Iseman Sues New York Times
[Guest post by DRJ]
Allahpundit at Hot Air has the details:
“Vicki Iseman files $27 million lawsuit against NYT over McCain hit piece.”
The best line: “The good news? Given their revenue trend, they might be judgment-proof by now.”
H/T Mike K.
Nice post DRJ, and nice catch from Dr. K.
But let’s set the timer until there are bleats regarding “attacks on freedom of the press” regarding this lawsuit.Eric Blair (3e2520) — 12/30/2008 @ 7:50 pm
Think Maverick’s excited at the prospect of reliving this chapter of his life on the stand, if need be?
He should be flattered as hell.nk (2f022a) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:00 pm
When I think of a woman suing NYT over a hit piece, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin come to mind.
Good luck, Ms. Iseman.Vermont Neighbor (ceab4f) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:06 pm
Love to hear the Times explain their exhaustive due diligence on thisEricPWJohnson (5a816b) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:06 pm
This would be the same NYT that was handed the John Edwards smoking gun and refused to publish any unsubstantiated allegations…Dana (79a78b) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:10 pm
And yet the Times insists that revealing the truth about Pinchy and um, you know Princess Caroline is off-limits. As was The Breck Girl’s affair and paternity. On the other hand, total fabrications and innuendo about McCain and the lady lobbyist are just hunky dory.
I’d like to have seen the Times editorial board and Pinch brought up on treason charges. How many American troops died because the Times gave aid and comfort to the enemy? Of course to libtards, Bush and the red states are the enemy.aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 12/30/2008 @ 8:11 pm
She needs to get this suit filed ahead of the creditors. It’ll be 25 cents on the dollar by the time she gets a judgement.Mike K (2cf494) — 12/30/2008 @ 9:04 pm
The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health.
something doesn’t wash here. I thought you guys were against frivalous lawsuits and the lawyers that bring them?
shocking…donviti (49cc8d) — 12/31/2008 @ 6:52 am
dang and I almost forgot, the only thing they are arguing is he didn’t bang her. Not that there was quid pro quo or he threw business her way…
ahhhh, where’s Abramoff when you need him?donviti (49cc8d) — 12/31/2008 @ 6:58 am
That was before the CHANGE, donviti. In this bold new America, it’s time to put your hand out.Pablo (99243e) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:12 am
That is usually the case, but there is a certain wonderful schadenfreude in seeing one bastion of the left (NYT) hoist by the left’s own petard (trial lawyers).quasimodo (edc74e) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:36 am
Really. Quote the part of teh filing that says just that.
The problem is that not only can they in no way PROVE their slanderous suggests as to a sexual relationship (for the very simple reason that it didn’t happen), they can not prove their other “allegations”, which puts them in a tough spot when the best (and often only) defense in this kind of case is called “the truth”.
Which, as it has long been obvious, much of the media has had a problem with lately.Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:43 am
The NYT killed off any sympathy we had for them long ago. Humiliation is too good for them. The sooner they go bankrupt the better.LarryD (feb78b) — 12/31/2008 @ 7:45 am
Hey, NYT may be moribund and therefore immune to paying damages, but after it’s dead and locked away in a coffin, ONE MORE FINAL EXTRA SCREW is more than justified!!
This is Cindy’s work: More power to her!elixelx (bfcb6e) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:05 am
This could get mussy. Better to let sleeping dogs lie or fabricate. (Don’t remember how that ends….)love2008 (1b037c) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:09 am
What would bankruptcy actually mean to Punch? Donald Trump companies have been involved in how many bankruptcies and yet he remains a friggin’ billioniare, renowned for his business acumen and hair.
I think it was Kuhn from baseball who moved to Fla. and bought expensive real estate to shelter himself from loss of personal fortune through Homestead laws.
In any case, anyone care to bet that a bailout for the media is OFF the table in an Obama/Reid/Pelosi reign? Afterall, the media twists themselves into pretzels providing cover for the libtard pols. Think Senator/Princess um/ you know Caroline would vote against it?aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 12/31/2008 @ 8:10 am
No need to worry about NY Times fat cats, if the Dems in Congress won’t bail them out, they’ll get the UAW pension funds to buy their worthless paper. Yep, life in the Big Apple will go on, and only the poor widows and orphans in Detroit will go cold and hungry.Ropelight (d40bc3) — 12/31/2008 @ 10:22 am
Will the NYTs scream tort reform now?
