Quantcast
Channel: Defamation – South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Bluffton mayor awarded $50M in defamation claim  

0
0

Beaufort County jury has awarded $50 million to the mayor of Bluffton after finding that she had been defamed for years by an outspoken critic of local government officials. 

On Feb. 3, the jury ordered Calvin “Skip” Hoagland to pay $40 million in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

Henderson

Mayor Lisa Sulka alleged that in 2015 Hoagland began a false campaign against her, hurling malicious public statements intended to harm her reputation and subject her to mental anguish. Hoagland accused Sulka of various wrongdoings in office through published numerous emails to several officials, alleging, among other things, that she used city employees to sell memberships in the Hilton Head Chamber of Commerce, misappropriated and misused funds, engaged in unfair competitive practices, and committed IRS violations. 

John Parker and Daniel Henderson of Parker Law Group in Ridgeland represented Sulka. They said that the defamatory acts occurred primary through email but also included newspaper publications and public statements. They called Hoagland’s emails “rambling” and “incoherent,” adding that he continued to “publish them with vigor” despite knowing that they were not accurate. 

Parker and Henderson said the verdict wasn’t the reaction of a runaway jury, but a fair return, and that while Sulka hasn’t recovered the award, “hope springs eternal.” They also said it was “an honor and privilege [to represent] a person of Mayor Sulka’s character.” 

According to the complaint Hoagland falsely stated many times that Sulka is a corrupt, mentally ill criminal who should be removed from office and publicly shamed. 

In one email to South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and others, Hoagland allegedly wrote, “What are you all going to do about our lying crooked, corrupt real estate agent Mayor Lisa Sulka? … How much of her incompetent corrupt happy horse manure are we all supposed to stand? You understand she illegally used town employees to profit a private corporation correct? Not to mention her real estate dealings.” 

Parker

Hoagland is the founder and president of Domains New Media, another platform Hoagland was accused of using to launch his attacks, according to that publication’s website. According to the complaint, Hoagland in one email wrote that he would stake his 40-year reputation that Sulka was involved in “massive wrongdoing.” 

Hoagland fired the attorney hired by his insurance company and chose not to participate in the trial. He told reporters before the trial began that he wouldn’t show up because he couldn’t be pursued for something that he didn’t do, and that his statements weren’t defamatory, only attempts to hold an official accountable. In Hoagland’s absence, Sulka introduced 12 witnesses and presented 50 exhibits in proving her case. 

Hoagland also chose to forgo the reading of the verdict. According to the Associated Press, Hoagland laughed when he was informed of the verdict, saying, “That’s a joke, right? … That’s insanity.” 

Hoagland did not immediately respond to an email from Lawyers Weekly seeking comment on the case, but reportedly told The Island Packet in Bluffton that he is happy with the “predetermined” decision because it allows him to seek damages for free speech violations by a “lawless, filthy, frivolous” suit aimed at silencing a government critic. 

VERDICT REPORT — DEFAMATION 

Amount: $50 million 

Injuries alleged: Emotional distress, fear, and injury to reputation and standing in community 

Case name: Sulka v. Hoagland and Domains New Media, LLC 

Court: Beaufort County Circuit Court 

Case No.: 2017-CP-07-01547 

Judge: Maite Murphy 

Date of verdict: Feb. 3 

Insurance carrier: PURE Insurance 

Attorneys for plaintiff: John Parker and Daniel Henderson of Parker Law Group in Ridgeland 

Attorney for defendant: None 

The post Bluffton mayor awarded $50M in defamation claim  (access required) first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.


Defamation suit against competitor over false claims, $2.5M settlement

0
0

Action: Defamation

Injuries alleged: Damage to reputation and character; loss of value and business in the industry

Case name: Withheld

Court/case no.: Withheld

Jury and/or judge: Withheld

Amount: $2.5 million

Date: May 17, 2023

Attorneys: Barrett R. Brewer of Brewer Law Firm, Mount Pleasant, and Edward L. Phipps of Phipps Firm, Charleston (for the plaintiffs)

The plaintiff company and an individual brought a defamation action against a competitor. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant published false allegations that the plaintiffs engaged in criminal conduct and were unfit for their occupation.

