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...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, john g. thompson, roy moore, trenton garmon
Companies: alambama media group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
"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/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW THAT MIC DROP WAS LOUD!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roy Moore will never sue
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
That's the butt fumble of jurisprudence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
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)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bullcrap
that's a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...
...and still Alabamaian conservatives are saying better Moore then any Democrat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
There sure is. It applies to trials. In courts.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...
Trump still supports him too.
Shoplifting in China: Unacceptable
Sex offenses against 14-year-olds: Acceptable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
Those are facts.
Nothing you posted is a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guess I better donate more money to Doug Jones
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Declaratory Judgement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
No wonder the Trumpers hate Jones and love Moore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
This is an election.
This is not a trial.
You are literally just wrong, again, and again, and again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
Grytpype:You can only be struck off the Rolls once.
Seagoon: That'll give you some idea of my importance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sexual Predator, Incompetent and Extremist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/alabama-ex-cop-says-she-was-tasked-with-keeping-roy-moore-away- from-cheerleaders-at-high-school-games/
Former police officer. 37 years on the force. Says:
(quoting) We were also told to watch him at the ballgames, and make sure that he didn’t, you know, hang around with the cheerleaders,” said Gary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wonderful to see and so inspiring of hope in a trying time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This smear job has flopped. Dropped off Drudge.
Too late!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Three words that tell you you've put your foot in it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bullcrap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: bullcrap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]