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

BFB · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:32 am

kimba wrote:

Kenyacorn's basis for calling Dr C a "union thug" is because he belongs to the American Civil Liberties Union? Is she THAT stoopid that she thinks an organization that has "Union" in its title is a union like the AFT or Teamsters? Really? Really? Oh, I'm busting my buttons with ROFLMAO side-splitting LOLOLOLs!!! =))

Oh damn that is funny.

I used to shop at a Grand Union. Does that make me a thug??

Lola_Getz · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:19 am

BFB wrote:

I used to shop at a Grand Union. Does that make me a thug??

I've been to Union Station.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3516

A couple of minutes into part 2 of the Farah/Corsi/Klayman "press conference," http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317109, when they introduce Mara Zebest, is some good stuff.

Zebest is introduced as author or editor of "over 100" books about Adobe, then promptly exhibits her skills, not being able to open the LFBC .pdf file in front of her until she and Jesus H. Corsi play with it for a good minute or more..

Some "expert."

But GREAT theater nonetheless..!

- Fogbow Subversive in a Black Suit (with a Brown Shirt) FSBS+BS

lyssandri · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:53 am

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

From The American President, couldn't say it better myself

LOVE that movie. LOVE even more that speech.

I know Sorkin's "reputation" and drug arrests would make him fairly toxic for any candidate or president to actually hire, I think it would be incredible to have him as someone's speechwriter.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:29 am

jtmunkus wrote:

A couple of minutes into part 2 of the Farah/Corsi/Klayman "press conference," http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317109, when they introduce Mara Zebest, is some good stuff.

Zebest is introduced as author or editor of "over 100" books about Adobe, then promptly exhibits her skills, not being able to open the LFBC .pdf file in front of her until she and Jesus H. Corsi play with it for a good minute or more..

Some "expert."

But GREAT theater nonetheless..!

- Fogbow Subversive in a Black Suit (with a Brown Shirt) FSBS+BS

Yeah, I thought that inauspicious start was pretty hilarious. =))

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

thorswitch wrote:

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

From The American President, couldn't say it better myself

LOVE that movie. LOVE even more that speech.

I used to like that movie, but several years ago, I realized that I REALLY disagree with one of the movie's central arguments.

So the President is dating a lobbyist. An environmental lobbyist, to be specific. And when the press inquires into this relationship, the White House's repeated response is "The White House does not comment on the President's personal life."

Except this is a lobbyist. And not only is the President having an intimate personal relationship with an active lobbyist, but she lobbies on behalf of major legislation that THE PRESIDENT IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING. In fact, the film actually depicts her and the President making a closed-door deal (during a private visit to the White House on "personal" business) where he will help her pass the legislation she's pushing for.

The press and the President's critics are exactly right in the movie, and the White House is dead wrong. Seriously, this is teetering on corruption. She used her personal relationship with the President to lobby for legislation, and the White House claims that it's none of the public's business. The President dating a lobbyist is most DEFINITELY the public's business, and the movie demonstrates precisely why. The film only gets away with it because the environmental lobby is depicted as positive and cuddly; imagine the film as a Republican President who starts dating a corporate lobbyist and starts making private deals to help pass her deregulatory legislation, and I daresay that a lot of the film's fans would have a very different reaction.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

We all need to remember that the real purpose of the lawsuit is to gain DISCOVERY!! of Obama's records, not anything to do with defamation or libel or any of that silly stuff. This lawsuit is the OMG moment all the birfers have been waiting for (if the judiciary are not all bought off, of course).

Over at drkate's house of batshit crazy, Gary Wilmott 'splains how it all works...

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... /#comments

Quote:

Gary Wilmott June 30, 2011 at 8:02 pm

A defendant in a defamation case may raise a variety of defenses. These are summarized as follows:
Truth

The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.

A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the “gist” or “sting” of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.
Consent

Where a plaintiff consents to the publication of defamatory matter about him or her, then this consent is a complete defense to a defamation action.

[highlight]The BC has relevance in that it’s discovery (we all know though of course it doesn’t exist) can disprove any TRUTH (claim) defense on Esquire’s part. Asking for all the relevant documents only further exposes the entire Obama cover-up/crimes[/highlight].

milspec · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:08 am

Loren wrote:

thorswitch wrote:

Litlebritdifrnt2 wrote:

From The American President, couldn't say it better myself

LOVE that movie. LOVE even more that speech.

