December 30, 2008

Sweet: Vicky Iseman Sues NYT for Defamation Over NYT Sleaze-Story Claiming "Improper (Wink, Wink) Relationship"
— Ace

When someone is willing to sue, it usually means they're telling the truth. Discovery is a bitch, and if there's a there there, she wouldn't risk it.

Thanks to CJ.

$27 Million: I missed the amount she's seeking. 27 large.


Posted by: Ace at 12:41 PM | Comments (84)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Take 'em down, Vicky. Take 'em down hard. Beat the hell out of them with legal fees (both sides) and then for the $27 million. The sooner the NYT vampire has the stake driven through its heart, the better. Your lawsuit is just one more big hammerstroke on that wooden spike.

Posted by: mac at December 30, 2008 12:47 PM (km5b4)

2 She better hurry while they still have some assets to satisfy any judgment she may get.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 30, 2008 12:48 PM (hlYel)

3 Even if she doesn't get a dime but takes them down, it'll be worth it.

Posted by: Bob's Kid at December 30, 2008 12:49 PM (ZG16a)

4 MexCain should have sued when it might have made a difference.

Posted by: eman at December 30, 2008 12:51 PM (O8KSM)

5 This might be the first time a newspaper has been totalled.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at December 30, 2008 12:51 PM (NV3P1)

6 Sweet.  That Allen guy is a damn good plaintiff's attorney and a democrat.  He's not taking the case to make a statement - he must think there is some cash to be had.  Smolla is pretty highly regarded as well.

Posted by: buzz at December 30, 2008 12:52 PM (kwhut)

7 Yeah, because a lawsuit is exactly what you want during a presidential campaign.

Posted by: Donkey Lips at December 30, 2008 12:52 PM (oKlJy)

8 Could she wind up owning a portion of the Red Sox? 

Posted by: huerfano at December 30, 2008 12:52 PM (knHvu)

9 I'd hit it. Vicky, not the NYT, that is.

Posted by: jaleach at December 30, 2008 12:52 PM (gHrZU)

10 A lawsuit would not have hurt Mac. His lack of balls hurt him. He turned into a completely befuddled useless pussy when it came time to be a fucking fighter pilot.

Posted by: eman at December 30, 2008 12:57 PM (O8KSM)

11 I just heard this on Fox News...I was kinda-sorta napping, so I wasn't sure I'd heard right.

Sweet!

Posted by: Eric at December 30, 2008 12:57 PM (quZLX)

12 Given the financial state of the NYT, she'll be lucky to get $2.70.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at December 30, 2008 12:58 PM (B+qrE)

13

I wonder if she can actually win. The article implied something salacious, but journalistic bottom-feeders know how to libel within the legal limit. The New York Times has plenty of practice. 

But Iseman and her attorney may not expect to win. They may be counting on the Times to pay off rather than expose their damaged brand to further damage in open court. It may be worth a million to make this go away.

Posted by: lyle at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM (aiizS)

14 Iseman waited to file the suit until after the presidential election, in an effort to avoid influencing its outcome, her lawyers said.

Yes, because it's okay to have false rumors influence the outcome of a presidential election, but not a spirited rebuttal against them.  That's brilliant thinking.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at December 30, 2008 01:02 PM (3FVXC)

15 I'd hit it. Vicky, not the NYT, that is.

Really?  Because I'd hit the NYT.  With an aluminum bat.

Posted by: RedFox84 at December 30, 2008 01:03 PM (jG82H)

16

Oh boy, I can hardly wait.  The lawsuit will be proclaimed to be a threat to the very existence of the NYT and, consequently, the viability of a free press.  President Obama will allocate some TARP billions to bail out his propaganda machine(s).  Let the healing begin, Chicago Style.

More importantly, will commentators on AOSHQ qualify for Fourth Estate bailout funds?  I wait patiently for my check, unicorn, and rainbow. 