Claims involved general presumed damages, special damages to the plaintiffs’ reputation and character, as well as special damages to the plaintiff company’s loss of value and lost business opportunity in the industry, supported by business valuation expert reports.

Identities of the parties, defense counsel and specific venue were agreed to be confidential as per the terms of the settlement agreement.

The post Defamation suit against competitor over false claims, $2.5M settlement first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Bundy ordered to pay $50M-plus in defamation case

0
0

A far-right activist who led the takeover of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, an associate and three of their groups must pay over $50 million in damages after a hospital in Idaho won a defamation lawsuit against them.

The lawsuit by St. Luke’s Regional Health accused Ammon Bundy and Diego Rodriguez of making defamatory statements against the hospital and its employees after Rodriguez’s infant grandson was removed from his family for several days and taken to St. Luke’s amid concerns for his health.

The emergency room physician, Dr. Rachel Thomas, testified that the 10-month-old baby’s stomach was distended, his eyes were hollow, and he was unable to sit up, reminding her of severely malnourished babies she had treated in Haiti, the Idaho Statesman newspaper reported. Police said at the time that medical personnel determined the child was malnourished and had lost weight.

Bundy responded by urging his followers to protest at the hospital and at the homes of child protection service workers, law enforcement officers and others involved in the child protection case. Rodriguez wrote on his website that the baby was “kidnapped,” and suggested that the state and people involved in the case were engaged in “child trafficking” for profit.

The hospital claimed Bundy and Rodriguez orchestrated a smear campaign against it.

Late Monday, a jury at the Ada County Courthouse in Boise agreed, awarding the hospital damages exceeding $50 million, the hospital announced.

A statement on behalf of the law firm representing the plaintiffs said Bundy, Rodriguez and their supporters had surrounded St. Luke’s hospital campuses in Meridian and Boise, forcing lockdowns and causing diversion of emergency patients, disruption of planned procedures and cancelation of hundreds of appointments.

“The jury’s decision imposes accountability for the ongoing campaign of intimidation, harassment and disinformation these defendants have conducted,” St. Luke’s said in a statement. “It also affirms the importance of protecting health care providers and other public servants from attacks intended to prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities.”

Bundy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the jury’s decision. Bundy wasn’t represented by an attorney, nor was Rodriguez, according to court papers.

Lindsay Schubiner, programs director at Western States Center, an organization monitoring right-wing extremist groups, said the verdict “is a moment of real accountability for Ammon Bundy and his reckless campaign against St. Luke’s.”

The jury’s verdict requires Bundy to pay the plaintiffs $6.2 million in compensatory damages and $6.15 million in punitive damages and Rodriguez to pay $7 million in compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages, according to Holland & Hart, the law firm, representing St. Luke’s. The remainder of the total $52.5 million in damages was assessed to the People’s Rights Network, Freedom Man Press and the Bundy campaign for governor.

Bundy and his People’s Rights Network had earlier carried out protests at the Idaho Statehouse over coronavirus-related measures. He was temporarily banned from the government building in 2020.

In 2016, Bundy led a 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, to protest the arson convictions of two ranchers who set fires on federal land where they had been grazing their cattle. Bundy was acquitted of criminal charges in the matter.

The hospital’s lawsuit was filed more than a year ago. Since then, Bundy has ignored court orders related to the lawsuit, filed trespassing complaints against people hired to deliver legal paperwork, and called on scores of his followers to camp at his home for protection when he learned he might be arrested on a warrant for a misdemeanor charge of contempt of court.

In 2014, Bundy’s father, rancher Cliven Bundy, rallied supporters to stop officers from impounding Bundy Ranch cattle over more than $1 million in unpaid fees and penalties for grazing livestock on government land. The Nevada criminal case ended in a mistrial.

