would open him up to questions on the witness stand that so far he has refused to answer. A historic precedent is Oscar Wilde suing the Marquis of Queensbury for libel ... and then being so thoroughly investigated and cross-examined that he wound up being arrested and going to prison.

[mewzilla]

Condidit must be desperate for money.

Paging Mark Furhman...

[ContemptofCourt]

Wow! No right not to testify in civil cases.....I'll be sure to tell my clients and the judge that one, seeing how I've been doing it wrong all these years.....now that I know that the 5th Am does not apply in civil cases......

[Quilla]

"I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen," Dunne said earlier this year.

I think Gary Condit was involved in Ms. Levy's disappearance and death. Can a person be sued for saying what they think? I wouldn't think so.

[Stingray51]

What he obviously meant was that an inference can be drawn from taking the Fifth in a civil case whereas it cannot in a criminal case.

[wideawake]

I think he could have

This is the language that Condit hopes to hang an $11M lawsuit on? Good luck, you twisted freak.

[AnAmericanMother]

Ya beat me to it, contempt . . .

What GGSTV may be thinking of, though, is that if you "take the Fifth" in a civil case, it is construed against you. Thus if you refuse to answer a question the trier of fact presumes that it would have been answered to your detriment. Which tends to lead to summary judgment almost before you can say, "Ah did not have sex with that . . . "

That said, I can't IMAGINE what he's thinking. He can't seriously want to open himself up to the discovery process, with not only relevant and admissible evidence but anything "calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" on the table!

[eno_]

Right you both are. Condit has just made himself into a "project" for Dunne to work on. He might as well strap himself into Sparky now and save time and trouble.

[eureka!]

Excellent points on the scope of discovery. Dunne's attorneys are going to go far and wide in discovery--and not just with Condidit. Try his party pals too. This thing may take another life of its own....

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Precisely, that is what I meant. I also meant to infer that, if subpoenead, he has to take the stand in a civil case, wherein, if he was a defendant in a criminal trial, he does not have to.

Dunne's attorney will have a field day with Condit during the discovery process. Like Lott, it seems like Condit doesn't know when to shut up and know when enough is enough.

[Bonaparte]

[Dunne]: "I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen..."

If Dunne said nothing more definite than this, Condit's action is frivolous and will be tossed. You can't sue a writer merely because he expressed an unflattering opinion. He actually has to make a claim that is defamatory and that can be shown to be false. Condit and his lawyer are probably just hoping for some pocket change in settlement from Dunne so he can spare himself the expense of actually going to trial. I don't think it's going to work.

[tuna_battle]

I'll tell you whom Condit could successfully sue for slander -- and it's not Dunne. It's Dick Morris. Morris appeared on Hannity & Colmes weeks before 9/11, and did not use words like "allegedly" or "think". Sean actually corrected Morris, after he spoke, suggesting he use a word like "allegedly" before saying "he killed her".

Condit appears to be desperate for money, since losing his plush job in the House. Desperate people do desperate things; there's some money in this for Condit (as sickening it is for me to admit), but it's through Morris not Dunne.

[RichInOC]

Gary...friendly suggestion. Honest. Find yourself a biography of Oscar Wilde and read it. Let's just say that libel suits don't always end the way you wanted them to.

[Landru]

FYI.

...looks like the condit snake's beginning to move once again.

[dighton]

Shhhhhhhhhhh!

Not a word about d-i-s-c-o-v-e-r-y until he's neck-deep in it.

[Howlin]

Surely you know that they can be deposed.....and they can try to take the 5th.........and you MUST know that a judge can MAKE them testify.

[Howlin]

Man, this is going to be FUN...........how dumb can this guy be?

We'll get to hear EVERYTHING now.......even rumors!

And Dunne will NOT back down.

[amused]

He sued Law and Order?

A fictional TV show?

[Centurion2000]

Gary Condit slapped Dominick Dunne with an $11 million slander lawsuit yesterday, accusing the Vanity Fair writer of falsely claiming he was involved in intern Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder.

Just being a little picky but shouldn't this be libel?

Criminy, where are the decent, grammatically journalists these days?

[martin_fierro]

I kid you not.

[dighton]

Find yourself a biography of Oscar Wilde and read it. Let's just say that libel suits don't always end the way you wanted them to.