Posted by: Publicserf at December 30, 2008 01:06 PM (rsOXj)

17 Waste of time.  She can't prove $27M worth of "damage" to her reputation.  Indeed, one can argue that her value as a lobbiest has been enhanced by rumors that she was real close with a notable senator.  Clients like it when you're willing to do anything to get your point across.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 30, 2008 01:08 PM (Z0HFQ)

18 Vicky is pretty confident I think.  This isn't the sort of thing you file unless you are angry and have the facts.  Also the NYT will have to put up with this being spread all over the talking head shows on FOX now.  And that Discovery stuff works both ways.  I have always wondered just how vile journalists' e-mails must be.  Maybe we'll get to find out.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 30, 2008 01:08 PM (1g+FW)

19 Can you even get 27 Mil out of those fucking leftards? Maybe Schmaltzfucker Jr. will have to sell his sex dungeon.

Posted by: mossback at December 30, 2008 01:08 PM (in8Vs)

20 PA,
This isn't about her reputation.  It's about hurting the Times.  They'll settle, and the settlement will be pretty large.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 30, 2008 01:10 PM (1g+FW)

21 Depending upon what discovery shows the Times was up to she might be able to hurt some journalists' individual pocket books.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 30, 2008 01:11 PM (1g+FW)

22 I hope the Times is forced to sell the Boston Globe to Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

Posted by: eman at December 30, 2008 01:12 PM (O8KSM)

23 I think that you are all overlooking the obvious.  If the NYT says it, it's true.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 30, 2008 01:14 PM (DVVXZ)

24 If she does bring down the Times, it would be the second good thing to come from McCain's run.

Posted by: kev at December 30, 2008 01:16 PM (RYqhx)

25 Scoundrels, every last one of 'em.

Posted by: vinman at December 30, 2008 01:17 PM (idc+/)

26 "She better hurry while they still have some assets to satisfy any judgment she may get." If they can't come up with the $27MM this will do...it would make a nice crip I think....

Posted by: Ulises Jorge Bido at December 30, 2008 01:23 PM (oczdu)

27 Oh and did I mention that no one is going to want to buy this newspaper with this hanging out there unresolved?  They'll settle.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 30, 2008 01:25 PM (1g+FW)

28  Heh. Owning the building would rock.

Posted by: Al at December 30, 2008 01:25 PM (CyBUS)

29 The NYT has staff lawyers on salary, she probably doesn't.  That alone tells you who will probably prevail.  They'll just run her out of money.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 30, 2008 01:25 PM (Z0HFQ)

Posted by: dan-O at December 30, 2008 01:27 PM (AEBFS)

31

I am thinking there maybe a lawyer or two out there thay may take this case on contingency.

Just thinkin...

Posted by: AndrewsDad at December 30, 2008 01:28 PM (C2//T)

32 I wish Mrs. McLame would sue the "reporter" slut dem. that went after her daughter's friends...Surely there are some others that need suing....own petard sort of thing.  While we are at it some Palin lawsuits too....by the way, what happened to that little dem. hacker.

Posted by: free at December 30, 2008 01:29 PM (cFwGO)

33 PA,

These cases are taken on a contingency fee basis.  The times has a problem here.  A big one.

Posted by: The Obvious at December 30, 2008 01:29 PM (1g+FW)

34 They'll just run her out of money.

That's what contingency fees are for.  It's about time someone hit them back.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 30, 2008 01:36 PM (xUOXi)

35 Judgment is worthless here.  Try collecting from the Old Gray Bag-lady.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at December 30, 2008 01:46 PM (ZSEm1)

36

She, and this lawsuit, are spooge-worthy indeed.

How beautiful would it be if she wins and greatly contributes to the downfall of the NYT?

 

 

Posted by: SamIam at December 30, 2008 01:48 PM (jl7C/)

37 I hope the Times is forced to sell the Boston Globe to Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

Rush could by the NYT right now.  How sweet would it be if he did so as an anonymous investor and then made Pinch/Punch/Paunch Sulzberger dance in Times Square for a hamburger?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at December 30, 2008 01:49 PM (ZSEm1)

38 34 They'll just run her out of money.
That's what contingency fees are for.  It's about time someone hit them back.


True.  So please tell everyone center-right to stop railing against contingency fees.

Posted by: FloofyParisParamus at December 30, 2008 01:49 PM (hr1Fa)

39 by=buy.  Does not = bi.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at December 30, 2008 01:50 PM (ZSEm1)

40

All the news that sticks, we print.

Wait....

She's doing what?

