Posted on 09/14/2011 5:17:57 AM PDT by Zakeet
LOL
Whether or not a lawsuit by Sarah would be able to proceed depends on whether or not her suit could survive a summary judgment hearing. This decision would be made my one judge.
If that judge was a lefty, good bye lawsuit. Yes, she could appeal, but that could take years and tens of thousands of dollars out of Sarah’s pocket. Meanwhile, McGinnis has spent all his money or hidden it. Sarah is too smart to file such a lawsuit as all it would serve to do is keep the entire subject on the front page and sell some books for Mr. McGinnis.
“I heard she once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.”
I don’t know if that’s true, but I do know she once shot a man just for snoring.
Well, I figured I would ask Sarah AFTER I got clearance from the other two. But thus far, my wife is still saying, “NO!” (Actually there were other words with the “no” but if I repeat those on FR I will get zotted!)
Anyway, I am not giving up, but I do feel fairly certain that it isn’t going to happen! But, HEY, everyone needs a goal! LOL!
Yes it is, thanks for the links.
More gibbering hate-filled nonsense from the Left. Don’t believe a word of it.
She visited Jupiter with Ron Paul, but they broke up over the issue of placing American troops there...
It was in despair over this that she took to snorting cocaine off of 55 gallon drums. Or was it that she snorted 55 gallon drums of cocaine while singing “Fly me to the moon”?
Damn! People are SOOOOOO gullible.
“Oh, you hadn’t noticed she’s wearing a hat in that pic.”
Heck, I didn’t even notice her head...
You imply that because she is a public figure, she has no legal recourse. That is untrue. Public figures may sue in defamation, and may expect to win if certain conditions are true:
“The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a “reasonable person” knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.”
Available at http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
So Palin’s problem is not lack of recourse, but proof of key elements in a public figure case. She would need to show at least two things:
First, she would need to show the claims were indeed false, as truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation.
Second, she would need to present affirmative evidence the defamation was conducted with malicious intent or at least reckless disregard of the truth (aka NYT Malice). Without some admissible smoking gun, such as hard evidence of intent to run the story despite knowledge of facts to the contrary, the defense could respond with a claim that defendant had made a good faith effort to speak the truth, had sincerely tried but failed to discover that the allegations in the story were false, etc.
The net effect is that most defamation suits against public figures either do not go forward or are unsuccessful, because the proof issue is difficult, and everyone knows it. However, it remains true that legal recourse is available even to public figures, and that suit in defamation may succeed if the above criteria are in fact met. Therefore your reliance on the belief that she as a public figure has no legal recourse to defend the honor of her name is misguided. Sorry.
Lol! If true, I’m sure some will just gasp. Most will just scoff. Personally, I don’t care what she did as a single woman. Don’t care if she did snort coke. Hell, she even admitted to smoking pot!
But these things are pointless, as they were wih Clinton, Bush and Obama. If she had been doing this stuff with 5 children while an elected official, I’d have a real problem with it. IOW... If true, it only adds to her appeal... She made mistakes and grew up.
Well at least it was a 55-gallon oil drum. A coffee table would have been much worse.
Run Sarah, RUN! Announce tomorrow. Go get him! Grrrr!
And that's kinda funny actually, because the leading article there is about the "Rogue" Doonesbury strips being pulled from publication in several newspapers. And he's whining about censorship and this being like North Korea.
But he won't take comments on his own blog, hahaha.
Waaaaa...
Didn’t Obama ADMIT to snorting coke in his book?
________________________
Yes, he did.
I believe he went “to” college...however, there is some doubt as to whether or not he was enrolled as a student. LOL. Maybe I should report this to the new DIM site that handles criticisms of nobama???
As another poster has asked on this thread, please provide one example of a former presidential or vice-presidential candidate successfully suing for slander.
Palin isn't just a TV celebrity. She is a former VP candidate.
And if she is looking at running for office again, a lawsuit is basically out of bounds for her.
There are your abstract views. And then there are the realities of the situation. The reality is that McGinnis and other slimeballs like him can throw crap at Palin with impunity.
Apart from politics, does Palin REALLY strike you as someone who spends time snorting cocaine off of oil drums?
REALLY?!
It’s absolutly wrong to snort cocaine off an OIL drum! Cocaine is ONLY snorted off the hood of a Prius if you’re one of the “beautiful” people!!!
Obama, 42, told me recently he had tried marijuana in high school and hasn’t consumed any illegal drugs in 20 years. When I asked if there was anything beyond marijuana in his past, Obama said, “That’ll suffice.” But the book includes a passage in which Obama discusses how he dealt with questions from his mother when he was 17 and a senior in high school. The context of the book also makes clear that he was trying to deal with the problems his race presented.
From Dreams:
“I had learned not to care,” he wrote. “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ...”
“Blow” is a street name for cocaine. “Smack” is slang for heroin.
“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man,” Obama wrote.
Obama last week apologized for not telling me earlier about his past as portrayed in the book. He said I had caught him off guard with the drug question and that, at the time, he had not wanted to overshadow his story of that day - his endorsement by the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v03/n1786/a06.html
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.