Friday, January 24, 2014

The Quashing of Free Speech in America: Bogus Defamation Suits Against Conservative Bloggers (and Mark Steyn parts ways with NRO)

At least you have discovery to look forward to...
Mark Steyn braved Canadian Islamist free speech phobes only to face the tedious and expensive reality of global warming alarmist and the U.S civil justice system: The wheels of justice grind slow and exceedingly fine...and the millers are billing at hundreds of dollars an hour...

Mann wins Round One.
Mann wins Round Two.

Meanwhile RSM, W.J.J. Hoge, Aaron Walker, Ali Akbar and others face another weak lawsuit from Kimberlin and Company. As Hoge and McCain note: Lots of lies in that case...

Then there is those in government supposedly looking out for our interests (that was sarcasm, definitely not).

And what was suspected to be coming has come, Mark Steyn is parting ways with NRO:

As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don't-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.
It is NRO's loss. We always (well at least so far) have SteynOnLine

If Mark Steyn has a legal defense fund link, I will link it. Meanwhile here is Stacy McCain's link for Bloggers sued by Bomber.

This is your America now...

TOM: The attack on Huckabee
Instapundit: The attack on D'Souza and Mark Steyn lawsuit status
AoSHQ: enemies list
TOM: Mark Steyn vs a Thin Skinned Bully


  1. You do realize, I assume, that this is documentation of our demise. I am dead serious. I wonder why I ever served on behalf of any others. For what? Today? Nothing.

    I/we (better half & me) just finished with a defamation tort that could show no damages, let alone harm of any kind, and it cost $7500 in legal fees for the very good attorneys we engaged. The original proposal, vis a vis small claims court, was $3000 in "damages" (whihc there were and are none) and some of the involved persons criticism of us is for not just paying out the $3000 to settle. It was a false claim, nothing to "settle" but today, that is apparently no longer an issue...just pay up and shut up is the de rigueur response required. You just "owe" it to the system...because shut up.

    I am in the mood to just go out this afternoon and knock some shit-head to the ground for fun.

    Oh, wait...

    1. Remember when Great Britian had out of control defamation suits all the time? but they said not in America (because of the whole absense of malice doctrine). Of course that led to abuses by tabloids with celebrities and the pendulum has swung the other way. And the left has picked up on it and is using it.

      Most businesses and individuals in America, when sued, tender to insurance for defense. But the small blogger and most journalists are not insured in a manner to take advantage of that (or if they are the deductibles are so high it really does not matter).

  2. PS: the reason we pay the costs is that the victory was a dismissal without prejudice, thus no responsibility is attributed. Hell of a system we today. $0 adjudicated versus $10K demanded for "settlement" last night. WE are fully and truly fucked in this new system of guilty until you prove your innocence.

  3. I don't know what insurance an individual can buy for claims of defamation protection, damn sure isn't homeowners. Who underwrites "destroying my faith in God" anyway. No shit, that was it. First file a few police reports alluded to "harassment" but no damage or evidence to support it...e.g., the Prosecutor does nothing....when they should prosecute for filing false police reports. Then, police "reports" in hand, go to small claims and ask for something under $10, and hope the defendant is stupid and let it go to a 10 cent "magistrate" sans license. You know they can't take it to trial in Circuit Court for less than $25K and so do they seek a lessor sum as extortion, and try to keep it in District Court for adjudication. Figuring you will pay up rather than pay a lawyer. Wrong bitches. Lawyers gotta eat too...and they like winning. End result, you pay $7.5 to your attorney (I hope theirs gets stiffed, I suspect that is the case). I'd pay double that plus just to deny the fuckers a dime of extorted money...if it got real personal, they'd wish we'd never met, if they survived. I am not a nice person.

    1. Gonna check that homeowner policy....never thought it might have coverage in the category.

    2. Aridog, remember that the duty to defend the homeowner is way broader than the duty to indemnify the insured. Which usually means (in many jurisdictions) even a remote chance of coverage means the insurance company has to defend.

      Which is fine because it the defense that costs more than any payout (which is remote at best).

    3. We're checking and will talk to Insurance folk on Monday. However, our intent is not to make demands, or ask for full coverage of the defense costs. We'd be happy as pigs in a wallow for the equivalent of the original $3K claim or less, even just as credit against future policy costs. Most policies say about defense and indemnity that the Ins. Co. hires the attorneys of their choice, etc etc. and retains full control of case disposition.

      In this case it is likely, from a financial stand point, such attorneys would have sought to "settle" at some figure less than demanded, but more than we intended to pay, which was zero to the plaintiffs. Very simply, any settlement would be an admission in colloquial terms and in fact be compensation for 100% fraud, and however slight, still a slander on reputation. So, yeah, we hired good attorneys that I have hired in the past for serious matters (the IRS) and paid about double the figure I cited, in sort $15K to beat a claim that could have been settled initially for $2-$3K in small claims court.

      The tort system today is abused as I think most of us know. Especially when used to take revenge for false criminal complaints that went no where. The idea that you should settle a false claim so long as it is less than the cost of trial, etc is demeaning, and lets the frauds win. It is not about what you lose, and we lost more than comfortable (in fees), but that the liar does not benefit in any measure. The injustice is when people are accused in a similar manner who cannot manage to hire good lawyers and defend 100%. It almost seems the system is designed to allow this today.

      Thank you very much for your suggestion, obviously I was blinded by the anger of just having to deal with it all at all. If we recover a dime I will be delighted.

    4. Good luck with this. Keep your eyes open obviously.


I welcome all legitimate comments. Keep it civil. Spam will be deleted. Thanks.