Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sarah Palin’s case against The New York Times

Sarah Palin’s case against The New York Times

Karma and justice might be on her side.

It appears that President Donald Trump isn’t the only major political figure battling the media.

However, instead of using Twitter, former Governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is using the legal system.

She is suing The New York Times for defamation over a recent editorial tying one of her political action committee ads to a 2011 mass shooting that severely wounded Arizona Democrat Gabby Giffords and killed six people​.

The Manhattan federal court lawsuit, filed Tuesday by lawyers Kenneth Turkel, Shane Vogt and S. Preston Ricardo, accuse​s​ the Gray Lady of having “violated the law and its own policies” when it accused her — in a “fabricated story” — of inciting the 2011 attack by Jared Lee Loughner.

Palin, who emerged on ​​the national political scene as running mate to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, is seeking damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at trial.

The lawsuit is in direct response to The Times’ controversial June 14th editorial about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise paper, which accused Palin of “political incitement” ahead of the 2011 shooting.

The paper said Palin incited th​​e shooting, which left ​congresswoman ​G​abby Gifford​s​ with a severe brain injury, through an ad from her PAC that put “Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

Can she prevail in court given the high bar set for public figures in showing defamation? There are many good reasons to think that she can.

To start with, her legal team already has experience winning high profile cases on behalf of its celebrity clients.

Her lawyers are Kenneth Turkel and Shane Vogt of the Tampa, Florida-based Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, who were recently part of the legal team representing pro wrestling star Hulk Hogan—whose real name is Terry Bollea—in a famous invasion of privacy suit against Gawker.

…Turkel and Vogt were among the lawyers representing Hogan in a lawsuit stemming from Gawker’s publication on its website of a surreptitiously recorded video of Hogan having sex with a friend’s wife.

In a result that sent chills down the spines of media executives and their companies’ in-house counsels, a Florida state court awarded Hogan a $140 million verdict.

Hogan, whose legal team was led by famed Beverly Hills lawyer Charles Harder, ended up settling with Gawker for $31 million. Gawker is now defunct, and its parent company, Gawker Media, was sold to Univision in the wake of its declaration of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Fox News Channel’s Gregg Jarrett notes that one element of a defamation case is that the plaintiff must show that the publisher knowingly published false information.

Ever since the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, it has been nearly impossible for public figures to win, even though their good names have been roundly trashed by certain mendacious news organizations (which, I realize, is redundant).

But Palin’s lawsuit is different. Why? Because the newspaper’s own published stories demonstrate that the editorial it ran was false. A reasonable journalist would know it was false. You’d have to be a complete idiot not to know it.

Hence, the Times’ only defense to the Palin defamation case is to argue, “we’re idiots, we’re morons, we don’t read our own newspaper… so we never knew that what we were publishing was an obviously false and defamatory editorial. Again, we’re idiots.”

Furthermore, in a defamation case, actual malice to the public figure must be shown. PJ media contributor and noted authorMichael Walsh asserts that this will be very easy for Palin to prove.

If “actual malice” is the hurdle over which the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate has to jump, that would seem to be a relatively low bar when it comes to the media. Few public figures have been as vilified as Mrs. Palin. After she electrified the convention crowd with her acceptance speech in 2008, a stunned media quickly regrouped and set out to destroy her. Until Donald Trump came along, she was the most hated political figure in America by the institutional, academic and media Left.

Malice? They had it in spades.

Finally, the case for defamation can be enhanced if the publisher does not offer a full and fair correction. Given the farcical nature of The New York Times correction, including the fact it never mentioned Palin by name, I think the Palin’s legal team can make a valid case that no such correction was offered.

55. The Times published a second online correction, which proved equally lacking. Still devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin, this second correction (the “Second Attempted Correction”) was issued because the original column mischaracterized the subject map of targeted electoral districts as placing stylized cross hairs on Gabrielle Giffords and other lawmakers – individually – thus continuing to support the false narrative that there was a direct link between Mrs. Palin and Loughner’s vicious attack.

It would be wonderful to see Palin’s team prevail in this legal battle. Karma and justice might be on her side.

——————-

Sarah Palin v. New York Times – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

.

Sarah Palin v. New York Times – Exhibits to Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Sure would be nice if she sued the Slimes into total bankruptcy. To where the rag folded completely.

Fox News Channel’s Gregg Jarrett notes that one element of a defamation case is that the plaintiff must show that the publisher knowingly published false information.
[…]
Furthermore, in a defamation case, actual malice to the public figure must be shown.

This is wrong. “Actual malice” is not a further condition; knowingly publishing false information (or not caring whether the information is true or false) is the definition of “actual malice”.

