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

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:16 pm

WND is so far over the top... it HAS to be a parody, yes? =))

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

Farah, et al. v Esquire - Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:24 pm

realist wrote:

Farah, et al. v Esquire - Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:30 pm

You gotta love the first paragraph of facts.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

From the opinion, page 14:

Quote:

Real news does not usually contain an exclamation point

I doubt the judge intended it this way, but I prefer to read that as a subtle dig at WND's output:

"Debate chief raises issue of McCain’s eligibility – again!"
"Again! Supremes asked to look into eligibility"
"It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s the … eligibility question!"
"Abracadabra! ‘Obama’s alias’ vanishing quickly from Web"
"The birth certificate please! Subpoena to be delivered"
"Surprise! Obama can’t remember his birthday"
"Trump’s back! Casting doubt on birth certificate"
"You’re flustered! Trump can’t get his story straight"
"Birth certificate book a New York Times best-seller!"
"It’s out! The book that proves Obama’s ineligible"
"Scrubbed again! Obama’s hospital doctor changed"
"Guess what prompted Obama to release birth certificate!"
"Pat Buchanan: Show the birth certificate!"
"Rocket to No. 1! Drudge ponders ‘Obama’s true identity’"
"Hey L.A.! Where’s that birth certificate?"
"Whoops! Huckabee says Obama grew up in Kenya …"
"Presidential candidates: Better find those birth certificates!"
"Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law"
"Watch even ‘Barack Obama’ doubt his birthplace!'
"It’s no joke! Where is the birth certificate?"
"Hey Pennsylvania! ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’"
"Army judge to officer: Shut up and be punished!"
"Hey, Dallas! ‘Where’s the birth certificate?’"
"Hey Nashville! Where’s the birth certificate?"
"Yes, Obama’s eligible for president, in Kenya!"
"Obama on MySpace: I’m now 4 years younger!"
"Oops! Obama mama passport ‘destroyed’"
"Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records"
"Officer to Army: Bring it on!"
"Eligibility challenger: Don’t touch my brain!"
"Look up! Obama’s eligibility issue sizzling again"
"‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?’ billboards are back!"
"Oops! Obama tells another nativity fib?"
"Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue"
"‘Where’s the birth certificate?’ Vegas, baby!"
"Unveiled! Hawaii’s 1961 long-form birth certificates"
"Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions"
"Unwrapped! Birth certificate billboard No. 1"
"100,000 petitioners: If you’re eligible, show us the proof!"
"Shades of Florida in 2000! Could Supremes decide ’08?"

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:42 pm

Is anyone else mildly amused that a decision that went against Pornstache cites Hustler v Falwell?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:43 pm

The judge did not award attorney's fees. He should have. (They are not mandatory in D.C., unlike California.)

dwight.sullivan · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:04 pm

Here's a link to the court's opinion from the USDC's website for those, like me, whose work computers make it impossible to access Scrbd:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 1cv1179-20

vic · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:34 pm

And just to show that, like all birthers, they cannot properly identify and/or serve defendants:

Page 2, footnote 3:

Quote:

Esquire Magazine, Inc., is also named as a defendant in this case, but it is not a legal
entity and it has not been served. Accordingly, it is dismissed as a defendant in this case.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

Klayman haz a madz and, of course, this defeat must be part of a grand conspiracy...

Judge tosses WND's suit against Esquire
Appeal planned of 'significantly flawed and intellectually dishonest' ruling

Quote:

Klayman, founder of the D.C. watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND today that the D.C. court “fails to take into account that this is not parody but a commercial attempt to harm WND and Jerome Corsi in publishing the name of the book.”

The attorney argued Collyer’s decision ignores the same federal court’s Feb. 2 ruling that the D.C. anti-defamation statute does not apply in federal cases. In that case, the multinational corporation 3M has accused former Bill Clinton adviser Lanny Davis of engaging in a “defamatory media blitz” against 3M after a business dispute between the company and the manufacturer of a medical product.

