Posted on 01/12/2007 2:20:37 PM PST by EdLake
The Hatfill v The New York Times lawsuit has been dismissed in a Summary Judgment. Here's the Docket entry which appeared today (January 12, 2007):
ORDER It appearing to the Court that Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter be STRICKEN from this Court's trial docket. An appropriate Memorandum Opinion and Order shall issue. Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton on 1/12/07. Copies sent. (tarm, ) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
Conspiracy theorists should line up in three lines and restrict themselves to no more than 5 theories per person.
Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com
Ed
Thanks.
ping
You can read a better explanation on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/anthrax_hatfill
That the judge would issue a summary judgment in a case where he had already been overturned by the Appeals Court suggests:
1. The judge is playing favorites. Whether for political or other reasons is unclear.
2. The case will be appealed again. It ain't over.
bttt
"This makes the motion by the government to dismiss the case on "state secret doctrine" grounds a moot issue."
Or it influenced his decision.
Unlike the judge in DC, IIRC, this New York judge hadn't been pushed on a bunch of occasion on secrecy issues and finally said effectively "no more."
Gee, do you think some people are going to be scratching their heads and wondering just what the heck is going on???
I don't think I've ever seen an instance where a civil suit was dismissed, the dismissal overturned on appeal, and then later dismissed again by the same judge without even so much as an explanation. I too imagine that Hatfill will most certainly be appealing again, and that the Appeals Court is going to wonder just what the grounds was for dismissal this time.
By the way, don't forget that there's another branch of government called the legislature that still might be wondering what the heck is going on here, particularly the U.S. Senate (one of the targets).
And something tells me that they might not be as satisfied to simply file it and forget it as this Judge Hilton is judge because of some nebulous appeal to "state secrecy", especially with the Democrats now in control.
BTTT
Ping.
Agree with Shermy that the Sates Secrets influenced the judge. Who filed it? Which government agency? I suspect CIA. The NYT was asking for details on the powder formulation.
This guy is obviously a worthless idiot who has no interest in adjudicating this case.
The whole thing is a huge crime. I think we all as a free people have a right to know. There was enough in those envelopes for everyone. We are all targets.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I don't usually do this, but I think I'm going to write my Representative and two Senators a letter or e-mail asking them to subpoena both the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General demanding to find out what's going on. You may want to do the same. I may cc all of the new members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on it too.
I think I might also send an e-mail to Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media. He's a true patriot, and one of the few people who's been following this case closely and demanding justice while trying to hold the government's feet to the fire.
Actually, that would tend to favor the New York Times.
And, if he's a Democrat, the perp...
Hilton is a judge in the Eastern District of VA, same court where Moussaui was tried
Well...As much as I dislike the NYT they weren't reckless in their reporting. They merely recapped John Ashcroft's statements about a biowarfare scientist as a person of interest in the case. This was neither libelous or defamatory. it was a statement of fact at the time.
I notice that Hatfill was only asking for 75,000 dollars. Suggests to me that his attorney was hoping for half that to make the case go away. The NYT has spent ten times that in legal fees.
Here's the "translation" from the New York Times:
Judge Rejects Defamation Suit Against The Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 13, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a suit against The New York Times by a former government scientist who said he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001.
The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., granted a motion by The Times to dismiss the suit but did not provide an immediate explanation. He is expected to file a detailed written opinion in coming days.
It was the latest and, perhaps, final chapter in a suit that has gone to the Supreme Court.
The scientist, Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a specialist in biological weapons, had said in his suit that the columns by Nicholas D. Kristof about the anthrax mailings had defamed him.
Mr. Kristof wrote about a government scientist whom he initially identified as Mr. Z, saying he had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, Mr. Kristof wrote that Dr. Hatfill, a former scientist at the Army bioweapons center at Fort Detrick, Md., had come forward and identified himself as Mr. Z and said the news media had treated him unfairly.
Five people died in the anthrax attacks. Although federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as a “person of interest,” he was never charged with any crime, and the attacks remain unsolved.
The Times argued in its dismissal motion that Dr. Hatfill was a public figure, at least for the purposes of the suit, in that he had thrust himself into the public debate about preparedness for a biological attack. That would present him with a far greater burden in showing that he was defamed and could, as the newspaper argued, prevent such a judgment.
The Times also argued that the columns did not blame Dr. Hatfill for the attacks, as he said in his suit. Instead, the paper’s lawyers said, the columns were aimed at pressing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to move more swiftly and either charge or clear Dr. Hatfill as a suspect.
Judge Hilton had dismissed the suit earlier, saying that no defamation had occurred. A three-judge appeals panel voted, 2 to 1, to reinstate the suit, saying a jury should decide whether the columns were defamatory.
The full appeals court, based in Richmond, Va., split, and the Supreme Court refused to intervene.