PS: Walsh compounds his error:

If “actual malice” is the hurdle […] Few public figures have been as vilified as Mrs. Palin. […] a stunned media quickly regrouped and set out to destroy her. […] she was the most hated political figure in America

None of this is even remotely relevant; this hurdle has nothing to do with what emotions lie in the defendant’s heart. The NYT editors could hate Palin like the Devil himself but if they cared about not lying they would not have “actual malice”. Or they could actually rather like her in person, but if they’re willing to lie for the sake of ratings or a Pulitzer, that is “actual malice”. National Enquirer, with its complete indifference to the truth, is the very definition of “actual malice”.

Poor Leslie.

“Karma” and “justice” are not part of defamation law.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | July 4, 2017 at 11:01 am

    No, but they are part of the world, and since the law appears to be on Palin’s side karma and justice seem likely to be served.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2017 at 11:07 am

      If the law is on her side, the law will be served.

      There is zero chance that ‘karma’ and ‘justice’ will be served. Our LEGAL system is not a ‘justice’ system, as I’ve often observed. I’m pretty sure that ‘karma’ isn’t even in play.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | July 4, 2017 at 11:31 am

        There is zero chance that ‘karma’ and ‘justice’ will be served.

        How so? When people get their just deserts, karma is served. When the things that ought to happen do in fact happen, justice is served. These don’t happen all the time, but do you not agree that sometimes they do happen? And do you not further agree that a Palin win in this case would be both of these things?

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 4, 2017 at 12:15 pm

          No. For justice to be justice, it would have to be consistent, and not a matter of happenstance.

          Since “karma” is nothing I know anything about, maybe it could obtain by caprice. But I tend to doubt it.

          Would a Palin win be “justice” and “karma”. I’m not qualified to speak to those concepts in this context, for the reasons cited. Would a Palin win even be legal? Dunno. Let’s see…

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | July 4, 2017 at 12:54 pm

        There is zero chance that ‘karma’ and ‘justice’ will be served. Ha!

        You summed it up well here:

        I’m not qualified to speak …….,

        If she wins, the good Karma will be coming from many of us. I am sending my “good” Karma to her as I type. As for justice, is that not a court win?

        3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.

        Not sure why you love the Gray Lady. Hopefully Obamacare will kill her. BTW, Trump won the election.

        Oh, please don’t respond with the classic phrase that you have been using for almost 10 years about lair floating….. It is getting old.

        Thanks Leslie for the post. I appreciate reading the filing.

        http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1086

        justice

        n. 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal. One problem is that attorneys, judges and legislatures often get caught up more in procedure than in achieving justice for all. Example: the adage “justice delayed is justice denied,” applies to the burdensome procedures, lack of sufficient courts, the clogging of the system with meritless cases and the use of the courts to settle matters which could be resolved by negotiation. The imbalance between court privileges obtained by attorneys for the wealthy and for the person of modest means, the use of delay and “blizzards” of unnecessary paper by large law firms, and judges who fail to cut through the underbrush of procedure all erode justice. 4) an appellate judge, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, a member of a Federal Court of Appeal and judges of any of the various state appellate courts.

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 1:02 pm

          “Not sure why you love the Gray Lady.”

          Not sure from what part of Uranus you plucked that gem, but it has nothing to do with me or any comment I’ve made.

          Lemme know when you’ve practiced law for a decade, and know WTF you’re talking about. I mean outside of a definition of “justice” as a concept you don’t really understand, and won’t encounter in life.

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 1:11 pm

          Lemme know when you’ve practiced law for a decade, and know WTF you’re talking about.

          Hopefully you will do the same. Same goes for Astronomy.

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 1:27 pm

          Just did, moron.

          Barry in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 1:54 pm

          “Not sure why you love the Gray Lady.”

          Simple answer. Raggsy doesn’t like Leslie because she is a Trump supporter.

          He loves the NY slimes because it slimes President Trump.

          When a wrong gets righted, justice is served. Karma gets served since the actions of the slimes result in the slimes getting their just rewards, should Mrs. Palin prevail.

          Raggsy has too much “character” to understand…

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 2:05 pm

          Naturally, being a T-rump sucking cultist, Butt-hurt Barri just lie and lies.

          TWOT (total waste of time)

          “Just did, moron….Naturally, being a T-rump sucking cultist, Butt-hurt Barri just lie and lies…So WTF…??? Rock those delusions, nutter…!!!…”

          How is this witless character permitted to continually and single-handedly bring such embarrassment to this otherwise excellent and respected blog?

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 3:12 pm

          I often ask that question when reading your one-note samba of hate, meanness, and nasty.

          “Silver-back”….??? Really, racist…???

          Barry in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 3:54 pm

          “sucking cultist”

          Example: The deranged nevertrumper

          A true cultist

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 5:34 pm

          An Alinski TWOT.

          That counts as a twofer…

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | July 4, 2017 at 7:18 pm

          Minimillion, why bother slobbering that lie again?

          Really. Find another lie.

