NY court rejects Dan Rather's appeal against CBS

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

New York's top court has rejected Dan Rather's bid to reinstate his $70 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against CBS Corp.

Rather's motion was denied without comment Tuesday by the Court of Appeals.

CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs says the network is pleased with the outcome. A call to Rather's lawyer was not immediately returned.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_en_tv/us_dan_rather_lawsuit_3

[ShortnFiery]

1. That's a shame. Many of us believe that Dan Rather was callously set-up. eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. he was

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. By whom?

:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

21. By your pals in the gop

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. You don't have any specific names?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

45. He probably was, but being set up is different from breach of contract.

[hlthe2b]

2. Another win by the corporatocracy...

This just sucks....

[eowyn_of_rohan]

17. ditto

[BOSSHOG]

3. I still have hope that

Dan Rather will be vindicated in his life time. Maybe a death bed confession of karl rove.

[xxqqqzme]

53. Saurove will have no death bed

He'll be struck by lightening, if there is justice in the universe.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Hmm. So justice can be "denied without comment."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. why was there no comment?

[FiveGoodMen]

11. I assume it's because they didn't have a valid reason to do it and didn't want to explain that

[totodeinhere]

13. They don't have to make any comment if they don't want to.

And they don't have to give a reason for not commenting either.

[Jim Lane]

43. The Court of Appeals almost never comments on denials of leave to appeal

The setup in New York is that, if the trial court rules against you (after trial or on a pretrial motion), you get one appeal as of right, to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court. The decisions of the Appellate Division can be reversed by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, but the Court of Appeals can't hear anywhere close to all the cases that people would like to bring to it.

You can appeal as of right to the Court of Appeals if there were two dissenters at the Appellate Division who agreed with you. Otherwise, you have to make a motion for leave to appeal. It's up to the Court of Appeals whether to grant your motion and hear the appeal.

The vast majority of such motions are denied. I can't remember ever seeing a decision in which the Court of Appeals denied and motion for leave AND addressed the merits of the dispute, although it may have happened occasionally. The denial of the motion for leave means that the judges won't address the merits.

I assume that the Appellate Division, which ruled against Rather, issued an opinion explaining its reasoning. That's all that most litigants get.

[No Elephants]

46. Thanks.

What are you trying to do? Confuse everyone by giving us facts?

[Soylent Brice]

5. that's fucked up, but expected. sadly. n/t

[ladjf]

8. Of course. nt

[defendandprotect]

9. What do we have now . .. 1 liberal judge for ever 50, or every 100???

[WriteDown]

10. Appointed by governor....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals

[librechik]

12. Pataki.

of course

[alp227]

27. The current Chief Judge is a Paterson nominee though.

Still the NY Court of Appeals has a bigger Republican than Democratic appointee ratio.

[No Elephants]

47. This and other things make Governor's races so much morre important

than most people think, including the ability to fill vacancies in the U.S. Senate.

Blue Massachusetts seems to vote for a lot of Republican Governors. Most of them have been photogenic and have nice manners, so I am starting to think it doesn't take much more than that to get elected. Yet, Massachusetts Supremes were the first in the nation to find that gays have a right to marry.

I'm guessing most of them just happened to get appointed during the few times we elected a Democrat as Governor.

[librechik]

52. exactly--we need to make justice more balanced--big problem w conservative domination of courts

everywhere

[robinlynne]

14. This and so many other things mke me feel that Bush won, by appointing

the 2 Supremes. We really should have gotten the votes counted in Ohio. and fought his taking power tooth and nail.

[defendandprotect]

26. Look at Gore . . . he actually won popular vote and won Florida, as well . . .

and he didn't fight --

Evidently Gore personally called Jesse Jackson off the demonstrations in

the area of the "butterfly ballots" -- those should have been reversed, without

question!!!

And others say that Gore got word from the establishment at some point not to

continue fighting --

Shirley . . . we wouldn't want to look like a "banana republic nation" . . . !!!!

Insane -- i n s a n e --


And, Kerry folded even faster re Ohio -- heard they told him "very powerful conspiracy"

there --


PS: Just to add re Ohio, especially, it did seem to be a very OUT THERE and open

steal, practically in the streets!

But, then, so was the GOP sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-

Dade County which was a near riot -- and with no interference by police!!!

