FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#326

Post by mimi » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:08 pm

FLASHBACK: WND EXCLUSIVEOral arguments in $250M defamation caseWND vs. Esquire goes to second-highest court in the landPublished: 10/03/2013 at 9:14 PM [/break1]wnd.com/2013/10/oral-arguments-in-250m-defamation-case/]http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/oral-argumen ... tion-case/And now... sad trombone:WND EXCLUSIVEAppeals court rules in WND suit vs. Esquire'This is an issue for the jury to decide'Published: 36 mins ago [/break1]wnd.com/2013/11/appeals-court-issues-ruling-in-wnd-suit-vs-esquire/]http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/appeals-cour ... s-esquire/BTW, WND sez Williams sided with them.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#327

Post by bob » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:24 pm

The majority of Judges Judith W. Rogers and Janice Rogers Brown wrote: “Because the reasonable reader could not, in context, understand Esquire’s blog post to be conveying “real news” – that is, actual facts about Farah and Corsi – the blog post was not actionable defamation.”





Senior circuit Judge Stephen F. Judge Williams decided in WND’s favor, but he did not issue a written opinion.Before: ROGERS and BROWN,Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.





Opinion [highlight]for the Court[/highlight] by Circuit Judge ROGERS.





Circuit Judge BROWN concurring [highlight]in the judgment[/highlight].If Judge Williams dissented, it would have been listed.





Here's [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/472ABFE735201E7585257C2F00544813/$file/12-1241-1467969.pdf]another decision from today. That opinion is "for the court" and authored by Williams. There is no mention of the other judge's votes, but under WND's "logic," they dissented.





Klayman added that in the current political environment, suggesting in any way that Obama might not be eligible would be career suicide for a jurist.





“These judges know that if they make an unpopular decision against the establishment that they will never be able to be promoted to the Supreme Court or any other position they might get through political patronage,” he said.Williams was appointed by Reagan and Brown by GWB. Rogers is a Clinton appointee.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1807
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#328

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:30 pm

If Judge Williams dissented, it would have been listed.





Here's another decision from today. That opinion is "for the court" and authored by Williams. There is no mention of the other judge's votes, but under WND's "logic," they dissented.Thanks for the explanation Bob. I was curious whether Williams dissented (or not). Odds are that KKKlayman and Pornstache will next submit a motion for a rehearing en banc.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#329

Post by bob » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:41 pm

Odds are that KKKlayman and Pornstache will next submit a motion for a rehearing en banc.No bet:


The attorney, founder of the political advocacy group Freedom Watch, said he will file a petition for rehearing the 2-1 decision by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia before the full court.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#330

Post by AnitaMaria » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:49 pm

I wrote a Daily Kos diary on the absurdity of this case.[link]Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal in Birther Lawsuit Against Esquire,http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/2 ... e#comments[/link]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#331

Post by bob » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:01 pm

Here's [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1DAFDF9A0BD0186885257BB4005133A8/$file/10-1425-1448567.pdf]a D.C. Circuit case from July:Before: ROGERS, TATEL and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.Dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.And the dissent is part of the decision.Still, that Brown concurred in judgment but didn't file a separate opinion is unusual.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45115
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#332

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:21 pm

Here's [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1DAFDF9A0BD0186885257BB4005133A8/$file/10-1425-1448567.pdf]a D.C. Circuit case from July:


Before: ROGERS, TATEL and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.





Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS.





Dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.And the dissent is part of the decision.





Still, that Brown concurred in judgment but didn't file a separate opinion is unusual.Sounds like the judges on the court have too much work. They could use, maybe, three more judges.

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#333

Post by Loren » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:08 pm

WND EXCLUSIVEAppeals court rules in WND suit vs. Esquire'This is an issue for the jury to decide'This is a prime illustration of why one shouldn't trust WND's reporting. Any normal person looking at that headline would think that the quotation is from the court. After all, the headline just says the court "rules" in the decision; it doesn't say which way. So when the main headline refers to the appeals court, surely the quote in the sub-headline is from said appeals court, right?Nope, it's a quote from Larry Klayman. WND's attorney. Who *lost* the appeal.So basically, a person browsing WND and reading only the headline would draw the exact OPPOSITE conclusion from what the appeals court actually said.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#334

Post by verbalobe » Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:47 am

So basically, a person browsing WND and reading only the headline would draw the exact OPPOSITE conclusion from what the appeals court actually said.Yes, but Loren, if they wrote a headline that conveyed the sense of actual events, browsing readers would draw the exact OPPOSITE conclusion from what WND wishes had happened.Can't have that!

