Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMother Jones: We Were Sued By A Billionaire Political Donor. We Won. Here's What Happened.
Today we are happy to announce a monumental legal victory for Mother Jones: A judge in Idaho has ruled in our favor on all claims in a defamation case filed by a major Republican donor, Frank VanderSloot, and his company, Melaleuca Inc. In a decision issued Tuesday, the court found that Mother Jones did not defame VanderSloot or Melaleuca because "all of the statements at issue are non-actionable truth or substantial truth." The court also found that the statements were protected as fair comment under the First Amendment.
Read the full ruling here.
This is the culmination of a lengthy, expensive legal saga that began three years ago when the 2012 presidential primaries were in full swing. On February 6, 2012, we published an article about VanderSloot after it emerged that his company, Melaleuca, and its subsidiaries had given $1 million to Mitt Romney's super-PAC. The piece noted that VanderSloot had gone to unusual lengths to oppose gay rights in Idaho, and that Melaleuca had run into trouble with regulators.
VanderSloot's lawyers sent us a letter complaining about the article. We reviewed their concerns and posted a correction about a few details. So far, not an uncommon scenario; it's something every newsroom deals with from time to time.
But that September, we broke the story of Romney's 47 percent comments, which some have argued cost the GOP the White House. Four months later, VanderSlootwho was also one of Gov. Romney's national finance chairsfiled a defamation lawsuit against Mother Jones as well as Stephanie Mencimer, the reporter of the article, and Monika personally (for her tweet about the piece).
People have asked us whether we think these two things were connected, and the honest answer is that we have no idea. What we do know is that the take-no-prisoners legal assault from VanderSloot and Melaleuca has consumed a good part of the past two and a half years and has cost millions (yes, millions) in legal fees. In the course of the litigation, VanderSloot sued a former small-town Idaho newspaper reporter whose confrontation with him we mentioned in our article. His lawyers asked a judge to let them rifle through the internal records of the Obama campaign. They deposed a representative of the campaign in pursuit of a baseless theory that Mother Jones conspired with Obama's team to defame VanderSloot. They tried to get one of our lawyers disqualified because his firm had once done work for Melaleuca. They intrusively questioned our employeesour reporter was grilled about whether she had attended a Super Bowl party the night she finalized the article.
Read the full ruling here.
This is the culmination of a lengthy, expensive legal saga that began three years ago when the 2012 presidential primaries were in full swing. On February 6, 2012, we published an article about VanderSloot after it emerged that his company, Melaleuca, and its subsidiaries had given $1 million to Mitt Romney's super-PAC. The piece noted that VanderSloot had gone to unusual lengths to oppose gay rights in Idaho, and that Melaleuca had run into trouble with regulators.
VanderSloot's lawyers sent us a letter complaining about the article. We reviewed their concerns and posted a correction about a few details. So far, not an uncommon scenario; it's something every newsroom deals with from time to time.
But that September, we broke the story of Romney's 47 percent comments, which some have argued cost the GOP the White House. Four months later, VanderSlootwho was also one of Gov. Romney's national finance chairsfiled a defamation lawsuit against Mother Jones as well as Stephanie Mencimer, the reporter of the article, and Monika personally (for her tweet about the piece).
People have asked us whether we think these two things were connected, and the honest answer is that we have no idea. What we do know is that the take-no-prisoners legal assault from VanderSloot and Melaleuca has consumed a good part of the past two and a half years and has cost millions (yes, millions) in legal fees. In the course of the litigation, VanderSloot sued a former small-town Idaho newspaper reporter whose confrontation with him we mentioned in our article. His lawyers asked a judge to let them rifle through the internal records of the Obama campaign. They deposed a representative of the campaign in pursuit of a baseless theory that Mother Jones conspired with Obama's team to defame VanderSloot. They tried to get one of our lawyers disqualified because his firm had once done work for Melaleuca. They intrusively questioned our employeesour reporter was grilled about whether she had attended a Super Bowl party the night she finalized the article.
more:
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
18 replies, 2298 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (64)
ReplyReply to this post
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mother Jones: We Were Sued By A Billionaire Political Donor. We Won. Here's What Happened. (Original Post)
MerryBlooms
Oct 2015
OP
Big money does a lot of bullying and scamming, all the while claiming victim. n/t
MerryBlooms
Oct 2015
#5
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)1. We One? Two three four five?
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)2. Heh, thanks.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)3. Legal Bullying...
Reminds me of Trump.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)5. Big money does a lot of bullying and scamming, all the while claiming victim. n/t
dhill926
(16,337 posts)4. hope those assholes pay court costs....
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)6. Yeah, me too. n/t
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)8. I'm now reading the full article and am appalled.
And VanderSloot makes his money selling woo.
Amazing.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)12. +1
rurallib
(62,406 posts)9. between owning all media except the internet
and using their power to bully, intimidate and threaten real journalists and blind them bankrupt, it is amazing that we can get any truth in this country anymore.
An open and neutral internet is so important.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)13. rec! Yep, without the internet, we'd be totally screwed out of real news.
MerryBlooms
(11,767 posts)14. Super!
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)16. Just read VanderSloot's bio over there
What an appalling person.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)17. Your comment illustrates the effectiveness of Wikipedia's NPOV policy
NPOV is the Neutral Point of View. It's a core principle of Wikipedia.
DUers can freely state that VanderSloot is an appalling person. A Wikipedia article won't say that. The Wikipedia article can, however, present facts, including facts that the corporate media aren't exactly playing up, and the facts can make it clear that a bio subject is an appalling person.
dae
(3,396 posts)11. Thanks for the post MB, very informative.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)18. good reminder to support motherjones
and real journalism