The post Bundy ordered to pay $50M-plus in defamation case first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against CNN

0
0

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit Donald Trump filed against CNN in which the former U.S. president claimed that references in news articles or by the network’s hosts to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election as “the Big Lie” were tantamount to comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

Trump had been seeking punitive damages of $475 million in the federal lawsuit filed last October in South Florida, claiming the references hurt his reputation and political career. Trump is a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination in what is his third run for the presidency as a major-party candidate.

U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, who was appointed by Trump, said Friday in his ruling that the former president’s defamation claims failed because the references were opinions and not factual statements. Moreover, it was a stretch to believe that, in viewers’ minds, that phrase would connect Trump’s efforts challenging the 2020 election results to Nazi propaganda or Hitler’s genocidal and authoritarian regime, the judge said.

“CNN’s use of the phrase ‘the Big Lie’ in connection with Trump’s election challenges does not give rise to a plausible inference that Trump advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews or any other group of people,” the judge wrote in his decision.

Email messages seeking comment were sent to Trump’s attorneys in South Florida and Washington. CNN declined to comment on Sunday.

 

The post Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit against CNN first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Judge orders Giuliani to pay fees in defamation case

0
0

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday held Rudy Giuliani liable in a defamation lawsuit brought by two Georgia election workers who say they were falsely accused of fraud, entering a default judgment against the former New York City mayor and ordering him to pay tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers’ fees.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the punishment was necessary because Giuliani had ignored his duty as a defendant to turn over information requested by election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss, as part of their lawsuit.

Their complaint from December 2021 accused Giuliani, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers and a confidant of the former Republican president, of defaming them by falsely stating that they had engaged in fraud while counting ballots at State Farm Arena in Atlanta. In a statement Wednesday, the women said they had endured a “living nightmare” and an unimaginable “wave of hatred and threats” because of Giuliani’s comments.

“Nothing can restore all we lost, but today’s ruling is yet another neutral finding that has confirmed what we have known all along: that there was never any truth to any of the accusations about us and that we did nothing wrong. We were smeared for purely political reasons, and the people responsible can and should be held accountable,” they said.

The ruling compounds the legal jeopardy for Giuliani at a time when he and Trump are both among 19 defendants charged this month in a racketeering case related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. It also creates the potential for a massive financial penalty for Giuliani as the case proceeds to a federal trial in Washington to determine damages he may be liable for.

He will have a “final opportunity” to produce the requested information, known under the law as discovery, or face additional sanctions if he fails to do so. In the meantime, Howell said, Giuliani and his business entities must pay more than $130,000 in attorneys’ fees.

“Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straight-forward defamation case, with the concomitant necessity of repeated court intervention,” Howell wrote.

Howell said that aside from an initial document production of 193 pages, the information Giuliani had turned over consisted largely of “a single page of communications, blobs of indecipherable data” and “a sliver of the financial documents required to be produced.”

Giuliani has blamed his failure to produce the requested documents on the fact that his devices were seized by federal investigations in 2021 as a part of a separate Justice Department investigation that did not produce any criminal charges.

Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, said in a statement that the judge’s ruling “is a prime example of the weaponization of our justice system, where the process is the punishment. This decision should be reversed, as Mayor Giuliani is wrongly accused of not preserving electronic evidence that was seized and held by the FBI.”

Last month, Giuliani conceded that he made public comments falsely claiming the election workers committed ballot fraud during the 2020 election, but he contended that the statements were protected by the First Amendment.

That caveated stipulation, Howell said, has “more holes than Swiss cheese” and suggested Giuliani was more interested in conceding the workers’ claims than actually producing meaningful discovery in the case.

“Yet, just as taking shortcuts to win an election carries risks — even potential criminal liability — bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions, no matter what reservations a noncompliant party may try artificially to preserve for appeal,” she said.

Moss had worked for the Fulton County elections department since 2012 and supervised the absentee ballot operation during the 2020 election. Freeman was a temporary election worker, verifying signatures on absentee ballots and preparing them to be counted and processed.

Giuliani and others alleged during a Georgia legislative subcommittee hearing in December 2020 that surveillance video from State Farm Arena showed the election workers committing election fraud.