Posted by: New York Times at December 30, 2008 01:54 PM (EW49d)

41 The NYSlimes can't come up with $0,27 in cash without floating a loan. They are like a catfish thrown in mudhole, flop around a while but eventually die and stink up the place.

Posted by: Scrapiron at December 30, 2008 02:00 PM (XWJh5)

42 NY Times editor: "But... but... they're Republicans! I thought we could lie about them with impunity! They can't sue us! Quick; get out the long list of liberal judges."
/sarc

Posted by: RoadRunner at December 30, 2008 02:11 PM (MJFrd)

43 I don't think the Sullivan standard would apply to her.  She isn't a public person, nor has she thrust herself into the limelight.  The NYT may have some real problems here.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 30, 2008 02:16 PM (TUWci)

44

Good luck to her. Hope she takes that worthless organization for everything it's worth. Granted, that's not that much these days, but still...

The only complaint I have here is that this is just now happening.

Posted by: SpideyTerry at December 30, 2008 02:17 PM (m9bd2)

45 Interesting question, can the NYT apply the Sullivan standard to her? She' a public figure, because they made her one...

Posted by: XBradTC at December 30, 2008 02:19 PM (/K0QE)

46 Well, they must be holding pocket aces with ace-ace-king on the board if they're making this much noise about it. Here's hoping.

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at December 30, 2008 02:23 PM (nHN8Z)

47 27 million ought to put them out of business right?

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at December 30, 2008 02:39 PM (UGtRM)

48  I hope that she wins the money, and screws the Slimes over in the process...just another nail in their coffin...

Posted by: Buck Naked - Pron Star at December 30, 2008 02:40 PM (gNXjy)

49

The thing about Sullivan, I believe, is that while it sets a damn high difficult bar for libel against a public official, it does not set an impossible one.

Meaning that if Iseman does have the facts on her side (and she has to be to be getting involved in this) and can prove that the Times intentionally lied about her (a third party not seeking the spotlight) and her sex life to maliciously or recklessly attack an ideological opponent, then this is damning.

If a court finds that the Times is culpable, especially because the standards set by Sullivan were intentionally set so damn high, then this is, to be truthful, a devastating shaming that may never be overcome. This would be ironic since Sullivan was a case that originally involved the once-proud Times.

And while I don't think that it would actually involve the actual legal case, the facts that she did wait untill after the election will play well with the court of public opinion.  

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2008 02:40 PM (TxTIh)

50 Why are these evil Rethuglicans constantly trying to distract Barry ?

Posted by: eman at December 30, 2008 02:47 PM (O8KSM)

51

To elaborate further to a hypothetical small potatoes scenario.

Sullivan creates a very high bar to libel against a public official, especially politicians, because the dangers of restricting the free flow of political speech due to fear of lawsuit, especially frivilous lawsuit, is much more dangerous than the occasional risk of a reputation being unfairly harmed.

However, if a small town publisher simply hates a local political official, he can not intentionally sceme to tell outright malicious lies about that official. He can't blatantly lie and say this official likes little boys, or burnt down a church, or accidently killed someone while drunk back in college.

I don't think that Sullivan protects against an actual conspiracy to lie.

But such situations discussing whether Sullivan applies or not usually have to be hypothetical, because acheiveing that high bar of proof and culpability is extremely rare.

So for the NY Times, the supposed paper of record, the supposed standard by which all journalists and publishers should judge themselves by, to be brought down so low as to be guilty of libeling Iseman, and by extention John McCain, is breathtaking.

If this were in Japan, Pinch would pretty much be forced to disembowel himself to save face.

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2008 02:52 PM (TxTIh)

52 Sullivan can be overcome. Knowledge of falsehood is hard, but its cohort "reckless disregard of the truth," is much easier. Arguably, reckless disregard of facts where Republicans are concerned is S.O.P. at the Slimes. Obviously, the Slimes will attempt to argue Sullivan is the standard, while Iseman will argue she is a private figure. IIRC, the libel of private figures standard is simply (1) falsehood; (2) publication; and (3) lack of "due care." Again, the amount of care injected by the partisan hack Mediacrats at the NYT has to be minimal in most cases. I think she will probably settle for a much smaller sum. But I hope she doesn't. It would be great to have a 20,000-candlepower spotlight on these cockroaches for a few months...just to remind everyone how much and why we hate their ever-living guts. Pukes.

