CONDIT SUES DUNNE FOR $11M

New York Post ^ | 12/17/02 | DAN MANGAN

[kattracks]

December 17, 2002 -- Gary Condit slapped Dominick Dunne with an $11 million slander lawsuit yesterday, accusing the Vanity Fair writer of falsely claiming he was involved in intern Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder.

The suit says Dunne - a chronicler of crimes of the rich and famous - dished dubious dirt about lame-duck California Rep. Condit, including suggesting that his links to Arab diplomats and motorcycle gangs led to Levy's demise.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Condit is a moron. Good luck proving "actual malice" since you are a public figure.

By commencing suit, all he is asking for is trouble.

[kattracks]

If this goes to trial Condit might be called to testify, right? And maybe his aides too?

This could get very interesting.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Condit would have to testify if subpoenead. There is no right not to testify in civil cases. Especially when you are the plaintiff. He'll be deposed too before testifying. I really don't know what he thinks he can get out of this except bad press.

[martin_fierro]

So far Condit has sued Dunne and NBC's "Law & Order".

Who's next? I suspect it'll be the guy (LeBoutellier?) who was pushing the story that Levy was kidnapped/killed, at Condit's request, by some homosexual Caribbean biker club.

In any event, Gary, civil discovery can be a bitch.

[dougherty]

I really like Dominick Dunne and have many of his books in my library. Just imagine the book he will eventually write about all of this. It ought to be one his best, lol.

[kattracks]

I like him too. I'd like to see a book from Mark Fuhrman on this case.

[MistyCA]

I would be really surprised if Mark Fuhrman was not working on this case. One of the best outcomes of the Simpson case was unleashing Fuhrman :)

[dalebert]

Good news. More good news from the Condit.

[DonQ]

"I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen," Dunne said earlier this year.
But "Dunne had no reliable or credible source for the slanderous statements," says the Manhattan federal court suit....

The reliable source was Condit himself, who refused repeatedly to explain his relationship with Levy except to say that he "was not the perfect husband". He was stonewalling every step of the way, even dawdling on interviews with the FBI and DC police. Even John Gotti didn't act that way. Condit even dared to seek re-election on the premise that returning him to Congress would make him more conveniently positioned for the continuing investigation ... as if he wouldn't answer questions if he lost the election.

Someone should have warned Condit that bringing a suit like this would open him up to questions on the witness stand that so far he has refused to answer. A historic precedent is Oscar Wilde suing the Marquis of Queensbury for libel ... and then being so thoroughly investigated and cross-examined that he wound up being arrested and going to prison.

[mewzilla]

Condidit must be desperate for money.

Paging Mark Furhman...

[ContemptofCourt]

Wow! No right not to testify in civil cases.....I'll be sure to tell my clients and the judge that one, seeing how I've been doing it wrong all these years.....now that I know that the 5th Am does not apply in civil cases......

[Quilla]

"I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen," Dunne said earlier this year.

I think Gary Condit was involved in Ms. Levy's disappearance and death. Can a person be sued for saying what they think? I wouldn't think so.

[Stingray51]

What he obviously meant was that an inference can be drawn from taking the Fifth in a civil case whereas it cannot in a criminal case.

[wideawake]

I think he could have

This is the language that Condit hopes to hang an $11M lawsuit on? Good luck, you twisted freak.

[AnAmericanMother]

Ya beat me to it, contempt . . .

What GGSTV may be thinking of, though, is that if you "take the Fifth" in a civil case, it is construed against you. Thus if you refuse to answer a question the trier of fact presumes that it would have been answered to your detriment. Which tends to lead to summary judgment almost before you can say, "Ah did not have sex with that . . . "

That said, I can't IMAGINE what he's thinking. He can't seriously want to open himself up to the discovery process, with not only relevant and admissible evidence but anything "calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" on the table!

[eno_]

Right you both are. Condit has just made himself into a "project" for Dunne to work on. He might as well strap himself into Sparky now and save time and trouble.

[eureka!]

Excellent points on the scope of discovery. Dunne's attorneys are going to go far and wide in discovery--and not just with Condidit. Try his party pals too. This thing may take another life of its own....

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Precisely, that is what I meant. I also meant to infer that, if subpoenead, he has to take the stand in a civil case, wherein, if he was a defendant in a criminal trial, he does not have to.

Dunne's attorney will have a field day with Condit during the discovery process. Like Lott, it seems like Condit doesn't know when to shut up and know when enough is enough.

[Bonaparte]

[Dunne]: "I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen..."

If Dunne said nothing more definite than this, Condit's action is frivolous and will be tossed. You can't sue a writer merely because he expressed an unflattering opinion. He actually has to make a claim that is defamatory and that can be shown to be false. Condit and his lawyer are probably just hoping for some pocket change in settlement from Dunne so he can spare himself the expense of actually going to trial. I don't think it's going to work.