Gary Condit: The Frankenstein Monster of Defamation Lawsuits
[posted by Justin Levine – not Patterico]
When people ask me, “What’s the dumbest thing you have ever read in a court decision?” it’s admittedly a tough choice, but I will often cite the following jaw-dropping statement from one Judge Oliver Wagner, who denied the National Enquirer’s anti-SLAPP motion against Carolyn Condit (wife of former Congressman Gary Condit):
The disappearance of Ms. Levy does not concern the performance of duties by Mr. Condit in his capacity as a public official. The criminal investigation of the disappearance of Ms. Levy is not necessarily a political or community issue in which public opinion and input is inherent and desirable…
Yep. That’s an actual statement in a published opinion. Think I’m taking it out of context? Then feel free to read the whole thing and decide for yourself.
And partly because of that ruling, Gary & Carolyn Condit were able to make an entire living suing everyone in sight who speculated that Gary Condit might have had something to do with the disappearance of Chandra Levy.
Apparently, the Condits are in need of some more cash, because they have sued Dominick Dunne again for saying what millions of others have said (or at least thought on their own without any prompting from Dunne). Condit even managed to get the latest lawsuit filed just under the one year deadline. Nice.
Think what you want about people who go around implying that Clinton murdered people, or stating that Bush deliberately lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The question is: Do you think it would be good policy to allow Presidents to actually sue such critics in court for defamation? If not, then surely you can understand why the same principles should apply to a Congressman (especially high ranking ones who sat on the Intelligence Committee).
If you don’t forcefully bat down frivolous libel suits, you simply end up encouraging people to abuse the courts as a tool of oppression when it comes to free speech. Dominick Dunne is now learning that harsh lesson. Others are paying the price as well.
I had a brief exchange with Dunne’s attorney when the original lawsuit was going through the court system. I gave him some unsolicited advice at the time. Maybe its time to revisit that message.
One silver lining is that Dunne might get another chance to put Condit under oath in order to see him squirm.
For the record: I don’t think Condit was involved in the death of Chandra Levy. But I certainly think that he hampered the investigation into her death by not being immediately forthcoming to police (and the public) about his relationship with her. I didn’t form that opinion based on Mr. Dunne’s statements — I formed it based on Condit’s own behavior.
The notion that Dunne can be sued by a former Congressman for speculating about Levy’s disappearance should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values the ability to hold public officials accountable for their actions (and inactions). This particular chill is colder than the dry ice at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store…
[posted by Justin Levine]
Neil Boortz and others have it right, until we have tort reform where the loser pays the legal fees of both sides there will be no end of these ridiculous lawsuits.
Kevin (56982b) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:18 amSpeaking of legal fees, lawyers should not be paid more than twice the minimum wage and judges no more than thrice. It would do wonders for the profession and society in general.
Gbear (6a100c) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:47 amJL, is there a reason you “don’t think Condit was involved in the death of Chandra Levy.”
Or did you include that statement to protect yourself from a law suit?
Because, it sure looks to me, and to a good many others, like Condit’s up to his chinny chin chin in Chandra Levy’s murder.
mokus (20bd01) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:49 amKevin wrote in #2 above:
California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, subsection (c) of the anti-SLAPP statute mentioned in Justin Levine’s post, has a provision for this if defendant prevails on the special motion to strike.
The same subsection allows the court to make a finding that the special motion to strike was frivolous or dilatory and therefore award attorney fees and costs to prevailing plaintiff.
As Justin pointed out, in this case the defendant’s motion was denied.
Occasional Reader (83a570) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:53 amHad to delete the first comment from “Mike” for being wildly off topic.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:54 amMokus –
It’s a fair question. But I certainly didn’t include the statement as protection from a bogus Condit lawsuit (which I would find laughable).
My reasons for thinking that Condit didn’t kill Levy are ultimately just a gut feeling. His wife obviously knew about his many affairs, so I don’t see what the motivation would have been. No direct evidence was ever linked to Condit. We were only left with his bizarre behavior, which certainly qualified him as a legitimate suspect – but that wasn’t enough to convince me that he did it.
With that said, I certainly don’t think others are irrational for thinking that Condit may have done it. It is certainly a far shorter leap in this case than many other mainstream Washington conspiracy theories.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 11/16/2006 @ 11:59 amNeed anymore reasons for TORT REFORM i mean its getting rediclous these vultures and sharks need to be reigned in and their lawsuits ended
krazy kagu (fa81b9) — 11/16/2006 @ 1:11 pmOccasional Reader:
Kevin (56982b) — 11/16/2006 @ 1:31 pmThanks for the lesson on California law, I was unaware that they even had the option for that. Too bad it isn’t mandatory, however. Oh well, a guy can dream, right?
Hey Justin, did Hillary really kill Vincent Foster during a bout of Basic Instinct style sex?
David Ehrenstein (1a2b16) — 11/16/2006 @ 2:59 pmHard to beat those commerce clause cases. Amazing that the founders did everything they could think of to prevent the federal government from taking control of everyone’s lives, and here we are, with the federal government controlling everyone’s lives.
fred (44375f) — 11/16/2006 @ 6:25 pm[…] Such sympathies do not extend to Gary Condit, the Frankenstein Monster of libel lawsuits. He has regretfully risen from the grave once again. This time, […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Two Libel Cases Destined To Go Down In Flames (Thank Goodness) (421107) — 1/23/2007 @ 9:08 am