Posted on 12/01/2006 5:57:05 AM PST by OPS4
Thursday, November 30, 2006
FIRST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL $165 million WND suit smashes previous record National media ignoring massive action filed by Democrat fund-raiser for Gore
Posted: November 30, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The $165 million lawsuit filed against WND and two freelance writers who wrote a comprehensive series exposing Al Gore's record of corruption in Tennessee during the 2000 presidential campaign would smash any judgment that has ever held up in such a court proceeding.
WND was named as defendant in the action, along with the two journalists who wrote a series of 18 investigative reports during the 2000 presidential race, most of them documenting allegations of corruption involving then-Vice President Gore and others in Gore's home state.
Some Tennessee observers believe the series had such impact that it was responsible for Gore losing the state and thus the presidential election. Had Gore won his home state, the disputed Florida vote would have been meaningless and Gore would have had enough electoral votes to become president.
The lawsuit stems from the reports, which ran from September to December 2000, that included information about a Savannah, Tenn., auto dealer, friend of Al Gore and Democrat activist named Clark Jones.
Jones, who raised more than $100,000 for Gore's presidential campaign, alleges personal embarrassment and humiliation from the articles, which said he reportedly intervened in a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation probe into narcotics trafficking in Hardin County in 1999. The car dealer also alleges the articles implicated him in the 1980 arson of his own business, the Jones Motor Company, and also pegged him as a suspected drug dealer.
In his lawsuit against WND, Jones is demanding the record-breaking $165 million in damages.
According to public records, the highest final award that ever resulted in a U.S. media libel, privacy or related case was a $58 million decision in the lawsuit by a prosecutor in Texas against a television station that broadcast a report accusing him of taking bribes in drunken driving cases, and even that was "settled" for an undisclosed amount before appeal.
A WND survey of such damage cases, claims and awards also found a jury verdict of $222.7 million for Texas securities firm MMAR Group Inc. against the Wall Street Journal, which reported on alleged investigations into MMAR's dealings with client money. But that one was reduced to $22.7 million by the judge, and later erased altogether when it became known the plaintiff withheld evidence from the defendant during the trial.
The full story here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53152
UPDATE:
Judge bows out of WND lawsuit
Tennessee Supreme Court must appoint replacement to hear $165 million case.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25514
a story that mentions Gore and the 2000 election = SORE LOSER
The First Amendment does not protect libelous speech, but truth is an absolute defense. The MSM will likely continue to ignore this case for fear that the defense will prevail on that issue.
Typical RAT response to criticism.
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
McCain - Fiengold
There appears to be a BIG difference between what Mr. Hays thinks and the actual wording of the First Amendment. In addition, Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution already places limitations on the press. And if McCain-Fiengold can limit free speech the "Press" can be limited also.
Mr. Hays appears to have missed some basic civics classes.
I sJones denying the allegations made in the stories? It's very tough to win a libel case in the United States -- this ought to be a doosey.
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.