Judge Hilton’s latest dismissal, when his opinion is published, is expected to rest on a fuller argument than the last time and could thus be less vulnerable to being overturned. It is likely to deal with the issues raised in The Times’s dismissal motion and Dr. Hatfill’s response, including the question of whether he is a public figure for the purposes of defamation law.
Whether there is any leeway for Dr. Hatfill to mount an appeal as he did before would depend on how Judge Hilton fashions his ruling.
A lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, Mark A. Grannis, said, “Obviously we can’t make any statements as to what we’ll do until we see the ruling.”
Mr. Grannis said he did not believe that the case was over.
“It has always been our position,” he said, “that the evidence of defamation was extremely strong and Mr. Kristof fabricated parts of his column to falsely implicate Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks.”
David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The Times, said in a statement: “We are gratified by the judge’s ruling today. In making our summary judgment motion, we believed that the plaintiff had failed to come up with the evidence necessary to bring this case to trial, and we are pleased that the court agreed.”
Mr. McCraw said the case had required a significant investment of time and money on the part of the newspaper, “but in the end, the law of defamation worked the way it was supposed to, by protecting aggressive, important journalism.”
Perhaps the most important item in this is the statement from Mr. Grannis when he said he did not believe that the case was over.
Here's the "translation" from the New York Times:
Judge Rejects Defamation Suit Against The Times
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 13, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a suit against The New York Times by a former government scientist who said he was defamed by a series of columns about the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001.
The judge, Claude M. Hilton of Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., granted a motion by The Times to dismiss the suit but did not provide an immediate explanation. He is expected to file a detailed written opinion in coming days.
It was the latest and, perhaps, final chapter in a suit that has gone to the Supreme Court.
The scientist, Dr. Stephen J. Hatfill, a specialist in biological weapons, had said in his suit that the columns by Nicholas D. Kristof about the anthrax mailings had defamed him.
Mr. Kristof wrote about a government scientist whom he initially identified as Mr. Z, saying he had become the overwhelming focus of the investigation. In August 2002, Mr. Kristof wrote that Dr. Hatfill, a former scientist at the Army bioweapons center at Fort Detrick, Md., had come forward and identified himself as Mr. Z and said the news media had treated him unfairly.
Five people died in the anthrax attacks. Although federal authorities identified Dr. Hatfill as a “person of interest,” he was never charged with any crime, and the attacks remain unsolved.
The Times argued in its dismissal motion that Dr. Hatfill was a public figure, at least for the purposes of the suit, in that he had thrust himself into the public debate about preparedness for a biological attack. That would present him with a far greater burden in showing that he was defamed and could, as the newspaper argued, prevent such a judgment.
The Times also argued that the columns did not blame Dr. Hatfill for the attacks, as he said in his suit. Instead, the paper’s lawyers said, the columns were aimed at pressing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to move more swiftly and either charge or clear Dr. Hatfill as a suspect.
Judge Hilton had dismissed the suit earlier, saying that no defamation had occurred. A three-judge appeals panel voted, 2 to 1, to reinstate the suit, saying a jury should decide whether the columns were defamatory.
The full appeals court, based in Richmond, Va., split, and the Supreme Court refused to intervene.
Judge Hilton’s latest dismissal, when his opinion is published, is expected to rest on a fuller argument than the last time and could thus be less vulnerable to being overturned. It is likely to deal with the issues raised in The Times’s dismissal motion and Dr. Hatfill’s response, including the question of whether he is a public figure for the purposes of defamation law.
Whether there is any leeway for Dr. Hatfill to mount an appeal as he did before would depend on how Judge Hilton fashions his ruling.
A lawyer for Dr. Hatfill, Mark A. Grannis, said, “Obviously we can’t make any statements as to what we’ll do until we see the ruling.”
Mr. Grannis said he did not believe that the case was over.
“It has always been our position,” he said, “that the evidence of defamation was extremely strong and Mr. Kristof fabricated parts of his column to falsely implicate Dr. Hatfill in the anthrax attacks.”
David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The Times, said in a statement: “We are gratified by the judge’s ruling today. In making our summary judgment motion, we believed that the plaintiff had failed to come up with the evidence necessary to bring this case to trial, and we are pleased that the court agreed.”
Mr. McCraw said the case had required a significant investment of time and money on the part of the newspaper, “but in the end, the law of defamation worked the way it was supposed to, by protecting aggressive, important journalism.”
Perhaps the most important item in this is the statement from Mr. Grannis when he said he did not believe that the case was over.
Or it influenced his decision.
Or both. If the case was going to be dismissed for "state secret doctrine" reasons, it is better for Dr. Hatfill for it to be dismissed as a Summary Judgment instead.
With the Summary Judgment, Dr. Hatfill has the ability to appeal. With a dismissal based upon "state security doctrine" reasons, Dr. Hatfill would have no chance for an appeal.
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.