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#335

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:23 pm

[/break1]googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache]Reuters has an article on the decision, by a reporter who covers legal news. And to further undermine WND's interpretation:





"In fact, according to Judge Judith Rogers, who wrote the court’s opinion, and Senior Judge Stephen Williams, who joined it, one hallmark of satire is that it takes a while to sink in. (The third judge on the panel, Janice Rogers Brown, concurred in the judgment but did not join the opinion.)"





This is consistent with the fact that the first filing in PACER explicitly says that this was a per curiam decision. It's also consistent with the fact that the court managed to issue an opinion of the court AT ALL.





Because if the court split with Rogers holding for Esquire for one reason, Brown holding for Esquire for another reason, and Williams holding for WND, then there couldn't be an opinion of the court as to anything other than the result. There's no plurality. The fact that there's a lengthy decision expressing the court's reasoning means that at least two of them MUST have agreed with it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10454
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#336

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:21 pm

Because if the court split with Rogers holding for Esquire for one reason, Brown holding for Esquire for another reason, and Williams holding for WND, then there couldn't be an opinion of the court as to anything other than the result. There's no plurality. The fact that there's a lengthy decision expressing the court's reasoning means that at least two of them MUST have agreed with it.Yes and no. I can think of at least one case I've read recently where the three-judge panel produced a total of four written opinions - a multi-page per curium, two individual concurring opinions, and a dissent. See Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) opinion vacated on reh'g en banc, 672 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45115
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#337

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:32 pm

In California I've seen the justice who wrote the opinion often write a concurrence on an additional point he or she wanted to make.

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#338

Post by AnitaMaria » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:09 pm

There is a bright spot in this ruling for Corsi:A reasonable reader would understand Warren’s statements to be expressions of his own opinion. His reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,” does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather “the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression” that a factual statement was being made.A court has officially declared that he is probably not fecal matter, an issue that was apparently in question in this lawsuit. :P
Edit: fixed typo

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#339

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:18 pm

There is a bright spot on this ruling for Corsi:A reasonable reader would understand Warren’s statements to be expressions of his own opinion. His reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,” does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather “the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression” that a factual statement was being made.A court has officially declared that he is probably not fecal matter, an issue that was apparently in question in this lawsuit. :PAha, I see the confusion... ;)
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

tjh
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#340

Post by tjh » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:21 pm

There is a bright spot on this ruling for Corsi:


A reasonable reader would understand Warren’s statements to be expressions of his own opinion. His reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,” does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather “the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression” that a factual statement was being made.A court has officially declared that he is probably not fecal matter, an issue that was apparently in question in this lawsuit. :Ploose as in Bristol Stool Scale #6 or #7 ?






User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45115
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#341

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:21 pm

And anyway truth is a complete defense.

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#342

Post by Loren » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:24 pm

Yes and no. I can think of at least one case I've read recently where the three-judge panel produced a total of four written opinions - a multi-page per curium, two individual concurring opinions, and a dissent. See Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) opinion vacated on reh'g en banc, 672 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012).But I take it that in that case, the per curium decision set forth what the two concurring judges agreed on. And then the concurring opinions were for each of the two in the majority to lay out the arguments that the other didn't agree with. Maybe they just agreed on a lot.





But if Rogers held that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Brown held that the case should be dismissed under SLAPP, and they only agreed with each other in terms of the judgment in Esquire's favor, then I don't see how you get a decision of the court saying that it was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28968
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#343

Post by Foggy » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:29 pm

A court has officially declared that he is probably not fecal matter, an issue that was apparently in question in this lawsuit. :PThey got that part wrong, of course. Corsi is, in actual fact, an execrable piece of shit.But I got my revenge on him long ago. I haven't been tormenting him in positively ages now. ;;)
I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#344

Post by bob » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:40 pm

But if Rogers held that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Brown held that the case should be dismissed under SLAPP, and they only agreed with each other in terms of the judgment in Esquire's favor, then I don't see how you get a decision of the court saying that it was dismissed for failure to state a claim.Williams joined Rogers' opinion, so (at least) two judges agreed Klayman Farah failed to state a claim. In addition to that being consistent with the D.C. Cir.'s style in denoting authorship, it is also the only logical answer.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#345