Klayman, noting that the decision had been pending for nearly a year, said Collyer ignored three requests for a status conference. It was only after his team’s May 7 letter to the court’s chief judge, Royce Lamberth, he said, that Collyer “apparently commenced in haste to reach this decision, which was poorly reasoned as a matter of fact and law.”

“The decision was so poorly reasoned it rises to a level of negligence, if not a desire to dump the case because it is not palatable to the Washington establishment,” Klayman said.

That insulting the court is a great plan for an appeal, Larry.

It recently worked out very well for Donofrio and Pidgeon... only cost them 128k. :lol:

dwight.sullivan · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:57 pm

It's a beautifully executed opinion -- understated, but with a hint of mirth. Best of all, it's by a George W. Bush appointee.

dwight.sullivan · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:05 pm

"The attorney argued Collyer’s decision ignores the same federal court’s Feb. 2 ruling that the D.C. anti-defamation statute does not apply in federal cases."

No, Judge Collyer doesn't ignore 3M v. Boulter. Rather, she specifically addresses it and explains why she finds the alternative view more persuasive. See Farah v. Esquire Magazine, No. 11-cv-1179, slip op. at 11 n.10 (D.D.C. June 4, 2012).

Using the word "ignores" for addressing something and disagreeing with it damages the English language.

The funny thing is, Judge Wilkins -- who authored the 3M decision -- is an Obama appointee while Judge Collyer is a George W. Bush appointee. It's going to be hard for even a birther to spin a conspiracy theory out of that. (But maybe I'm underestimating them.)

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2238

realist wrote:

Klayman haz a madz and, of course, this defeat must be part of a grand conspiracy...

Quote:

Klayman, noting that the decision had been pending for nearly a year, said Collyer ignored three requests for a status conference. It was only after his team’s May 7 letter to the court’s chief judge, Royce Lamberth, he said, that Collyer “apparently commenced in haste to reach this decision, which was poorly reasoned as a matter of fact and law.”

So, Klayman asked the judge several times to hurry up with her decision, and then when she finally issues it, he's complaining that it was written too hastily.

Where have we heard that before? :-k

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:24 pm

This is my favorite part of the opinion:

Quote:

About an hour after esquire.com issued the Blog Post, Mr. Farah told the Daily Caller that the Blog Post was “a very poorly executed parody.” Findikyan Decl., Ex. 28 (dailycaller.com post May 18, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.). In other words, Plaintiffs immediately recognized the satiric nature of the Blog Post. Mr. Farah also took to the radio airwaves immediately following the Blog Post to mock those who asked him for comment, saying, “are you guys serious? . . . You think I’m gonna pull a best-selling book off the shelves?” Id., Ex. 43 (WND.com post May 18, 2011 at 9:24 p.m.). Because later it became inconvenient to treat the Blog Post as satire cannot erase Plaintiffs’ own contemporaneous admission that it was so intended.

obot 1024 · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm **Posts:** 661

TPM coverage

Quote:

WND founder Joseph Farah told TPM he was considering suing shortly after the publication of a post claiming WND was withdrawing the book after Obama released a copy of his long form birth certificate.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer dismissed the suit, calling the Esquire post a “satirical comment on an issue of public concern.” WND and the co-plaintiffs named in the suit had been seeking $120 million in damages — $100 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages plus legal costs.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... fpnewsfeed

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

Surprising no one WND appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against Esquire. Among the comments from Klayman:

Quote:

“We will ask that another judge be assigned, because not only did she negligently commit gross errors of fact and law, but she showed she’s biased because of a finding that has nothing to do with the case,” Klayman said.

Now I've not done any federal appeals, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when you appeal a case, wouldn't that naturally end up in front of another judge? Isn't that how appeals tend to work?

