This removes what is the usual defense in a case like this which is "Absence of Malice" meaning that their story may be a pack of lies but unless you can prove they knew it was groundless they are protected. This is generally very hard to prove. In this case they have it in writing.
The most famous case I can think of was Carol Burnett v The National Enquirer, she proved that their story had no basis in fact and they knew it. NE had to pay up and say "Sorry!"
Is she running? Your guess is as good as mine. If she was she would sue with this kind of evidence, if she wasn't she would still sue as some of the stuff included attacks on her children.
Personally I have long regretted that dueling is no longer legal.
I second that motion. It would solve a lot of problems if it were.