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | July 5, 2017 at 12:17 am

          I think I saw him handing out business cards that the ER at Lifecare Hospitals of North Texas-Dallas. Ten years sure has paid off that you can spend so much time using big words like moron, liar, float, etc. I love it, the next Gloria Allred after the sex change operation.

        maxmillion in reply to Ragspierre. | July 4, 2017 at 7:12 pm

        Go vote for Hillary again, raghead.

    Rags: If that’s the best you can do to refudiate my post, then I am going to kick back and enjoy the rest of my day.

    Happy Independence Day to you and yours, as well as all the other Legal Insurrection readers who stopped by for my Palin update.

      Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 4, 2017 at 1:06 pm

      I was just pointing out that you are as irrational sometimes as the environazies.

      The law of defamation is no more subject to “karma” or “justice” than the laws of physics.

      Enjoy your fantasizing day…!!!

        You really have become unhinged over the years. I don’t believe for one second that you are a practicing lawyer or anything else you have claimed to be over the years. You seem to have a Buckaroo Banzai fantasy so maybe you also fronted the Rolling Stones at one time.

        “No. For justice to be justice, it would have to be consistent, and not a matter of happenstance.”

        Talk about incomprehensible baffle gab! What does that even mean?

        There is nothing fuzzy or defective in anything Leslie wrote in her post. Do you even know why we have courts in the first place? They exist not only to process legal paperwork but to HEAR testimony in the pursuit of justice for the aggrieved. Do you not understand that? Parties don’t sue just so courts can mechanically apply laws. Justice is often rooted in the humanity that is usually found lurking between the lines.

        Judges and juries LISTEN for the SOUND OF TRUTH. That is why we have HEARINGS of oral testimony rather than READINGS of written testimony. That is why PEOPLE do the reading and hearing instead of machines processing what was submitted in writing.

        Context matters. A changing political environment is a major component of that context. The same words that may not have persuaded a judge and/or jury in 2008 may resonate very differently in 2017 in today’s socio-political climate to the same judge and/or jury. Wouldn’t that karma?

        I expect that, unless Carlos Slim plans to eat a nine-figure jury award, the NYT will settle. Wouldn’t THAT be karma? Wouldn’t THAT be JUSTICE? Wouldn’t it have been brought about by the PRACTICE OF LAW? Geez, I swear….

        As I read your nonsense every day, I have learned to bite my tongue rather than argue with crazy people. But you have evolved into the very definition of obnoxious. What do you REALLY do for a living?

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm

          “I don’t believe for one second that you are a practicing lawyer or anything else you have claimed to be over the years.”

          STFW? The Prof. knows my law firm address. I’ll send him my State Bar Of Texas number at his request. I’m admitted to practice in every court in Texas, along with several Federal districts in Texas.

          What you “believe” is a matter of your own nutter delusions. I could care less.

          Objective truth puts you on the hater/nutter bench of drooling morons.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 4, 2017 at 2:27 pm

          “A changing political environment is a major component of that context. The same words that may not have persuaded a judge and/or jury in 2008 may resonate very differently in 2017 in today’s socio-political climate to the same judge and/or jury.”

          No, stupid. That would fit the definition of “prejudice”. Which is sorta the OPPOSITE of “justice”.

          Proving my point, you idiot.

          I love you nutters of the tribe of the R! You are SOOOOOOOO easy.

        Lord Whorfin in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm

        Sorry, Rags. You lost me.

        Lord Whorfin in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2017 at 4:46 pm

        Sorry, Rags. You lost me. Buckaroo also not happy.

      Leslie, your name on any post is a raggsy dog whistle.

      You should be ashamed triggering the old fart.

      Ragspierre in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 4, 2017 at 2:09 pm

      Naw, liar that you are, I don’t bother with many of Leslie’s posts. I don’t care about her Kulhifornia reports or her “T-rump train” cheer-leading from a self-confessed Deemocrat.

      I find the latter embarrassing, but a great big “meh”.

      When she wobbles into an area of law, however, I feel some need to push back.

        It is such an honor for the rest of us “idiots” when Buckaroo Banzai shows up to lecture us about what stupid, misinformed liars we are. You are so impossibly obnoxious that even people who tend to agree with you will give you a thumbs down just to see your head explode. It’s a cheap thrill but a thrill nonetheless.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 4, 2017 at 2:45 pm

          Really? How would you know this?

          But, hey, you take whatever “thrills” you can in life. I doubt you have any legitimate ones. So WTF…??? Rock those delusions, nutter…!!!

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | July 4, 2017 at 3:57 pm

        “I don’t bother with many of Leslie’s posts”

        Sure.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 4, 2017 at 5:37 pm

          True fact, TWOT. Anybody with any integrity can check it out.

          You, of course, are excluded…

          Barry in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2017 at 7:07 pm

          I have.