Also, saying the judge got the legal analysis wrong? Perfectly expected in an appeal. Declaring that the judge was "negligent" and "biased" in her analysis? Poor form.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

Loren wrote:

Now I've not done any federal appeals, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when you appeal a case, wouldn't that naturally end up in front of another judge? Isn't that how appeals tend to work?

Cuz, ya know, Farah is certain to win, so I'm sure he means after the appeal court reverses he wants them to also assign another lower court judge in their remand, or at least Order a different judge be assigned. :lol:

chinacreekpj · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm **Posts:** 1334

Loren wrote:

Surprising no one WND appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against Esquire. Among the comments from Klayman:

Quote:

“We will ask that another judge be assigned, because not only did she negligently commit gross errors of fact and law, but she showed she’s biased because of a finding that has nothing to do with the case,” Klayman said.

Now I've not done any federal appeals, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when you appeal a case, wouldn't that naturally end up in front of another judge? Isn't that how appeals tend to work?

Also, saying the judge got the legal analysis wrong? Perfectly expected in an appeal. Declaring that the judge was "negligent" and "biased" in her analysis? Poor form.

It appears that within the last 6 months Klayman has gone from simply misrepresenting the truth to outright lying. Another example is his press release that says that "Natural Born Citizen" will be decided at his Florida hearing on the 18th when nothing of the sort is scheduled. I think the birther bucks aren't flowing as freely as before and he feels he needs to tell grandiose lies in order to amass a chunk of cash he desperately needs to pay a court-ordered child support judgement.

I predict he won't bilk enough to pay the judgement and just might spend some time in deadbeat-dad jail.

He'll then emerge as a father's rights advocate, of course. :lol:

Foggy · **Posted:** Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:04 am

Maybe it's like JB Williams and his epic fail at the Washington Monument on Veteran's day.

Klayman tried to lead a march on D.C., too, last September. He called it the "peaceful 'Assault on Washington' ..."

It was so insignificant, we didn't even bother asking our D.C. operatives to cover it. It might as well have never happened.

For guys like him and JB, that can be seen as a measure of your importance. You set yourself up as the leader of a populist movement and call for a mass rally of hundreds of thousands and get the permits and organize it all ... and fifteen people show up. You feel like you have the word LOSER tattooed on your forehead.

JB Williams just about completely disappeared after his ghost-town rally that MsDaisy intrepidly covered for us. Klayman might have been pushed over the edge by his fail, too. Maybe.

Or maybe he's just slime getting slimier.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2483

Loren wrote:

Now I've not done any federal appeals, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when you appeal a case, wouldn't that naturally end up in front of another judge? Isn't that how appeals tend to work?

NAL -- but appeals often get sent back to the lower court. Covering their bases asses, mayhaps.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

Loren wrote:

Surprising no one WND appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against Esquire. Among the comments from Klayman:

Quote:

“We will ask that another judge be assigned, because not only did she negligently commit gross errors of fact and law, but she showed she’s biased because of a finding that has nothing to do with the case,” Klayman said.

Now I've not done any federal appeals, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when you appeal a case, wouldn't that naturally end up in front of another judge? Isn't that how appeals tend to work?

Appeals generally end up before a panel. I believe Larry Klansman is asking not only that the case be reinstated and remanded, but that when it is remanded, it be assigned to another judge. Generally, when an appeals court remands, it is to the original judge, who is expected to comply with the appellate remand.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Appeals generally end up before a panel. I believe Larry Klansman is asking not only that the case be reinstated and remanded, but that when it is remanded, it be assigned to another judge. Generally, when an appeals court remands, it is to the original judge, who is expected to comply with the appellate remand.

Exactly. And it's not like Klayman has made any case for why his judge on remand would be any more biased or prejudiced than the judges in every other remanded suit.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

Loren wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Appeals generally end up before a panel. I believe Larry Klansman is asking not only that the case be reinstated and remanded, but that when it is remanded, it be assigned to another judge. Generally, when an appeals court remands, it is to the original judge, who is expected to comply with the appellate remand.