Posted by: Fresh Air at December 30, 2008 02:57 PM (ytzxB)

53 Lee-- A conspiracy to lie is most definitely not protected. In fact, a proven conspiracy is prima facie evidence of knowledge of falsehood, ergo, guilt.

Posted by: Fresh Air at December 30, 2008 03:00 PM (ytzxB)

54

Fresh Air ~ I'm definately not a lawyer, just remembering from a first amendment class I took back in college. But I think I'm generally right on this. I'm sure you and some other morons out there can shed some more light on this.  

Posted by: Lee at December 30, 2008 03:12 PM (TxTIh)

55 Hell if the Times loses, they might have to turn Gail Collins and MoDo out on the street to turn tricks (not just rhetorical either). That oughtta bring in $3 or $4 bucks a night

Posted by: Frank G at December 30, 2008 03:19 PM (P0rQD)

56 If this were in Japan, Pinch would pretty much be forced to disembowel himself to save face.

Oooh! Change of venue, please!

Posted by: lmg at December 30, 2008 03:23 PM (A/vgC)

57 Even first year law student wouldn't take the case unless it was rock solid...

...I just hope she doesn't settle.

Posted by: G at December 30, 2008 03:35 PM (FAYNo)

58 Well, since the NYT is on its way down the toilet, of course she won't get it all even if the case is rock-solid.  What she gets with a judgment is a seat at the table in bankruptcy court.

Posted by: Dave J at December 30, 2008 03:46 PM (xHFvH)

59 Awe.  Some.

Posted by: Fallen Sparrow at December 30, 2008 04:20 PM (gx1Lm)

60 Isn't that 27,000 large?  Or has the large been embiggened?

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at December 30, 2008 04:32 PM (vpcJV)

61 Schmaltz!

Posted by: mossback at December 30, 2008 04:34 PM (in8Vs)

62 So you're saying a "large" is a "stack of high society" or a "big one".

Posted by: mossback at December 30, 2008 04:36 PM (in8Vs)

63 mill = a million dollars or a million pounds. Interestingly mill is also a non-slang technical term for a tenth of a USA cent, or one-thousandth of a dollar, which is an accounts term only - there is no coinage for such an amount. The word mill is derived simply from the Latin 'millisimus' meaning a thousandth, and is not anything to do with the milled edge of a coin.

The more correct slang term for 27 million dollars is 27 mill according to the money slang website.

Posted by: mossback at December 30, 2008 04:43 PM (in8Vs)

64 IF the discovery process reveals that the "un-named sources" cited by the article from the McCain camp were either non-existent, or mis-quoted by the TImes- then they're well and truly fucked

Posted by: Mr. Happy at December 30, 2008 05:01 PM (/YM8H)

65 Can the jury award more than she is seeking?

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at December 30, 2008 05:34 PM (0Qynq)

66 Better late than never I guess :/

Posted by: Mark at December 30, 2008 06:22 PM (HSVfY)

67 Every right wing advocacy group will contribute to her cause just to get discovery, she probably has deeper pockets at this point then the slimes.  The potential liability and legal costs associated with this are going to be reported and further drag on their worthless stock.

Hell, I bet the WaPo tosses a few bucks her way.

Posted by: Jean at December 30, 2008 06:22 PM (xCBQ4)

68

29 The NYT has staff lawyers on salary, she probably doesn't.  That alone tells you who will probably prevail.  They'll just run her out of money.

Not only are her lawyers likely working on contingency, as several above have mentioned, but the NYT will have to hire lawyers in Virginia to defend the case.  Plus depositions and responding to discovery requests will tie everyone involved up in knots, leaving them even less time to practice their version of "journalism". 

Posted by: buzz at December 30, 2008 06:41 PM (nlr0Y)

69 To add to Buzz, she filed in the Rocket Docket, this isn't going to take years. 

Posted by: Jean at December 30, 2008 06:59 PM (xCBQ4)

70 These things happen.

Posted by: Dave C at December 30, 2008 07:32 PM (4sgOQ)

71 "Can the jury award more than she is seeking?"