          You’re prevaricating, again.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2017 at 7:30 pm

          You’re a lying TWOT.

          MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm

          Ouch, I think Gloria just hurt Barry’s feelings. Not!

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 5, 2017 at 9:28 pm

          Another immoral TWOT T-rump sucker self identifies.

          Excellent, moron.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | July 6, 2017 at 10:02 am

          Leslie, who is a coward, pulled down a post in which I posted several examples of her posts that I never commented on.

          But anyone who has ANY integrity can review her posts over several weeks to find that I made no comment on many/most of them, in direct contradiction of the liar Butt-hurt Barri.

tarheelkate | July 4, 2017 at 10:51 am

It would be satisfying to see Palin win. The NYT and other liberal media outfits need to be more careful about what they publish. With the clear evidence from its own site that it knew or should have known what it said was false, I wonder if this won’t go to a large settlement fairly quickly.

ScottTheEngineer | July 4, 2017 at 11:27 am

Thats gonna leave a mark.

… the ‘unsinkable’ grey lady is going down… tmz/enquirer could buy them out…

Interesting that Mark Thompson, the CEO of the NY Slimes Company was formerly director-general of the equally slimey BBC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson_(media_executive)

Just what we need: euro liberals running America’s newspapers.

Maybe Mattell will give Thompson his own Ken doll – like they did rachel maddow!
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/06/21/mattel-gives-ken-dolls-a-millennial-makeover/

Rags, your view of justice seems a bit like intersectionality: so long as there remains one person in the world who does not have justice there can be no justice at all, and the manifest justice that everyone else enjoys is a cruel illusion.

I think I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s ultimately a radical view, one that expects the world to be perfect and therefore laments when it’s not, rather than expecting it to be flawed and therefore celebrating when it’s not. Yes, everyone deserves justice, and not everyone gets it. But once in a while someone does, and in my opinion whenever this happens we should be happy.

In this instance it appears that the law is solidly on Palin’s side (do you dispute this?), and since justice is also on her side (as I’m sure you agree) it would appear that in this instance justice will be served, no matter how many other instances of injustice will continue to exist.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | July 5, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    Shorter answer, Palin supports Trump. She deserves no justice.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 5, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    Milhouse, in this your seem like your are full of shit.

    “Justice” is a concept that considers perfection. “Justice” is an idea I associate with the metaphysical.

    I have no flucking idea where you get “intersectionality”.

    For justice to BE justice, it HAS to be consistent. It cannot be a matter of happenstance, caprice, or “it happens sometimes”.

    I’d bet money that Jewish thought holds a very similar concept of justice.

    Generally, people can’t DO justice. They can only do “legal”. In the very best outcomes I’ve seen in court, “justice” was nowhere to be found.

    NOBODY gets justice from our legal system. NOBODY gets justice from the world. We see someone getting what we might call “their come-upins”, but that ain’t “justice”.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2017 at 10:23 pm

      What a bunch hot air and so off topic. Who cares what Justice is according to Gloria. Talk about arrogant self importance.

      What matter is to read the filing and ask if it has enough legs to carry the case. I think it does. Grow-up and stop being a baby about “Justice” and using your standard terms of calling everyone a liar that disagrees with you. Your potty put downs really make me wonder if you are just a cracker jack lawyer from a pay for a degree college.

      A good legal mind would discuss the merits of the filing, much like the discussions about the Zimmerman case. Something I have not seen from you since I started coming here.

Leslie, thanks for the posting the filing. I enjoy reading it and look forward to real discussion about it as the case proceeds through the system. This is something that we do not get from the mainstream media.

One or two of the several things you won’t find in any discussion of the legal merits (or their lack) from anyone who has any legal chops is reference to “justice” or “karma”.

Because, see, those are not part of defamation jurisprudence.

Idiots.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | July 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    I repeat “Who cares what Justice is according to Gloria.”

    If you actually read what Leslie wrote, she never said that Justice or Karma was part of the defamation jurisprudence.

    Here is what she said:

    “It would be wonderful to see Palin’s team prevail in this legal battle. Karma and justice might be on her side.”

    I don’t recall Justice or Karma cited in the filing, so you are making up more fake stuff. Par for the Gloria course.

    What I believe is you have issues with Leslie and anyone who does not support your position and you over react to it with a very fowl tone.

    Grow up or crawl back to your own blog which must not have been very successful or you would not be posting here.

    I think you need a pet or something, but I probably should not suggest that, for the pet would lost in that relationship too.

    You may have legal chops but I have not seen it at LI. The only thing I have seen is self-aggrandizing. You might want to seek help for that.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    One or two of the several things you won’t find in any discussion of the legal merits (or their lack) from anyone who has any legal chops is reference to “justice” or “karma”.

    Because, see, those are not part of defamation jurisprudence.

    Idiots.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend