Alabama Media Group Isn't Messing Around With Roy Moore's Silly Threat

from the try-us dept

Last week, we wrote about the truly ridiculous letter sent by Senate candidate Roy Moore's nutty lawyer, Trenton Garmon, threatening to sue Alabama Media Group for defamation for daring to write about reports of Moore's sketchy behavior towards girls and young women. In that piece, we noted that AMG made it clear it wasn't going to back down, noting that it stood behind its reporting and the threats only made the news organization that much more interested in "doggedly" pursuing the truth. Now, as pointed out on Boing Boing, we see the official response from Alabama Media Group's lawyer, John G. Thompson Jr.

Suffice it to say, Thompson doesn't have much time for Garmon's nonsense:

You have (now twice) threatened to sue AMG and AL.com concerning AL.com's recent reporting about Roy Moore, Kayla Moore, and their Foundation for Moral Law. You have accused AL.com of making "false reports and/or careless reporting" about multiple subjects related to your clients. Your letter demands that AL.com retract and recant its prior stories and that it "cease and desist" from any further reporting about your clients.

AL.com hereby rejects your demand. AL.com stands by its reporting regarding all of the matters addressed in your letter. AL.com has reported on newsworthy matters of significant public concern regarding your clients. Roy Moore is now, and for decades has been, a public figure. He is now running for a seat in the United States Senate. He is asking people of Alabama to financially support his campaign and his Foundation (headed by Mrs. Moore), and to vote for him. Alabamians -- for that matter, all Americans -- have a right to know about the individuals who wish to represent them in public office. Like every political candidate, Mr. Moore is subject to scrutiny and analysis by the media and the general public regarding his fitness for public office. AL.com's reporting has provided the public with important information directly relevant to that inquiry.

You accuse AL.com of defamation in purely conclusory fashion. You have not explained how anything that AL.com reported is untrue, inaccurate, or erroneous, nor do you provide any support for your position. You have also not shown that AL.com reported any of its stories with actual malice, as you know you must because your clients are public figures (a point you have admitted in in recent television interviews). To the contrary, an ever-increasing torrent of accusers and journalist investigators have publicly verified the facts reported by AL.com.

Nice, simple and to the point. While there's no doubt that Moore is a public figure (which requires the higher "actual malice" bar for defamation), it's a nice little jab to point out that Garmon himself admitted that during a TV interview.

From there, Thompson points out that any damage to Moore's reputation comes from Moore's actions, not AL.com's accurate reporting:

Your letter goes on to say that AL.com's reporting has harmed Mr. Moore's reputation. Mr. Moore, however, has quite a colorful past that long-preceded any of AL.com's recent coverage of your clients. Moreover, much of the information that you claim harmed Mr. Moore's reputation had already been published by those who know him personally and reported by other media outlets. In other words, any damage to Mr. Moore's reputation was self-inflicted and had already occurred long before AL.com's recent reporting.

And, from there, we get to the "and if you do go through with this, we'll hit back harder than you'd like" part of the letter, in which AMG says that it'll move for Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous filings, and also demand that the Moores' need to preserve any documents for any countersuit effort.

For these and other reasons, we strongly believe that any lawsuit of the type you threaten would be frivolous, and could not be brought in good faith. Should your clients nevertheless decide to pursue this matter further, AL.com will vigorously defend itself, and will employ all available remedies, including a Rule 11 motion if warranted. We are confident that litigation would not only demonstrate that Al.com exercised the utmost diligence and employed high journalistic standards in reporting these stories, but would also reveal other important information about your clients.

That last line is basically "Look, we all know that Moore doesn't want to go through discovery on this..."

We are hereby putting your clients on notice of their duty to preserve and maintain all materials, documents, writings, recordings statements, notes, letters, journals, diaries, calendars, emails, photographs, videos, computers, cell phones, electronic data, and other information that is or could remotely be relevant in any manner to any of the claims that you have made. These include, but are not limited to, all materials and information related to Mr. Moore's history of romantic relationships or physical encounters (whether consensual or not); your clients' fundraising, compensation, and finances; and Mr. Moore's speaking engagements, travel arrangements, and other expenses. As you know, failure to preserve any such materials may expose your clients to sanctions.

Reading this letter, you almost get the sense that Alabama Media Group would quite enjoy getting sued by Moore...


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:55pm

    This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

    (One can't put "Masnick" in title: gets blocked!)

    Reading only the NYT gives you distorted notions.

    I notice you're still not dealing with FACTS, only legal beagling.

    "Judge Roy Moore Leads Liberal Doug Jones 58% to 35% in latest Tribune Poll"
    http://thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/judge-roy-moore-leads-liberal-doug-jones-58-35-latest-tribu ne-poll/

    "Moore Campaign: Key Witnesses 'Completely Bust' Story Of Beverly Young Nelson And Gloria Allred"
    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57657

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:56pm

      Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

      "Report: Roy Moore Raised More Than $1 Million in Last 10 Days - Without RNC Support"
      "Monday on Birmingham, AL's ABC affiliate WBMA, the channel's political reporter Lauren Walsh revealed both Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Roy Moore and his Democratic opponent Doug Jones have had significant fundraising hauls since allegations first surfaced accusing Moore of inappropriate behavior and sexual misconduct earlier this month."
      http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/21/report-roy-moore-raised-1-million-last-10-days-with out-rnc-support/

      "This Woman Stands with Judge Roy Moore"
      https://barbwire.com/2017/11/11/woman-stands-judge-roy-moore/

      "Media Ignores Key Alabama Witness Reports That Refute Roy Moore Accuser..."
      http://investmentwatchblog.com/media-ignores-key-alabama-witness-reports-that-refute-roy- moore-accuser/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:27pm

        Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

        "Report: Roy Moore Raised More Than $1 Million in Last 10 Days - Without RNC Support"

        So Moore gets a burst of support from alt-right inbreds, just enough support that he doesn't get replaced by the RNC before the election. Support that's rapidly fading as more and more evidence against him has appeared.

        Which only harms the RNC. Maybe a Democrat wins the senate seat - because Republicans don't vote or split the vote with write-in candidates. Or worse for the RNC, he gets elected and they have to deal with a high-profile pedophile senator defining the party in addition to Donald Trump.

        Either way, do you honestly think Democrats oppose the damage he's doing? Heck, it's only a question of how many donated!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Discuss It (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

          Or worse for the RNC, he gets elected and they have to deal with a high-profile pedophile senator defining the party in addition to Donald Trump.

          As far as I can tell, the Republican party is perfectly fine with supporting sexual predators, homosexual hypocrites, and pedophiles as long as they are a "solid" Republican.

          Contrast that with how the Democratic party is dealing with Senator Franken on his groping issue, and indeed, Senator Franken's own words.

          My opinion is simple: "Being a Republican means never having to say 'I'm Sorry' for being a pervert.'

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            David, 22 Nov 2017 @ 2:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

            My opinion is simple: "Being a Republican means never having to say 'I'm Sorry' for being a pervert.'

            That isn't true. I mean, these days it's hard to define "pervert" but it is sort of reasonable to decent persons to draw the line where consensus is crossed. There is also the somewhat muddier line of crossing qualified consensus (which we usually define using the age of consent and which may also shift around based on drug use).

            But "sort of reasonable" is not what we are talking about with Biblical (and quite similarly Republican) standards of perversion. Here perversion is only defined one-sided (consent does not really play into it) and females cannot really engage in it short of engaging even more inferior beings like animals. A pervert is one who does not want to stick his tool into anything female younger than himself.

            Underage girls are less problematic as a target than adult men (the Old Testament is actually pretty silent about most forms of harrassment short of forced intercourse which permanently devalues the property of another man). At least if the underage girls have somewhat developed female features, and the hormone-laden U.S. diet caters for this at an early enough age (not just for females, but let's not complicate things).

            Personally, I cannot blame adults to be affected by a display of primal signals of not yet appropriate origin. But civilisation implies being able to contain your urges based on social contracts. You don't eat nicely displayed food in the supermarket, you take it to the cash register. And it's not even like the food would suffer traumatic experiences if you broke that contract here.

            If you are unfit to act in a civilized manner concerning your urges, particularly where actual humans are concerned, you are unfit as a representative.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 5:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

              Arguing about definitions is a nice little diversion but does little to deflect the growing accusations.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 22 Nov 2017 @ 6:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

            As far as I can tell, the Republican party is perfectly fine with supporting sexual predators, homosexual hypocrites, and pedophiles as long as they are a "solid" Republican.

            McConnell seems pretty apoplectic about this one. He already hated Moore before the allegations, but I think he's also realized that this is a serious, long-term threat to his party.

            You really don't want people to see your party as the party of Nazis and pedophiles.

            I legitimately don't know what's going to happen if Moore is elected. But I think there's a strong possibility -- not a certainty, but a strong possibility -- that Senate Republicans will remove him from office and trigger another election.

            Course, every indication is that if that happens, Moore will just run again. And what happens then is anybody's guess.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 9:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

              "You really don't want people to see your party as the party of Nazis and pedophiles."

              Too late!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:04pm

        Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

        No matter how hard you try blue, Trumps not going to let you suck him off.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:22pm

        Guess I better donate more money to Doug Jones

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:02pm

      Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

      Headline's wrong. He's not a "judge". Was removed from the bench twice because not only is he a pedophile, he failed so badly in his position that he was removed it IN ALABAMA.

      That's the butt fumble of jurisprudence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:22pm

        Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

        ...and still Alabamaian conservatives are saying better Moore then any Democrat.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:40pm

          Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

          Trump still supports him too.

          Shoplifting in China: Unacceptable

          Sex offenses against 14-year-olds: Acceptable

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:06pm

            Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

            Is it active support or just silence on the issue(unlike pretty much anything else)? I was under the impression that Trump's support was 'just' limited to keeping his mouth shut, though I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was more active then that because really, Trump.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Roger Strong (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

              He broke his silence and actively supported Moore today. But he won't announce whether he'll campaign for Moore until next week.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

                ... Of course he did, because if there's one skill Trump completely and utterly lacks it's the ability to keep his mouth shut.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 1:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

                  Not surprising, really, to find rapist pedophile Donald Trump supporting rapist pedophile Roy Moore. The only surprise is that he resisted the temptation for so long.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 7:43pm

          Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...

          Encryption! Infringement! Pedophiles! Terrorism! Think of the children! Except this time!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 1:31am

        Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

        Seagoon: I was struck off the Rolls twice.

        Grytpype:You can only be struck off the Rolls once.

        Seagoon: That'll give you some idea of my importance.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:07pm

      Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

      As a U.S. Attorney, Doug Jones locked up Klansmen who murdered four little girls at a church.

      As a district attorney, Roy Moore preyed on teenage girls at the mall, at their high schools, and outside family court.

      (h/t Kevin Kruse)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:31pm

        Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

        As a U.S. Attorney, Doug Jones locked up Klansmen who murdered four little girls at a church.

        As a district attorney, Roy Moore preyed on teenage girls at the mall, at their high schools, and outside family court.

        No wonder the Trumpers hate Jones and love Moore.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:10pm

      Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

      Your sources are hilariously sad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dan (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:32pm

      Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.

      Suppose you're right. Suppose the allegations are completely false. Suppose the accusers subsequently recant completely. AMG still wins, unless Moore can prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that what they printed was false, and they knew it at the time. It's not going to happen. It's nearly impossible for a public figure to win a defamation case as a plaintiff, and that's a good thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:57pm

    *covers his ears*

    WOW THAT MIC DROP WAS LOUD!!!!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:59pm

    Roy Moore will never sue

    The discovery process would no doubt turn up much more than is already publicly known. (And it might be worse...but I hope not. Sexually assaulting a 14-year-old is awful enough.) The alternative would be to refuse to produce evidence, or worse, to destroy it. None of these are attractive options, which is why this is just blustering on his part.