I wouldn't think so; however, the complaint probably has a catch-all request for something like "any and all other lawful relief as may be deemed appropriate," which opens the door to them doing anything.

Posted by: Dave J at December 30, 2008 08:18 PM (xHFvH)

72

The Times still has a few assets of value, mostly real estate. I believe they have a small share of the Red Sox. And ultimately their brand name is still salable.

But the brand is vulnerable to this lawsuit. Under Pinch, the Times has grown in partisanship while bleeding out its integrity. The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation. Not any longer. 

I wonder if Iseman is holding more than just a malicious bit of Times' hatchetry. She must have sworn statements from McCain staffers. What about tapes?

Does she have anything from inside the Times? That article embarrassed a lot of liberal reporters with its naked agenda and lack of evidence. What about within the Times itself? 

The 'story' would not have been pursued and published without the active  involvement of Pinch. He's an idiot. Can he hold up in court?

I doubt the Times will let this go to a jury.

Posted by: lyle at December 30, 2008 09:37 PM (aiizS)

73

The Times still has a few assets of value, mostly real estate. I believe they have a small share of the Red Sox. And ultimately their brand name is still salable.

But the brand is vulnerable to this lawsuit. Under Pinch, the Times has grown in partisanship while bleeding out its integrity. The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation. Not any longer. 

I wonder if Iseman is holding more than just a malicious bit of Times' hatchetry. She must have sworn statements from McCain staffers. What about tapes?

Does she have anything from inside the Times? That article embarrassed a lot of liberal reporters with its naked agenda and lack of evidence. What about within the Times itself? 

The 'story' would not have been pursued and published without the active  involvement of Pinch. He's an idiot. Can he hold up in court?

I doubt the Times will let this go to a jury.

Posted by: lyle at December 30, 2008 09:37 PM (aiizS)

74

If the Izeman team can get some of the "sources" to testify under oath that the Times fucked with their statements, lied, manipulated, or otherwise distorted what they said- shes going to be a rich woman.

 

 

Posted by: TMF at December 31, 2008 03:35 AM (waaUg)

75

On the other hand- and I dont handle any defamation cases- Im not so sure the definition of defamation includes libel by "implication" and "reading between the lines". I would think the salacious comments would have to be pretty direct and explicit

But Im not sure.

Posted by: TMF at December 31, 2008 03:36 AM (waaUg)

76 Perception is everything. The Times' retraction was pathetic and hidden, as their apologies always are. This same derelict media has the public believing that Palin said she can see Russia from her house also has caused this mess. The Times is pure scum. I only wish that Iseman made it $100 million.

Posted by: drjohn at December 31, 2008 03:39 AM (ToVRf)

77 I cannot help but notice that this does not appear on the front page of the Times, as did the original article.

Posted by: drjohn at December 31, 2008 03:43 AM (ToVRf)

78 May she have victory in this most glorious of battles!

Posted by: t.ferg at December 31, 2008 04:43 AM (2YVh7)

79 I remember a time when 27 large would have meant $27,000.  Damn inflation.

Posted by: kbiel at December 31, 2008 06:20 AM (HAib+)

80

The newspaper used to come into court swinging a ponderous reputation.

Coincidently, I also have the reputation of swinging something quite ponderous. You know what I mean ladies? Awww right... giggity.

Posted by: Lee at December 31, 2008 06:32 AM (TxTIh)

81 The Times 'source' is THEMSELVES.  Just like every other you hear sources referred to as 'some people' 'experts' 'many' etc.  Fuck them all.  I hope they don't leave too many streaks on the bowl.

The NYT building should be used as a homeless shelter.

Posted by: Melodic Metal at December 31, 2008 06:38 AM (0TU9n)

82

The NYT building should be used as a homeless shelter.

Too late.

Posted by: TallDave at December 31, 2008 09:01 AM (AZmZT)

83 Um, 27 large would mean, $27,000. In Chicago terminology, this would be 27 fuckin' HUGE.

Posted by: SK at January 02, 2009 10:35 AM (J1jrF)

84 Morality is not really the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy but of how we are to be worthy of happiness.

Posted by: Pink aventurine Jade Beads at January 02, 2011 08:16 PM (E3+IH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
111kb generated in CPU 0.12, elapsed 1.2808 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2201 seconds, 320 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.