As those allegations circulated online, the two women said, they suffered intense harassment, both in person and online. Moss detailed her experiences in emotional testimony before the members of Congress investigating the Capitol insurrection. The Jan. 6 committee also played video testimony from Freeman during the hearing in June 2022.

The post Judge orders Giuliani to pay fees in defamation case first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Judge dismisses state lawmaker’s defamation suit

0
0

OMAHA, Neb. — A judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by a Nebraska lawmaker against a conservative political action committee that labeled her a child “groomer” and sexual abuser in online posts, citing the constitutional right to free speech.

State Sen. Megan Hunt sued the Nebraska Freedom Coalition and three of its officers after they repeatedly targeted her in social media posts, even suggesting she had sexually abused her own child. The attacks came as Democratic lawmakers, like Hunt, and conservative lawmakers in the officially nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature clashed over a Republican-backed bill to ban gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 19.

The judge threw out the lawsuit on Wednesday before it could be heard by a jury, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled. Douglas County District Judge Todd Engleman’s ruling said the Nebraska Freedom Coalition’s “hyperbolic language” in the posts showed that the accusations were statements of opinion rather than fact, making them protected speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The PAC, which routinely posts profane material on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, began targeting Hunt in tweets in March after Hunt publicly shared in a legislative floor speech that her 13-year-old child is transgender. She called the bill an affront to her and other parents caring for transgender teens.

Nebraska Freedom Coalition not only attacked Hunt, but also posted images of Hunt’s child. In her lawsuit, which sought an unspecified amount in damages and legal costs, Hunt said the group’s posts led others to join in on the online harassment. Hunt said she was called a “groomer” on Twitter “no fewer than 231 times.”

She also received dozens of harassing calls and emails; some threatened her with physical harm.

The judge cited a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that deemed “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” in his dismissal of the lawsuit, noting that such debate often includes “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” on public officials.

“Because of this country’s profound commitment to freedom of speech, the statements at issue are not actionable as a matter of law,” Engleman wrote.

Hunt’s attorney and former colleague in the Legislature, Adam Morfeld, said he and Hunt were surprised by the ruling and are considering an appeal.

“No mother, regardless of whether they are an elected official or not, should be accused of abusing their child when there is absolutely no basis in fact, and then receive physical threats,” Morfeld said.

The Nebraska Freedom Coalition issued a statement on social media lauding the dismissal as win for free speech.

“This victory underscores the pivotal role played by organizations like NFC in safeguarding the rights of citizens to engage in political discourse without fear of retribution,” the statement said.

The Nebraska bill at the center of the controversy was later amended and passed on a single vote. It bans gender-confirming surgery for anyone under 19 and restricts the use of hormone treatments and puberty blockers in minors. That bill also folded in a 12-week abortion ban.

At least 22 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states face lawsuits. An Arkansas ban that mirrors Nebraska’s was struck down by a federal judge in June as unconstitutional and will be appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court — which also oversees Nebraska cases.

The post Judge dismisses state lawmaker’s defamation suit first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Judge limits Trump lawyers’ arguments in defamation trial

0
0

NEW YORK — A judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s lawyers can’t present legal arguments to a jury assessing damages at a defamation trial on a jury’s conclusion last year that he didn’t rape a columnist in the mid-1990s.

U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan made the determination Saturday in an order in advance of a Jan. 16 trial to determine defamation damages against Trump after a jury concluded Trump sexually abused columnist E. Jean Carroll but did not find evidence was sufficient to conclude that he raped her.

Speaking at a presidential campaign event Saturday in Iowa, Trump criticized the judge as a “radical Democrat” and mocked Carroll for not screaming when she was attacked.

“It was all made up,” he said.

Carroll, 80, won a $5 million award last May from a jury that concluded Trump sexually abused her in 1996 in a luxury department store dressing room and defamed her in 2022.

Trump did not attend the Manhattan trial where Carroll testified that a chance encounter at a Bergdorf Goodman store across the street from Trump Tower was flirtatious and fun until he slammed her against a wall in a dressing room and attacked her sexually. Trump has vehemently denied it.