    Readers will no doubt recall that confessed sexual assaulter Donald Trump also promised to sue his accusers after the election was over and has also not followed through...for exactly the same reason.

    And now, an expository reading from the Book of Al Pacino, Chapter 7, verses 33-35:

    "One thing that bothered me, the one thing that stayed in my mind, and I couldn't get rid of it, that haunted me, was why? Why would she lie? What was her motive for lying? If my client is innocent, she's lying. Why? Was it blackmail? No. Was it jealousy? No.

    Yesterday, I found out why. She doesn't have a motive. You know why? Because she's not lying.

    And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution is not going to get that man today! No. Because I'm gonna get him. My client, the Honorable Henry T. Fleming, should go right to fucking jail! The son of a bitch is guilty!"

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    bullcrap, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:07pm

    bullcrap

    bullcrap - they as well as you have convicted him - presumed him guilt right out of the box. There is such a thing as being innocent until PROVEN guilty - yet when ever something (it doesn't matter) comes up if it's a republican - they are guilty-- however if they are democrat - you all go thru some incredible contortions trying to discredit, diminish, or even eliminate any discussion of the accusations.

    that's a fact.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:33pm

      Re: bullcrap

      Once again, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies in a court of law. It does not apply in an election. I know that these basics concepts of civic life are difficult for slow learners like you, but please do try to bring your understanding up to at least a sixth-grade level.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:37pm

      Re: bullcrap

      There is such a thing as being innocent until PROVEN guilty

      There sure is. It applies to trials. In courts.

      however if they are democrat - you all go thru some incredible contortions trying to discredit, diminish, or even eliminate any discussion of the accusations.

      Yeah, I remember how Techdirt defended Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein.

      No, wait. What I meant to say is, I remember the opposite of that, and also you're a moron.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:07pm

      Re: bullcrap

      Two questions, if I may. Are you a paid “murican troll or a paid ruskie troll? And if not why are you doing their work for free?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:12pm

      Re: bullcrap

      There are over 30 sources for the original WaPo article. More have come forward since.

      Those are facts.

      Nothing you posted is a fact.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:09pm

      Re: bullcrap

      You do realize that this post is about Moore's threats to sue, and not about him being a total creep, right?

      And, also, as others have pointed out, we've been out there talking about accusations against Republicans and Democrats alike, and I honestly don't give a fuck what party you're a member of (as discussed many times, I don't support either party), I'll call people out the same.

      So, drop your tribal bullshit. Maybe read what the article is actually about and grow the fuck up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 10:16am

      Re: bullcrap

      Is it possible this could be the first post in Techdirt history to be "funniest" comment of the week, but in a totally ironic way?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:09pm

    Typo in title? It says "Ray" not "Roy"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:49pm

    The article has nothing to do with Moore's political alliances, so to any honest person it will be irrelevant (1) what those alliances are, (2) how large or how rich those alliances are, and (3) whether persons in other alliances have done the-same-or-worse things. Even raising such questions is an easy way of forfeiting whatever reputation you might have had for honesty....

    In fact, the article has nothing to do with what Moore might have done, or might have been accused of doing. The article is about one question and one question only: do people have a right to discuss what public officials do? There's a reason that the answer to that question is listed FIRST in the Bill of Rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:49pm

    No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

    There is something to be said about the accusations. None of them are more than accusations, none of them have been proven in a court of law. That link is to a Simple Justice post where this is discussed in more detail.

    I am not suggesting that the accusations are wrong, I am suggesting that they are being taken as true, and as yet nothing other than statements have been proffered. Where's the proof?

    Now I do tend to believe at least some of these allegations, there are so many for some alleged perpetrators, but to take legal action, such as job termination, based solely on the statement of someone does not seem right. Let the process proceed, and then don't just fire someone, put them in jail.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:20pm

      Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

      There is something to be said about the accusations.

      Yes. It's plural.

      Nine women on record and agreeing to have their names published despite the inevitable attacks against them that would (and did) follow.

      A former colleague in the District Attorney's office - and four others who back up his story - saying "It was common knowledge that Roy dated high school girls, everyone we knew thought it was weird [...] We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall".