It's all been really out there in the open -- confidently run and seemingly sure that

no one is going to bother them.

Re Obama, I've also heard that evidently he had an overwhelming landslide win and that

there was a steal of 24 Congressional seats. Sounds right to me!

Meanwhile, I've never seen the "official" vote count for the election.

I have to remember to look for it at some point.

[robinlynne]

28. oh, the offical vote count was way off. Obama "officially" won by 52%.

Gore at least took it to court. Kerry simply walked away. the whole thing both times was simply unbelievable. It still is. The Bush appointees are still running the election commission. seriously. Obama has not replaced them. He can, it's his call.

[defendandprotect]

38. When things can be so easily reversed, it's really frustrating if not sickening ....

to see Obama not doing it!

[No Elephants]

48. And end up in the Poppy and Dim son Bush SCOTUS again?

They still had the majority. They still do.

[robcon]

15. Terrific. His suit was groundless.

CBS lived up to the letter of its contract with Rather.

Dan just couldn't get used to the idea that he could be fired or eased out, even if his employer lived up to its contract with him.

[Enthusiast]

20. No Democrat could believe this.

You are another Reich Wing hack.

[robcon]

22. Should I just ask you if a Democrat can believe that rather is an arrogant ass?

Are you the expert on who's a Democrat, Enthusiast? Are there any other things where you can decide for all of us who is a 'true democrat, Enthusiast?

Rather is a spoiled brat, who couldn't believe he was fired.

So he sued, thinking he could prove to the world that CBS owed it to him to remain as its news anchor, even if CBS paid him $6 million, as his contract specified.

It was an ego problem, not a legal problem, for Rather, IMO.

[Enthusiast]

44. Why yes, I am an expert.

Anyone on DU that wishes to know if someone is actually a Democrat and not some RW corporatist lackey posing as a Democrat should ask me. Because I can spot them.

You're confused about 'spoiled brats'. The spoiled brat in this question is your hero AWOL George W Bush. CBS is another Reich Wing conduit of propaganda. They knew full well what they were doing to Rather. Anyone that would dare tarnish the image of sacred Georgie boy......

[Jim Sagle]

39. Fuck off, RNC roach.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Mixed feelings here

I tend to believe that the letter of the contract between Rather and CBS was followed, which was the legal issue in play. He was indeed an at will employee.

That said, that doesn't mean he was wrong or was not set up.

[Solly Mack]

16. k/r

[Vidar]

18. The corporate clowns are circling the wagons. No liberals allowed.

[fascisthunter]

23. this story exposes how corrupt our judicial system has become

justice was supposed to be blind.

[No Elephants]

49. It exposes how corrupt the media is.

At the risk of having everyone call me a Republican, Rather did not have much of a cause of action for breach of contract.

He was an employee at will. He had no legal right not to be fired, regardless of the reason, (unless they fired him for race, religion, gender, age, disability, etc.)

They could have fired him because they didn't like the color of his socks, or because they had an urge to fire someone that day. They didn't owe him a reason, or a job, or anything else.

Don't confuse the court's deciding what contract right Rather had or did not have with the court supporting Republicans. Conversely, don't read this decision as saying everything the employer did was morally right. It a court of law, deciding whether Rather had a contract that protected him from being fired whenever and whyever his employer wanted to fire him.

I am not saying no court is corrupt. I am saying only that this case tells us nothing about that.

[alp227]

24. N.Y. Court Denies Dan Rather Appeal

Source: Marisa Guthrie, Broadcasting & Cable

The New York Court of Appeals has tossed out the remainder of Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS Corp.

The ruling, denying his motion to appeal, effectively ends Rather's breach-of-contract suit against his former employer.

Rather's side was ordered to pay $100 and other necessary court costs. A phone call to his attorney, Martin Gold, was not immediately returned.

The former CBS New anchor filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS Corp. and its officers, including Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, CBS Corp. CEO Leslie Moonves and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward.

Read more: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/443719-N_Y_Court_Denies_Dan_Rather_Appeal.php

[RedCloud]

25. That's it! Off with the court's head. Puppets!

[kpete]

29. Dan Rather exhausts legal appeals in lawsuit against CBS (Legal fight with CBS came to end today)

Source: Los Angeles Times

Dan Rather exhausts legal appeals in lawsuit against CBS

RATHER Dan Rather’s protracted legal fight with CBS came to end today when New York state’s highest court declined to hear the anchor’s motion to reinstate his $70-million lawsuit against his longtime employer.