In this month’s trial, a jury will consider whether damages should be levied against Trump for remarks he made after last year’s verdict and in 2019 while he was president after Carroll spoke publicly for the first time about her mid-1990s claims in a memoir.

Carroll’s lawyers had asked the judge to issue the order, saying that Trump’s attorneys should not be allowed to confuse jurors this month about last year’s verdict by trying to argue that the jury disbelieved Carroll’s rape claim.

They said the jury’s finding reflected its conclusion that Trump had forcibly and without consent digitally penetrated Carroll’s vagina, which does not constitute rape under New York state law but which constitutes rape in other jurisdictions.

Carroll’s lawyers said the “sting of the defamation was Mr. Trump’s assertions that Ms. Carroll’s charge of sexual abuse was an entirely untruthful fabrication and one made up for improper or even nefarious reasons.”

A lawyer for Trump did not immediately return a message Saturday.

Carroll is seeking $10 million in compensatory damages and substantially more in unspecified punitive damages at the trial. She will testify and Trump is listed as a witness. The trial is expected to last about a week.

The post Judge limits Trump lawyers’ arguments in defamation trial first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Court dismisses professor’s lawsuit against student newspaper

0
0

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — A judge Monday dismissed a University of Notre Dame’s professor’s defamation lawsuit against a student-run publication over news coverage of her abortion-rights advocacy.

St. Joseph County Superior Court Senior Judge Steven David found that sociology professor Tamara Kay’s assertions that The Irish Rover’s coverage of her was false and defamatory were unfounded.

“The Court concludes that Dr. Kay does not present any evidence that shows that The Irish Rover had any doubts about the truth of their statements before they were published. By failing to present such evidence, the Court concludes that Dr. Kay’s defamation claim fails as a matter of law,” David’s ruling said.

The case had raised questions about press freedom and academic freedom at one of the nation’s preeminent Catholic universities.

Kay’s lawsuit disputed some quotes the newspaper used and said it misinterpreted a sign on her door about helping students access health care. She had argued that her motivation was to support sexual assault victims.

An email was sent to Kay seeking comment on the dismissal of her suit.

Joseph DeReuil, the Rover’s editor-in-chief at the time, said in a prepared statement that he “was gratified to see today’s court ruling confirm what we at the Irish Rover were sure of all along: our reporting was completely factual and written in good faith.”

Kay had asked for unspecified punitive damages. Her lawsuit alleged she had been harassed, threatened, and experienced property damage as a result of the articles.

The post Court dismisses professor’s lawsuit against student newspaper first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.


Trump briefly testifies in defamation lawsuit

0
0

NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump was on and off the witness stand at a jury trial Thursday in less than 3 minutes but not before breaking a judge’s rules on what he could say by claiming that a writer’s sexual assault allegations were a “false accusation” and he wanted to defend himself and the presidency.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan swiftly instructed jurors to disregard those remarks from Trump, who didn’t look at the jury when he approached the witness stand, when he testified or when he stepped down.

Once the jury had left, Trump let his displeasure be known as he was almost out the door by turning his head and shaking it as he looked back toward a packed room, saying: “This is not America. This is not America. This is not America.”

The limits on Trump’s testimony were placed on him by the judge when he decided prior to the trial that a previous jury’s finding that Trump had indeed sexually abused advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in spring 1996 in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store and defamed her with remarks in 2022 must be accepted by the new jury.

That earlier jury awarded Carroll $5 million at a Manhattan trial Trump did not attend. The current judge instructed this jury to consider only what additional damages, if any, Trump must pay Carroll. Her lawyer had requested $10 million in compensatory damages and substantially more in punitive damages.

During his brief stint testifying Thursday as Carroll looked on with her lawyers, Trump answered questions from his lawyer, Alina Habba. She told the judge beforehand that her questions were intended to elicit that Trump stood by an October 2022 deposition in which he vehemently denied Carroll’s claims and called her a “whack job” and “sick.”

She said she also wanted to show that Trump did not intend anyone to harm Carroll.

