tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post6359502448021765783..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Lawyers for Hearst Corporation try to wriggle out of defamation count by falsely claiming their article was a "privileged" account of an official court proceedinglegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74891232304168836762017-01-18T06:05:59.294-06:002017-01-18T06:05:59.294-06:00Tim:
Thanks for your insights. I see nothing in t...Tim:<br /><br />Thanks for your insights. I see nothing in the pleadings that Hearst is relying on common-law privilege. The heart of their claim seems to be that this article was a "fair and accurate" portrayal of a court proceeding (as reported in Marie Claire magazine), and thus privileged.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-7499407804291985912017-01-18T00:53:44.054-06:002017-01-18T00:53:44.054-06:00I confess I did not read the pleadings, so this ma...I confess I did not read the pleadings, so this may be off. But, generally speaking, an otherwise defamatory statement will not result in liability if it is privileged.<br /><br />In common law, privilege is defined as a mutuality of interest -- there is an interest by the person who made the statement and a corresponding interest by the person who received it. The interest is the same. In that circumstance, privilege will protect the defamer. Example: Person X applies for a job with McDonalds. McDonalds asks Person X's former employer, Burger King, for a reference. The Burger King manager tells the McDonalds manager that Person X stole orange juice on a regular basis for re-sale on a black market. Person X finds this defamatory. But, because both McDonalds and Burger King have a mutual interest in exchanging this information, the doctrine of privilege may protect Burger King.<br /><br />I wonder if this is what the Hearst lawyers were getting at. Statements made in court proceedings are also privileged, but that would not apply to a magazine publication. The court proceedings privilege applies to things like statements made under oath at trial or written by the parties in pleadings. Hearst would be way off base claiming the court proceeding privilege for its publication. It just does not fit. But they may have been saying that their publication was subject to the broader common law privilege. That would be a better argument, especially since the case involves public persons and the possible application of the First Amendment. It may not be a winning argument, but it's better than the court proceeding privilege. That is an obvious loser.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-35151633638364881052017-01-17T15:49:39.904-06:002017-01-17T15:49:39.904-06:00That's because they did not check the court fi...That's because they did not check the court file, @3:45. Lord, they said there was a trial and the court file clearly shows there was no trial. I certainly was not involved in a trial. I don't know how much more clear the evidence can be that they did not "rely on the record."<br /><br />They relied on Jessica Garrison's mouth, to give her version of what happened, and much of it is false and harmful to my reputation. That's defamation.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-21767883483104403622017-01-17T15:45:54.139-06:002017-01-17T15:45:54.139-06:00I've read the Marie Claire article from beginn...I've read the Marie Claire article from beginning to end, and I see no sign that the author checked the court file.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-48342525863605767952017-01-17T15:06:05.363-06:002017-01-17T15:06:05.363-06:00A corrupt judge will, and the Hearst lawyers will ...A corrupt judge will, and the Hearst lawyers will sit back and not say a peep about it. I've seen it happen over and over. It happens to other parties in U.S. courts every day. No wonder Donald Trump gets "elected" president. We are a country filled with stupid, unethical, inattentive people. legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-57521750321512987582017-01-17T15:03:46.959-06:002017-01-17T15:03:46.959-06:00Does Hearst really think a judge is going to fall ...Does Hearst really think a judge is going to fall for this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-33552873930121410322017-01-17T14:50:58.107-06:002017-01-17T14:50:58.107-06:00Interesting point, Woodie. So Jessica Garrison is ...Interesting point, Woodie. So Jessica Garrison is the author, the story is "by" her, and yet we're supposed to believe Liz Welch checked the court file?<br /><br />This is the kind of tomfoolery -- out and out fraud is a better term -- I've seen over and over in Motions to Dismiss in this case.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-9279897132849842832017-01-17T14:48:35.503-06:002017-01-17T14:48:35.503-06:00I could not help but notice this from the Hearst l...I could not help but notice this from the Hearst legal documents:<br /><br />" . . . author Liz Welch relied not just on Ms. Garrison, but also on the record of her defamation lawsuit."<br /><br />The article clearly says it was "by Jessica Garrison." Liz Welch, by Hearst's own words was not the author at all. Woodienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-19842492880817171912017-01-17T14:44:22.704-06:002017-01-17T14:44:22.704-06:00Does Hearst hire reporters from the Donald Trump S...Does Hearst hire reporters from the Donald Trump School of Journalism? You have a controversy involving at least two parties, and Hearst lets one of them write an article (with Liz Welch as stenographer) without even consulting the other. And when they get stuff wrong about the second party, they claim this form of "reporting" is privileged? What a bunch of con artists!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-6660627392218067412017-01-17T14:39:34.552-06:002017-01-17T14:39:34.552-06:00Can't Hearst afford to hire lawyers who aren&#...Can't Hearst afford to hire lawyers who aren't morons. My God, it says right of the top of the article, it's by Jessica Garrison. So she gets to present her own "truth," and for the parts that aren't the truth, she skates because there was a court proceeding? Pure bullshit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-57150776144302325122017-01-17T12:43:37.448-06:002017-01-17T12:43:37.448-06:00Thanks for pointing that out, @12:41. I remembered...Thanks for pointing that out, @12:41. I remembered the "as told to" part, but it flat out says , with the words "By Jessica Garrison," that this is her story, that she is the author. I had forgotten about that.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-78878543895627275132017-01-17T12:41:44.694-06:002017-01-17T12:41:44.694-06:00No way Hearst can prevail on this issue. Look at w...No way Hearst can prevail on this issue. Look at what the byline says:<br /><br /><br />by JESSICA GARRISON, AS TOLD TO LIZ WELCH<br /><br /><br />The story is by Jessica Garrison. No way that can be considered a fair and impartial reporting of a court proceeding. The very idea is absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-22739027944826707182017-01-17T12:25:59.089-06:002017-01-17T12:25:59.089-06:00That seems to be the argument, @12:23. I challenge...That seems to be the argument, @12:23. I challenge anyone to read the Marie Claire article in question and show that it was based at all on a court proceeding. Here is link to it:<br /><br /><br />http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a16418/jessica-garrison-blogger/legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-18253817380556454802017-01-17T12:23:46.879-06:002017-01-17T12:23:46.879-06:00So Jessica Garrison can lie on the stand and get a...So Jessica Garrison can lie on the stand and get away with it because it was in a court proceeding? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com