The press and the President's critics are exactly right in the movie, and the White House is dead wrong. Seriously, this is teetering on corruption. She used her personal relationship with the President to lobby for legislation, and the White House claims that it's none of the public's business. The President dating a lobbyist is most DEFINITELY the public's business, and the movie demonstrates precisely why. The film only gets away with it because the environmental lobby is depicted as positive and cuddly; imagine the film as a Republican President who starts dating a corporate lobbyist and starts making private deals to help pass her deregulatory legislation, and I daresay that a lot of the film's fans would have a very different reaction.

$\:D/$ $\:D/$
Well Loren I had the same reaction.

But still liked the film.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

realist wrote:

We all need to remember that the real purpose of the lawsuit is to gain DISCOVERY!! of Obama's records, not anything to do with defamation or libel or any of that silly stuff.

Hey, don't blame the plebians for drawing that conclusion. I'm pretty sure Klayman or somebody at Wednesday's press conference said almost exactly the same thing.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:22 am

kimba wrote:

Foggy wrote:

Sadly, KBOA had a lot of information on my hero Doc C. She described it on that Andrea Shea King show last week. Who knows how much of it is real or not.

On the bright side, her story about how she got it had nothing to do with Fogbow. Her investigation of him was totally separate, according to her.

I stress the "according to her" because her explanation of how she got my info was filled with outright lies. Sometimes I think that woman would rather tell a lie than take a deep breath.

Is she going after the ones she's going after because they're the ones she's been able to find what she thinks is their personal information? (I'm not really asking, I'm putting it the form of a "Cavuto")

DING! DING! DING!

Folks, we have a winner!

KBOA's "research" uncovered the identities of some whose identities have been out there for months or years. GeorgetownJD has been no secret for two-and-a-half years.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:25 am

I think the purpose of the lawsuit is for the purpose of publicizing the book and advertising to a wider audience. It also gives more opportunities to float the smears in other venues. They are just doing what O'rly is doing and has been doing. The lawsuit is going nowhere, but it will get attention and fool some people into donating or buying the book. I noticed the position on Amazon improved a bit after the press conference. Right now, it's #1,583 but before the press conference it was getting close to #3,000.

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3516

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

jtmunkus wrote:

A couple of minutes into part 2 of the Farah/Corsi/Klayman "press conference," http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317109, when they introduce Mara Zebest, is some good stuff.

Zebest is introduced as author or editor of "over 100" books about Adobe, then promptly exhibits her skills, not being able to open the LFBC .pdf file in front of her until she and Jesus H. Corsi play with it for a good minute or more..

Some "expert."

But GREAT theater nonetheless..!

- Fogbow Subversive in a Black Suit (with a Brown Shirt) FSBS+BS

Yeah, I thought that inauspicious start was pretty hilarious. =))

I guess it's a good thing for them that there was no "press" at their "conference."

- FSBS+BS

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:53 am

Was fake expert Zebest able to turn on the computer?

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3516

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Was fake expert Zebest able to turn on the computer?

I just found out that not only is Zebest NOT AN EXPERT, but also that Corsi IS NOT COHERENT, and that thing on Farah's upper lip IS NOT A MOUSTACHE.

- FSBS+BS

"Thise rumors are rrridiculous. I never, used 'Moldovan concrete dental bridge' in, my practice. I get, all of my dental supplies directly from Kazakhstan."

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9400

Esquire is likely to have top-shelf counsel. Too bad, because the defense could basically stand up, say "12(b)(6)," sit down, and win.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Esquire is likely to have top-shelf counsel. Too bad, because the defense could basically stand up, say "12(b)(6)," sit down, and win.

As I wrote elsewhere, the plaintiff's argument is basically that a parody of WorldNetDaily is too easily confused with WND's actual output.

In other words, they're trying to make Poe's Law into a cause of action.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm

DC Anti-SLAPP legislation.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5253

realist wrote:

We all need to remember that the real purpose of the lawsuit is to gain DISCOVERY!! of Obama's records, not anything to do with defamation or libel or any of that silly stuff. This lawsuit is the OMG moment all the birfers have been waiting for (if the judiciary are not all bought off, of course).

Over at drkate's house of batshit crazy, Gary Wilmott 'splains how it all works...

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... /#comments

Quote:

Gary Wilmott June 30, 2011 at 8:02 pm

A defendant in a defamation case may raise a variety of defenses. These are summarized as follows:
Truth

The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.

A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the “gist” or “sting” of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.
Consent

Where a plaintiff consents to the publication of defamatory matter about him or her, then this consent is a complete defense to a defamation action.

[highlight]The BC has relevance in that it’s discovery (we all know though of course it doesn’t exist) can disprove any TRUTH (claim) defense on Esquire’s part. Asking for all the relevant documents only further exposes the entire Obama cover-up/crimes[/highlight].

Ecxuse me for amatur laywering here, but from what I can see the BC is of pretty much no relevence to the lawsuit. The issue is did Esquire defame WND in order to reduce its sales. The BC is of absolutely no relevence to the case, other than as an alternitive reason why the book tanked. If they try to introduce evidence of fordgery into the case the proper court response would be "so what?"

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

Quote:

Ecxuse me for amatur laywering here, but from what I can see the BC is of pretty much no relevence to the lawsuit. The issue is did Esquire defame WND in order to reduce its sales. The BC is of absolutely no relevence to the case, other than as an alternitive reason why the book tanked. If they try to introduce evidence of fordgery into the case the proper court response would be "so what?"

Indeed they may try to do so, and the Court would most likely say GOOMC with that crap.

That said, the LAST thing Corsi or any birther attorney wants is to get into the courtroom where the authenticity of Obama's BC is an issue. They know damn well it's legit, and for it to actually be determined so by a court and/or jury would end their ability to bilk the birthers out of cash. No way they're going to chance that.

Well, with the exception of Orly, who is too stupid to figger the above out.

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

realist wrote:

We all need to remember that the real purpose of the lawsuit is to gain DISCOVERY!! of Obama's records, not anything to do with defamation or libel or any of that silly stuff. This lawsuit is the OMG moment all the birfers have been waiting for (if the judiciary are not all bought off, of course).

Over at drkate's house of batshit crazy, Gary Wilmott 'splains how it all works...

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... /#comments

Quote:

Gary Wilmott June 30, 2011 at 8:02 pm

A defendant in a defamation case may raise a variety of defenses. These are summarized as follows:
Truth

The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.

A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the “gist” or “sting” of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.
Consent

Where a plaintiff consents to the publication of defamatory matter about him or her, then this consent is a complete defense to a defamation action.

[highlight]The BC has relevance in that it’s discovery (we all know though of course it doesn’t exist) can disprove any TRUTH (claim) defense on Esquire’s part. Asking for all the relevant documents only further exposes the entire Obama cover-up/crimes[/highlight].

ARRGH! The Stupid! It BURNS!

Did Corsi claim that Esquire defamed them by saying the birth certificate was valid? No? Then why would Esquire claim TRUTH as a defense?

And, not, say, SATIRE?

ZekeB · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:08 pm

realist wrote:

Well, with the exception of Orly, who is too stupid to figger the above out.

Now wait a minute. You can be sued for slander for saying that.

On second thought, didn't Stern just say that truth is a defense?

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5253

ZekeB wrote:

realist wrote:

Well, with the exception of Orly, who is too stupid to figger the above out.

Now wait a minute. You can be sued for slander for saying that.

On second thought, didn't Stern just say that truth is a defense?

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2475

Lola_Getz wrote:

BFB wrote:

I used to shop at a Grand Union. Does that make me a thug??

I've been to Union Station.

I heard (putative) President Obama give a State of the Union address --- the Commie Union Thugs have taken over.

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2361

jtmunkus wrote:

A couple of minutes into part 2 of the Farah/Corsi/Klayman "press conference," http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317109, when they introduce Mara Zebest, is some good stuff.

Zebest is introduced as author or editor of "over 100" books about Adobe, then promptly exhibits her skills, not being able to open the LFBC .pdf file in front of her until she and Jesus H. Corsi play with it for a good minute or more..
Some "expert."

She starts trying to open the document at 1:48 in the video.

Corsi runs up to save her at 2:35.

She finally gets it open at 3:37.

One second shy of two full minutes!!!

You can't make that shit up!

verbalobe · **Posted:** Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:50 pm

Epectitus wrote:

jtmunkus wrote:

A couple of minutes into part 2 of the Farah/Corsi/Klayman "press conference," http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=317109, when they introduce Mara Zebest, is some good stuff.

Zebest is introduced as author or editor of "over 100" books about Adobe, then promptly exhibits her skills, not being able to open the LFBC .pdf file in front of her until she and Jesus H. Corsi play with it for a good minute or more..
Some "expert."

She starts trying to open the document at 1:48 in the video.

Corsi runs up to save her at 2:35.

She finally gets it open at 3:37.

One second shy of two full minutes!!!

You can't make that shit up!

Probably had one of those newfangled meeses that require that you "double-click."

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online