“She said something I considered a false accusation,” Trump said from the stand.

A lawyer for Carroll objected and the judge told jurors to disregard the remark.

Later, Trump said: “And I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency.”

That, too, drew an objection and another instruction from the judge for the jury to disregard it.

Carroll claims Trump ruined her reputation after she accused him for the first time publicly in a memoir of sexually abusing her in spring 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman store across the street from Trump Tower.

Trump, 77, has vehemently denied the accusations for the last five years and continues to assail Carroll, 80, on the campaign trail as he pursues the presidency as the Republican frontrunner.

The current trial, which already featured testimony by Carroll, focuses only on statements Trump made in June 2019 while he was president. Those claims had been delayed four years by appeals.

Soon after Habba out of the presence of the jury announced that her client would testify, Trump could be heard saying aloud: “I never met the woman. I don’t know who the woman is. I wasn’t at the trial,”

That comment prompted Kaplan to respond: “I’m sorry Mr. Trump. You’re interrupting these proceedings. … That is not permitted.”

Habba told the Manhattan federal court judge that Trump was her last witness after a lunch break and that she would be brief.

“I want to know everything he’s going to say,” Kaplan told Habba.

Kaplan reminded lawyers and Trump of the limits he had placed on his testimony.

Trump ‘s lawyers began his defense Thursday with the expectation that he’d be called as a witness to fight the lawsuit.

Trump’s testimony was announced after Carroll’s lawyers finished the presentation of their case by showing jurors video clips of the Republican front-runner in this year’s presidential race saying at a Jan. 17 campaign rally that Carroll’s claims were a “made-up, fabricated story” and a 2022 deposition deriding her as “a liar and a very sick person.”

Trump attended the trial two of three days last week and let the jury know — through muttered comments and gestures like shaking his head — that he was disgusted with the case against him.

After Carroll’s lawyers rested Thursday, Habba asked for a directed verdict in Trump’s favor, saying that it was clear from Carroll’s testimony that there was insufficient proof to allow the jury to find damages.

“Your honor, Ms. Carroll didn’t prove her case, period,” she said.

Kaplan denied the request.

Prior to resting, Carroll’s lawyers called a single witness — Roberta Myers — who testified that Carroll was a “truth teller,” an accomplished writer with a long history of unleashing a “tremendous amount of empathy and a great sense of humor” in her popular monthly advice column while Myers was editor-in-chief of Elle magazine from 2000 to 2017.

It was after her testimony that Carroll’s attorneys showed the video clips, including portions of Trump’s October 2022 deposition when he denied knowing who Carroll was.

One snippet shown to jurors was when Trump during his deposition misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples.

Trump, fresh off big victories in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and the Iowa caucuses last week, appeared relatively subdued in court prior to his testimony compared to his appearances last week. He mostly gazed straight ahead, expressionless, though he seemed to move his lips along with the movement of his mouth in the video showing him saying the trial was rigged.

The trial had been suspended since early Monday because of a juror’s illness. When it resumed Thursday, the judge said two jurors were being “socially distanced” from the others in the jury box.

Even before testifying, Trump had already tested the judge’s patience. After he complained to his lawyers last week about a “witch hunt” and a “con job” within earshot of jurors, Kaplan threatened to eject him from the courtroom if it happened again. “I would love it,” Trump said. Later that day, Trump told a news conference Kaplan was a “nasty judge” and that Carroll’s allegation was “a made-up, fabricated story.”

Trump’s attorneys have tried to show the jury through their cross-examination of witnesses that Carroll has gained a measure of fame and financial rewards through taking on Trump that outweigh the death threats and other venom slung at her through social media.

The current trial is in addition to four criminal cases Trump faces as the presidential primary season heats up. He has been juggling court and campaign appearances, using both to argue that he’s being persecuted by Democrats terrified of his possible election.

The post Trump briefly testifies in defamation lawsuit first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

Defamation settlement prompts website’s shutdown

0
0

A far-right, unofficial Catholic media website has agreed to pay $500,000 to a New Hampshire priest who sued for defamation over a 2019 article that the site now disavows.