      Multiple former police officers and mall employees who had heard that Roy Moore had been banned from the Gadsden Mall in the early 1980s for attempting to pick up teenage girls.

      It may not proof, but there's a clear balance of probability.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:44pm

      Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

      "Job termination" is not a "legal action."

      This is an election.

      This is not a trial.

      You are literally just wrong, again, and again, and again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:52pm

      Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

      but to take legal action, such as job termination,

      Huh?

      It's hard to tell where to even begin with this.

      Terminating someone's job is not "legal action".

      And at this point the question isn't whether or not to terminate his job, because he hasn't gotten the job yet. He is running for Senate. People are suggesting maybe don't vote for a guy who's been accused by multiple people of sexually assaulting underage girls. (Moore has been fired from his job, multiple times, for violating professional ethics, but that's unrelated to the multiple accusations of sexually abusing minors.)

      None of which is directly pertinent to the article, which is about his frivolous threats of litigation against a newspaper for factually reporting the allegations against him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 5:51pm

        Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

        Sorry about the delay, I have been busy. I will admit that my post is not entirely on target with reference to the post.

        On the other hand, I have to wonder how much time you may or may not have spent in front of administrative law judges arguing unemployment cases. I have had my share, and lost only once, early in my career. I had supervisory responsibility over some 4000 people, and had multiple occasions to terminate employment. I have never been sued.

        My point is, that termination, or more properly stated, wrongful termination of an employee is most certainly a legal action, if for no other reason than one may wind up either in front of an administrative law judge arguing rights to unemployment claims or a civil judge arguing a wrongful termination lawsuit. No, employment issues do not go in front of a district or even a local judge on a regular basis, but to say that there are no legal consequences to terminating employees is not quite accurate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Tanner Andrews (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:28am

          Re: Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

          wrongful termination of an employee is most certainly a legal action, if for no other reason than one may wind up either in front of an administrative law judge arguing rights

          Nope. Wrongful termination is an act, not a legal action. A legal action has certain requirements, generally including court filings.

          On the other hand, an act has no such requirements. When I run over an old lady, that act is not a ``legal action'', even though I may wind up in court explaining why I should not be held liable for damages.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 7:04am

      Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

      but to take legal action, such as job termination

      He'd have to be elected in order to be fired. He could always follow through and sue the women, you know, the same strategy trump said he was going to do, but never followed through on.

      Perhaps moore, like trump, is deathly afraid of discovery.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 7:06am

      Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

      You're talking about Garmon's unproven amd untested allegations of defamation against AMG, right, and not bringing in something off-topic?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Arthur Moore (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:09pm

    Declaratory Judgement

    Hmm, I wonder if they can file for declaratory judgement. Sure, they wouldn't get any money, but it could be a way to say, "go through discovery or be legally barred from suing us over this."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:26pm

      Re: Declaratory Judgement

      Possibly, but I don't think they'd need to. If they're right and Moore doesn't dare risk the discovery process then they know he likewise doesn't dare follow up on the threat. He nailed his own feet to the floor such that they don't have to waste time or money doing anything(which is not to say they can't entertain themselves taunting his lawyer by calling what they clearly see as a bluff).

      If anything they might actually want him to sue so that the courts can go through the discovery process, if, as seems to be the case they think it won't go well for him that would provide plenty to cover.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:08pm

      Re: Declaratory Judgement

      Hmm, I wonder if they can file for declaratory judgement. Sure, they wouldn't get any money, but it could be a way to say, "go through discovery or be legally barred from suing us over this."

      For whatever reason, courts tend to frown on DJs for defamation. They're considered fine for infringement claims, but there are a whole series of cases where courts really dislike them in defamation cases. So... I doubt they'd want to go that route.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:08pm

    Click bait, nothing Moore.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 7:43am

    the big news to me, here, is a journalistic enterprise actually behaving like real journalists.

    wonderful to see and so inspiring of hope in a trying time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 9:07am

    Three words that tell you you've put your foot in it ...

    "As you know, ..."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.