Exactly. And it's not like Klayman has made any case for why his judge on remand would be any more biased or prejudiced than the judges in every other remanded suit.

But the judge ruled AGAINST him, when he obviously should have won! Clearly, the judge is biased and corrupt! Who but a biased and corrupt judge would rule against the mighty Larry Klansman?

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

WND finally posted what may be its first Birther-related story since the election, and in the course of doing so they resurrected an even older dead matter:

WND appeal in Esquire defamation case proceeds

Quote:

A federal appeals court has set a briefing schedule in WND’s appeal of a district court judge’s decision to dismiss its $250 million lawsuit against Esquire magazine.

“We’re confident that the lower-court decision will be overturned – we’re extremely pleased that the court has set a briefing schedule, and we’re off to the races,” said WND’s attorney in the case, Larry Klayman...

According to the court order, issued Thursday, WND’s appeal is to be filed by Jan. 11, and the final briefs are due March 18.

Larry Klayman also demonstrates his legal professionalism:

Quote:

Klayman, founder of the D.C. watchdog group Judicial Watch and his current group, Freedom Watch, told WND in a June interview that he believed Collyer showed prejudice by making material errors in the case.

He said Collyer prejudged the case, for example, in her material finding that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, even though Obama’s birthplace was not at issue.

“We will ask that another judge be assigned, because not only did she negligently commit gross errors of fact and law, but she showed she’s biased because of a finding that has nothing to do with the case,” Klayman said in the June interview...

Klayman, noting that the decision had been pending for nearly a year, said Collyer ignored three requests for a status conference. It was only after his team’s May 7 letter to the court’s chief judge, Royce Lamberth, he said, that Collyer “apparently commenced in haste to reach this decision, which was poorly reasoned as a matter of fact and law.”

“The decision was so poorly reasoned it rises to a level of negligence, if not a desire to dump the case because it is not palatable to the Washington establishment,” Klayman said.

It's a pity this probably doesn't rise to the level of being a frivolous appeal. Because either Klayman's making money off this, or Klayman's working for a pittance and WND is wasting Esquire's money while spending none of its own. Neither of those is a good scenario.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

Now *this* could be an interesting development to watch, albeit not for the reasons WND thinks:

'Esquire lied' to defend false story that harmed WND

Quote:

Klayman has filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court to throw out Esquire’s pleadings and end the case in WND’s favor. He notes that Esquire, in its briefs to the lower court in D.C. and now to the appeals court, claims the blog post had “tags” that would indicate to readers that its article was satirical and not a serious news story.

But Klayman contends the original article, which prompted a flood of response to WND by concerned readers who took it seriously, had no such tags.

He has submitted to the court screen shots of the article taken the day it was published accompanied by an affidavit from Farah testifying there were no tags.

Since the article was published, Esquire has inserted below it a list of hyperlinked “tags,” or related article categories. The list in small, faint type consists of key words and phrases, including “Where’s the Birth Certificate,” “Jerome Corsi,” “Birthers” and “Humor.”

“They lied about what was originally published,” Klayman told WND. “They lied to the lower court, and now they’ve lied to the appellate court.”

The article has links to the motion and the screenshots. But the screenshots are, noticeably, not complete. They cut off right below the article's text, which is ABOVE where any tags would appear.

And yet Farah has an affidavit saying that the tags weren't there even when the disclaimer was posted at 12:25 pm. Which is funny:

https://twitter.com/simonmaloy/status/70868308613808128
http://twitter.com/robprather/status/70869079010983936
https://twitter.com/neilbhatiya/status/ ... 7029005312
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new ... page=27#27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new ... page=60#60

So what we have here isn't Klayman catching Esquire in a fib; it's Klayman lying to the court with strategically-cropped screenshots.

I don't suppose anyone has a screenshot from those first two, pre-disclaimer hours?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online