Rather was hoping the court would allow him to continue pursuing his suit alleging breach of contract and fraud against CBS that a state appellate court dismissed in September. But the Court of Appeals denied Rather’s motion without comment.

The decision came as muted denouement to what had been an expensive and at times ugly battle between the veteran newsman and the network that was his home for 44 years.

Rather’s decision in 2007 to sue CBS over the network’s treatment of him in the aftermath of its controversial report about George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard estranged him from his colleagues. Some publicly denounced him, saying the anchor was seeking to deflect blame for letting a story on the air that had not been fully vetted. But to Rather, the case was part of a larger mission: taking on the business and political interests he said were cowing news organizations.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/01/dan-rather-exhausts-legal-appeals-in-lawsuit-against-cbs.html

[David Zephyr]

30. Dan Rather will always be Winner in my eyes and heart.

Dan Rather, American journalistic hero.

[SPedigrees]

31. +1000 nt

[MissDeeds]

37. Absolutely

Dan Rather is a real journalist. His "error" was in daring to speak the truth. We know what he presented about Bush's "service" was accurate, but it was easier to vilify Mr. Rather than to admit the commander in chief was a freaking fraud.

[defendandprotect]

32. Wasn't Rather basically betrayed by his own network . . . how could he win?

[rhett o rick]

33. He couldnt win living in a corptocracy. nt

[Peace Patriot]

34. Kudos to Dan Rather for fighting the good fight! His work can be seen at www.HD.net

His documentary on our fraudulent voting systems is an excellent work: "The Trouble With Touchscreens."

If our country and humanity survive this era, he will certainly be recognized as one of the great heroes of American democracy, who tried to expose the rot at the heart of Corporate Rule. His heroism is all the more amazing because he was one of their key front men for so long. But the Bush Junta opened his eyes--really opened them--seered them. You know what one of those CBS execs said to him about exposing Bush Jr.'s AWOL. He said that Junior's reelection was "in our interest."

There you have, in a nutshell, our entire problem--from the Forever War to the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines to the dreadful corpo-fascist media. It is "in the interest" of the super-rich, global corporate predators and war profiteers to destroy this democracy. And that they have nearly done. And I don't know if the American people can get it back. It will never die in the hearts of our people, nor in those other people who admire the best aspects of this huge multi-cultural experiment--the first country to break colonial rule, the ringing "Declaration of Independence," the centuries of struggle to live up to its ideals--with the Abolitionist movement, the slave revolts, the labor movements, the women's movements, the civil rights movements, the anti-war movements. We have a remarkable heritage in the dreams and struggles of ordinary people. We do need one more movement--the anti-corporate movement, which we see on the rise in Latin America. It can happen here, too. I think we need to free our voting system of corporate privatization and 'TRADE SECRET' code before we can get anywhere with reform. I know we are oppressed and disempowered on many fronts. But so were the people of Latin America. Now they have good, leftist, democratic governments in Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay (!), Chile (about to lose that one, though), Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala (and just lost one in Honduras). Despite the losses, this democracy movement is here to stay, and will spread even to a U.S.-created disaster area like Colombia. It is a movement whose time has come.

Dan Rather is a hero for what he tried to do. Now we all have to take up the work of freeing ourselves from our Corporate Overlords.

[clear eye]

35. Indeed. Links to election integrity groups and the push for public financing of election campaigns>

http://www.votersunite.org/info/groups.asp

http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/volunteer

[Vidar]

36. I admire anyone who fights injustice & Rather has certainly done that.

[aquart]

40. Bleh. So much for the truth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. The court decision was strictly contract law, not if he was right

Its not as hard to separate ones feelings as it seems to be to separate issues in the courts

[No Elephants]

50. IMO, Rather won. He got the truth out.

Only if we interpret this decision as saying CBS did nothing wrong do we make Rather lose. So, don't do that and don't let anyone else do that.

The courts never said CBS did nothing wrong. This is not Morals Court. This was a legal action in a court of law for breach of contract. The courts said only that Rather's contract did not protect him from being fired.

That doesn't mean his story was wrong or that CBS was right to fire him. It means only that his contract did not protect him from being fired.