As Condit wasn't posing as a somdomite, I'm sure Oscar Wilde's case has nothing to do with him.

SUE GARY SUE!

;-)

[amused]

Heile Scheiz!

Frightening...truly frightening.

I think above posters have said it best...be careful what you wish for Gary. We may see a wrongful death suit(in the least) sprout from your attempts to punish your critics.

[martin_fierro]

Just being a little picky but shouldn't this be libel?

I think "Slander" is being used in the more generic sense here, à la:

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Just being a little picky but shouldn't this be libel? I think things are backwards under NY law. Slander is libel and libel is slander. Or everything is slander. Why, I don't know. I just remember that tidbit while studying for the NY bar.

[theFIRMbss]

>Wood added that similar suits by Condit against others are likely.

Oh, oh. Who first used
the famous phrase, Condit-It!   ?
Will he sue FR?!

[RichInOC]

As Condit wasn't posing as a somdomite...

You're sure about that?

[dighton]

Hmmmmm. If he was (and I'd hate to cast aspersions on his character), d-i-s-c-o-v-e-r-y ought to turn it up.

SUE GARY SUE!

[BikerNYC]

Condit would have to testify if subpoenead. There is no right not to testify in civil cases.

Yes there is.

[dighton]

Anyway, Wilde took his £2M award, moved to France, and lived happily ever after. Condit has nothing to worry about.

;-)

[RichInOC]

Well, there was that two-year stopover in Reading...no big deal, right?

[evil grin getting more evil by the second]

[dighton]

"The Ballad of Reading Resort"

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Assuming the court has jurisdiction over you, the subpoena is served properly, the subpoena is not overbroad, or is quashed for lack of relevancy, you have no presumptive right not to take the stand. If you are a criminal defendant, you have a consitutional right not to testify.

Certainly in this situation, Condit's testimony is relevant and a subpoena would be not be quashed on those grounds.

Note what I said very carefully, he has to testify meaning he has to take the stand. He could not get around that. He could always plead the fifth, but the judge could overrule the objection and compel him to answer, or construe his pleading the fifth against him as a matter of law.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Just being a little picky but shouldn't this be libel?

I went back and looked at some materials I have lying around here. I stand corrected. It should be libel and not slander. Sometimes statements made over the television or radio are considered slander. But they become libel is the statements are sufficiently permanent, premeditated, and broadly enough disseminated. New York, however, condiers all of those statement libel.

Obviously, if the statements were published in a newspaper or magazine, the action would be in libel.

The media confuses these terms all the time, just like they always say, "X plead innocent to the charges of Y," when X actually can't plead innocent as a matter of law, and has to enter a plea of not guilty, guilty, or nolo contendre (if allowed in the jurisdiction), and actually entered a plea of not guilty.

[AnAmericanMother]

I like Georgia's term for defamation by radio or television: "Defamacast." :-D

Have you read the A.P. Herbert Uncommon Law case dealing with the burning question of whether insulting messages conveyed by the International Code of Signals at Sea (flags) are slander or libel?

[PhilDragoo]

I don't think Condit could pass a drug test, let alone a relentless cross-examination.

He should have continued playing dead; now he will wish he were.

[Balata]

Oh, oh. Who first used the famous phrase, Condit-It! ? Will he sue FR?!

I don't think he wants a piece of FR. Check some of FR's old threads on Condidit. FR was always weeks ahead of anyone else during the Condidit mess.

I have some questions I would like to ask Condit if he was ever under oath.

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Howlin]

Maybe the trial will come up next summer; a good way to beat the heat. Got any old Condidit bookmarks? :-)

[Betty Jo]

from my lips to the worlds ears....

Gary Condit is a sexual-psycho-serial killer!

Sue me Condit!

I want your brothers in on this too.

They both helped you!

[DryFly]

Re: the Uncommon Law, I enjoyed the case that held that a negligence action would not lie against a woman as a "reasonable prudent woman" standard was an oxymoron!

[AnAmericanMother]

:-D

There's no such thing as a "reasonably prudent man" either. I think (I'm at my mom's and my copies of Uncommon Law and Codd's Last Case are at the office) that Herbert was the one who did the riff about the reasonably prudent man being that repulsive fellow that everybody hates - who always looks before he leaps, always reads the directions, never goes out without an umbrella, etc. Yuck! If he were in my family, I wouldn't own to him.