Poof; VIcki Iseman drops her suit against New York Times

The Washington Times ^ | 2/18/09 | jennifer Harper

[lakeprincess]

She drops her $27 million suit against The New York TImes, gets op-ed in return.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This reminds me of that episode of “Seinfeld” where Kramer settles his suit against the coffee shop for a lifetime supply of free coffee.

[Der_Hirnfänger]

it’s not like the NYT has any money she could go after.

[SuziQ]

It will be interesting to see what Ms. Iseman has to say in her Op-Ed.

[FrdmLvr]

She apparently didn't have Jackie Chiles for a lawyer. "Who tol you to put da balm on? I diddn tell you to put da balm on! Who tol you to put the balm on!"

[snarks_when_bored]

This reminds me of that episode of “Seinfeld” where Kramer settles his suit against the coffee shop for a lifetime supply of free coffee.

Kramer vexed poor Jackie Chiles more than once, eh? But Jackie finally got a spectacular reward in the last episode...

[mathluv]

According to Fox, she settled - not dropped.

[razorback-bert]

Oh, and by the way, they're real and they're spectacular!

[Thebaddog]

They must’ve got some other dirt on her and calmed her down.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Ahhh...Teri Hatcher. Back when she wasn’t cadaverous.

[jiggyboy]

Ms. Iseman, however, is not a government or public official, and in our view, not even a public figure. Had this case proceeded to trial, the judicial determination of whether she is entitled to the protections afforded a private citizen would have been the subject of a ferocious, pivotal battle, with Ms. Iseman insisting on her status as a private person and The New York Times asserting that she had entered the public arena, and was therefore fair game.

Niiiiiice. NYT libels you, then when you say, hey, you can't get away with that, I'm not a public figure, they say, sure you are, look at all the press you're getting because you're suing us for libel!"