And isn’t this an argument against tort reform fellow conservatives? You go Vicky and have your day in court.Joe (dcebbd) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:07 am
A tort reform that would be nice:Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (1b7d77) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:10 am
the gutting of Sullivan.
Good for Iseman.
That’s it! That was the reason McCain lost!
Not his policies, Bush or Palin!!!
A 2 day lifespan story that countless Dems like me tried to ignore on the basis of having nothing to do with the issues. Yup that must have done him in.Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:23 am
See, this is why we think you’re stupid, Oiram…
We aren’t talking about McCain losing, we’re talking about someone who was slandered holding the paper accountable.Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:30 am
I took the time to read the entire 44-page complaint filed with the court. There is nothing frivolous or scurrilous in the complaint. And to the one who suggested the only complaint was against the “romantic” accusations, the complaint attacked the “romantic” accusations as well as the “inappropriate” accusations.
For the record, this $27M lawsuit could finish with a number over $100M. The $27M is only the compensatory aspect of the demand; the punitive aspect is left to the jury to decide and can tend toward three times the compensatory aspect.
And, yes, NYT and MSM need to take a big hit on this one–and many others–to get them to start trying to report honestly.John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 12/31/2008 @ 11:35 am
This is why I think your a spinmeister Scott:
I said in my first line:
Good for Iseman.
I meant that my friend.Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 12:10 pm
And all your other lines, Oiram, were idiotic.Evil Pundit (843b74) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:05 pm
Off topic, but appropriate for New Years Eve:
Inspector “Javert” Sullivan picks the first Hewitt Award winner:
The battle for the Hewitt Award in 2008 remains a tie with 29 percent each for Victoria Jackson for this and Kim Crawford for this. The first ever Hewitt Award is a great honor. It takes Hewittian levels of dishonesty, extremism, agitprop and bile to win it. But you can break the tie here. You have till midnight.
Of course why not pick Sullivan for this “award” for his anti Palin Jihad and Trig Trutherism?Joe (dcebbd) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:48 pm
#24 Thanks Evil, there’s a compliment in there somewhere 🙂Oiram (983921) — 12/31/2008 @ 1:52 pm
See, this is why we think you’re stupid, Oiram…
Correction – we don’t think it, we know it.Dmac (eb0dd0) — 12/31/2008 @ 2:02 pm
Well I’ll pile on Oiram–but I’d rather see Iseman pile on the New York Times bank account.
Sloppy and scurrilous just won’t do. You can say, correctly, that Hillary, Sarah Palin, and John McCain are public figures, and the NYT can say that they get some protection there; but Vicky Iseman was most definitely a private figure, just trying to live her life. She did not need this crapola from the NYT and the bastards should pay for it. In fact they should pay lots for it. It’s just too doggone bad that the Olberdouche didn’t run a story about her being the “worst person in the world”–we could have had a twofer going in the lawsuits.Mike Myers (31af82) — 12/31/2008 @ 2:11 pm
Libel and slander aren’t frivolous. “They didn’t tell me not to stick my hand in a disposal” is frivolous.Rob Crawford (b5d1c2) — 1/1/2009 @ 7:58 am
You can say, correctly, that Hillary, Sarah Palin, and John McCain are public figures, and the NYT can say that they get some protection there
Even if Vicki Iseman were a public figure, the NYT could still be legally liable for libelous statements. Most celebrities allow factless statements to stand simply for publicity reasons; for instance, it is common for a male and female celebrity to appear in public together to generate press from the gossip rags and paparazzi, even though the ‘relationship’ is arranged between the celebrities’ managers and agents solely for that purpose.
Making up a an inappropriate complete fabrication that smears a celebrity subject will not protect the offender. Carol Burnett proved that almost 30 years ago:
Here is the Second Appellate Court judge’s opinion, with the factual details of the story and how the Enquirer’s Brian Walker published the libelious story despite having literally no verification.Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (ed9791) — 1/1/2009 @ 8:52 am