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:27 pm

But if Rogers held that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and Brown held that the case should be dismissed under SLAPP, and they only agreed with each other in terms of the judgment in Esquire's favor, then I don't see how you get a decision of the court saying that it was dismissed for failure to state a claim.Williams joined Rogers' opinion, so (at least) two judges agreed Klayman Farah failed to state a claim. In addition to that being consistent with the D.C. Cir.'s style in denoting authorship, it is also the only logical answer.Well, there you go again! (toth to Mr. Reagan) :lol: :lol:
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#346

Post by AnitaMaria » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:36 pm

Les Machado of The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law blog has posted a brief analysis of the Farah v Esquire decision[link]Three Takeaways from the DC Circuit’s Farah v. Esquire Decision,http://dcslapplaw.com/2013/12/10/three- ... -decision/[/link]His conclusion is that this case didn't have much of influence in shaping DC anti-SLAPP case law. Klayman should be paying attention to this. He's still got Bradlee Dean's case against Rachel Maddow in DC District Court (stayed pending the outcome of his appeal of the DC Superior Court ruling) that may or may not be subject to DC's anti-SLAPP law.

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#347

Post by everalm » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:52 pm

Whilst IANAL, it appears that once again WND and the Porn 'Tache get an easy get out with no financial punishment for an inherently frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. Poo...... :cry:

AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#348

Post by AnitaMaria » Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:10 am

Klayman has filed a [link]petition for rehearing en banc,http://ia601802.us.archive.org/14/items ... 8040.0.pdf[/link] in this case. As with every case Klayman is involved in, he is alleging--among other things--that the wingnut plaintiffs were treated unfairly by a politically motivated liberal judge. He needs to get a new shtick.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16988
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#349

Post by Suranis » Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:00 am

Just some choice cuts from the BriefThe opinion written by the Honorable Judith Rogers strains to find the published statements at issue to be parody. She had no legal right to do so, since these statements were on their face capable of different interpretations. In this regard, it is black letter case law that when an alleged defamatory and/or false light statement is capable of different meanings, that the statements must be given to a jury to decide. This is why we have a jury system and why judges are not to impose their will upon litigants under such circumstances. Our Founding Fathers were well aware that judges are appointed and confirmed by politicians and wanted to keep politics out of decision-making wherever possible. The issue of whether President Obama is eligible for his office is a highly charged political issue that riles Democrats and Democrat-appointees in particular. Is it just coincidence that Judge Rogers, appointed to the bench by a Democrat president, :bored: in effect cuts off Appellants' rights to have this issue decided by a jury by issuing a dispositive order?Appellants cast no aspersions upon Judge Rogers for malevolent intent. :yankyank: However, it is human nature to see matters such as this through one's political prism and ideology. The debate over President Obama's eligibility--which is not really at issue here in substance--is a hot potato even for Republicans since some of their prospective presidential candidates such as Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz do not qualify as natural born citizens either.1In short,the three judge panel (apparently Judge Williams did not agree with Judge Rogers as he did join in and sign the opinion) improperly affirmed the district court's dismissal cutting off Appellants' due process rights before a jury of their peers, much less their discovery rights leading up to trial :hang:1 leads to, of course, Minor V HappersettBUT THERE'S MOAR!!Yet Appellants’ book suffered considerable harm as a result of Appellees’ Blog Post. (JA12, JA 14). Booksellers removed Appellants’ books from their shelves and some even refused to sell the books at all.(JA 14). Appellants’ book had risen to the top of the Amazon.com bestseller’s list and was performing well until the Blog Post discredited both the book and Appellant Corsi. Potential customers no longer viewed the book as credible, and even some who had already purchased the book were asking for their money back as a result of the Blog Post.As opposed to his President saying "There's the Birth Certificate!"Basically the whole thing can be boiled down to "The judges were mean poopy heads. Lemme start over AND GIMME A JURY THIS TIME!!"
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, INC., et al.

#350

Post by verbalobe » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:34 am

... even some who had already purchased the book were asking for their money back as a result of the Blog Post having read it.FIF KKKlayman

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”