The website also is planning to shut down soon, the priest’s attorney says.

The apology by Church Militant came after the organization agreed last week to a federal court judgment in favor of the Rev. Georges de Laire, an official with the Diocese of Manchester. This legal setback comes just months after its founder’s resignation over a breach of its morality clause.

“As part of the parties’ resolution, Church Militant has represented that it will be shutting down at the end of April,” attorney Howard Cooper of the Boston law firm Todd & Weld, which represented de Laire, said via email.

St. Michael’s Media, the parent firm for the Michigan-based news site, did not immediately confirm the shutdown plan to The Associated Press, and a phone message to its attorneys was not immediately returned. But the Church Militant website said it was closing its online store and having a “Lenten Liquidation Sale” of crucifixes, statues, books and other items.

Church Militant and its sleek newscasts drew a loyal following for years with a mix of fiercely right-wing politics and radically conservative Catholicism in which many of America’s bishops were viewed with suspicion and disgust. It “is not recognized as a Church apostolate” and lacks authorization to promote itself as Catholic, according to the Archdiocese of Detroit, in whose territory it is based.

The legal settlement follows the November announcement that Michael Voris, who founded St. Michael’s Media and its media outlet, was stepping down as president. The organization said it accepted his resignation due to his “breaching the Church Militant morality clause,” without providing details.

De Laire also sued Voris individually. The court set an April 15 trial date, but Voris asked for an extension for medical reasons.

The 2019 Church Militant article, titled “NH Vicar Changes Dogma Into Heresy,” cast aspersions on de Laire’s emotional state, said he had “botched” cases he had handled and was known as a “troublemaker” in the Vatican — all claims the site now acknowledges were not properly vetted.

De Laire is the judicial vicar of the Manchester Diocese.

At the time, the article was posted anonymously. Church Militant now acknowledges that it was written by Marc Balestrieri, a canon lawyer, and said it could not substantiate the claims in the article. Church Militant stated that Balestrieri didn’t disclose his role in a dispute with the diocese, “which would have raised questions about the motive” for the article.

St. Michael’s Media “sincerely apologizes for their part in any distress or damage they may have caused Father de Laire,” it said Thursday on its website.

Although St. Michael’s Media didn’t identify the specific case, Todd & Weld’s statement said Balestrieri was representing a New Hampshire group, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Saint Benedict Center. The Vatican said the group was teaching outside of acceptable church doctrine, and de Laire followed with a decree in 2019 prohibiting the group from presenting itself as Roman Catholic or purporting to hold Roman Catholic services on its property.

Balestrieri criticized Church Militant for agreeing to the settlement, saying in an email he had been “conditionally willing” to testify in the case. He asserted that he is being made the scapegoat when he was actually acting as a whistleblower. He criticized St. Michael’s Media for accepting the judgment. He said he’s willing to testify when Voris’s case comes to trial.

De Laire also sued Balestrieri individually. According to the case docket in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, the court clerk issued a default judgment against Balestrieri in 2022 after he “failed to respond” to the case. Balestrieri said by email he had received no “effective communication” from the court before then.

Church Militant has long had a controversial role in the church, even with its unofficial status.

Around the time Voris stepped down, articles on the site featured a climate crisis denier, criticized efforts at LGBTQ+ inclusion and gave a platform to Bishop Joseph Strickland — recently ousted from his Texas diocese by Pope Francis after his increasingly severe criticisms of the pontiff.

In 2016, Voris acknowledged that when he was younger, he had for years been involved in “live-in relationships with homosexual men” and multiple other sexual relationships with men and women, actions he later abhorred as “extremely sinful.”

In 2021, Voris’ group was initially denied permission to rally outside a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore, with city officials saying it posed a threat to public safety in part because they said the site “promoted and exalted” the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Voris claimed the city wrongly blocked the event because it disapproved of the group’s message, and a federal appeals court overturned the city’s decision.

The post Defamation settlement prompts website’s shutdown first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.





Latest Images