There's times to be nice and there's times to be not so nice.
Posted on 09/26/2011 4:24:38 PM PDT by BCrago66
The book is giant pile of crap filled with what are certainly endless untruths.
Palin should still ignore it. Any court fight just draws attention to the book. It isn’t selling well anyway and will be soon forgotten. These kinds of outlandish and disgusting personal attacks on Sarah and her family are just old hat now. It’s not just this anti-Palin book that’s failing either. Levi Johnston’s book is also bombing and as a new release is sitting at #1926 in books on Amazon.
Woohoo! Go get ‘em, Sarah. Kick ‘em hard, and when they’re down...kick ‘em harder.
I don’t believe that there is a difference in the legal rights of a public official versus any other public figure.
Sarah Palin is a public figure and will be one whether or not she runs for President.
In order for libel to be shown against a public figure, the public figure has to show actual malice. It appears that in light of the author’s emails, there may well have been actual malice both by him and by Random House.
A "public servant" is an elected official, not a private citizen running for office...........
Please explain how an individual not yet serving the public can be classified as a public servant?????
Even a public person has protection against intentional libel.
And, it's clear she can PROVE the author and the publisher knew the information to be both false and harmful.
Prima facie case of libel.
Random House will shortly have a new owner.
Sorry I doubted you, Bush_Democrat, the part about waiving attorney-client privilege is in there. I’m hoping that discovery of Random House’s legal correspondence will damage that once-respected publisher, and also damage the lawyers who green-lighted this book (unless it was published over the lawyers’ objections.)
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.
You just don’t get it!
Sarah has that damning email from Creepy Joe which should shake RH to the core because usually a libel case is very difficult to prove - in essence her lawyers have put the ball in RH court to resolve this before a case is pursued. The threat of a lawsuit will make RH most likely fold and pull the book off the selves and do other amends — if they are wise
This will also take all books off the shelf...and off Amazon.
It will also cause every news organization in the country to refuse to discuss the particulars...other than the horserace of litigation.
The NYT now has reason to believe the information may be false. So does CNN and Rachel Madcow on MSLSD.
The owner of Random House is German conglomerate Bertelsmann. Mega-corp. Palin could win 100 million and make a dent, but only a dent. But Palin suing would at damage its reputation, and serve as a warning to all publishers who want to remain “respectable.” The slime of the world, Larry Flynt, Gawker, etc., will go on as before.
***********Palin Ping**********
It was one thing when the left was messing with a dirt poor Governor from Alaska. She can now afford the best. The hunted has become the hunter.
“Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!”
Sorry, I just got home and hasn’t seen your request. The letter was linkednin the ABC news report that was in the earlier thread. I see that CedarDave provided the link.
Thanks Dave, I guess the letter doesn’t come up in a google search because it’s a PDF. I just transcribed the pertinent part because I couldn’t copy/paste what I wanted.
“She’s a private citizen.”
That makes her smarter than the average bear. If you recollect, back when she was governor and running as VP, the charges and accusations were flying all around and she had to defend them. When she resigned as governor and became a private citizen she reclaimed her right to counter sue, all that crap stopped.
There has been a howl for her to get into the Presidential race, but the wisdom of staying out has been proven again. She is free to pursue litigation against Radon House and Mc Ginness.
After what has happened to Bachmann, Perry, etal. not declaring is wise. Each candidate with a chance of becoming the Presidential candidate has been swarmed by the lib media and cast off as irrelevant.
I don’t believe that there is a difference in the legal rights of a public official versus any other public figure.
Sarah Palin is a public figure and will be one whether or not she runs for President.
In order for libel to be shown against a public figure, the public figure has to show actual malice. It appears that in light of the author’s emails, there may well have been actual malice both by him and by Random House.
If she wins a large settlement, she should put the proceeds into her own campaign.
Talk about an unconventional campaign...
Hugh Hewitt says he’’ll be first in line for a defense (offense?) fund...drew parallels to Carol Burnett whupping National Enquirer...hahahaha...more notoriety...get em in your cross hairs, Gov.
There's times to be nice and there's times to be not so nice.
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.