Durango woman sues Herald for 9/11 cover up

[donsu]

http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060519_9.htm


Plaintiff wants $7,500 compensation for research expenses


A Durango woman issued a court summons to The Durango Herald, its publisher and its chairman on Thursday, demanding the newspaper compensate her for her attempt to uncover what she believes is a conspiracy to suppress the truth about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Judith Pfeif, representing a group called Caring for Our Community, obtained a summons requiring the Herald to appear in La Plata County small-claims court on June 1.

Pfeif wants $7,500 compensation - the maximum allowed in small-claims court - for expenses incurred researching the attacks and publicizing her view of what happened.

Pfeif wrote in her petition, "The defendants are guilty of complicity in covering up the truth about the 9/11 tragedy, thus making every one of them accomplices in the greatest crime of this century."

-snip-

Publisher Richard Ballantine responded to the summons Thursday, saying "I don't think the Herald is withholding anything that pertains to a conspiracy.
-snip-
----------------------------------


go get them, Judith!

[stepnw1f]

1. This Is What WE ALL Need to Do

We can bitch and complain, but we really need to organize and find a way to fight the media like this. Until we do so, we will be ignored as just a mere pest on the wall waiting for a swatter to smash us all to pieces. I wish I knew where to start, so if people have ideas I'd like to do something about this problem we have in this country with bullshit propaganda and the media's bullshit ignorance they always use as an excuse.

[donsu]

3. ask Caring For Our Community how they have done it

nt

[LARED]

5. That's a great idea,

let clog up court rooms across America with more trivial tripe. :sarcasm:

[petgoat]

6. What's trivial about it? The media aren't doing their job. If the

suit is frivolous, it will be tossed out.

[LARED]

7. The poster suggested that everyone

file frivolous small claims suits!

I was suggesting it would waste taxpayer money.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. There is one problem

the poster did not use the term "frivolous". This is your interpretation of the poster's suggestion. It appears that this is not a popular interpretation in this thread. I tend to agree with the consensus here.

[LARED]

12. I'm not sure that's a problem

She is suing for expenses incurred researching the attacks and publicizing her view of what happened in small claims court. It is pretty plain to most folks it is frivolous.

I've taken exactly one college course in contract law, so I am no expert, but I'm pretty certain a small claims tort actually requires at least two parties to be involved in some sort of breech. Meaning both parties had a "meeting of the minds" and one feels the obligations of the other were not met incurring some sort of monetary damages.

A newspaper is under no obligation to publicize someones views.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. I can see your point

And, while I don't agree, I appreciate your perspective.

[Jazz2006]

15. Actually, Lared ....

It has to be a suit in tort, not in contract. The "meeting of the minds" (consensus ad idem) to which you refer is purely contractual and has nothing to do with tort law, and would not be the case here. There is no contractual obligation between a newspaper and its readers to publish certain stories.

To establish a claim in tort requires that the plaintiff demonstrate 6 elements, the first of which a "duty of care" - in this case, she can't get past that one, never mind the other 5.


You're right about the fact that the case is ridiculous and that the call to arms to launch a whole lot of more of them in the same vein is wrong headed - just pointing out that it's tort, not contract, in these circumstances.


(edit to add the intended recipient to the subject line)

[LARED]

17. Thanks for the clarification (n/t)

[Jazz2006]

18. Any time.

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

9. From the story linked, the suit is entirely frivolous on its face.

The OP hasn't provided any links to the actual pleadings in order to analyze them in more detail, but on the basis of what is presented here, the suit is entirely frivolous.

There is no obligation on a newspaper to publish any and all stories that an individual or a group wishes to see published.

Imagine if that was the state of the law. Every single edition of every single newspaper across the country would be too heavy to lift. Hundreds of thousands of paperboys and papergirls would be out of work as nothing short of cranes and heavy equipment operators would be required to deliver newspapers along a route.

And this line from the opening post: "The defendants are guilty of complicity in covering up the truth about the 9/11 tragedy, thus making every one of them accomplices in the greatest crime of this century" is utterly laughable from a legal standpoint.

Huh? Newspaper staff are accomplices to murder because the paper didn't publish stories that Ms. Pfeif thinks it should have run?

Sounds pretty frivolous, all right.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

11. What are you on about?

Care to elaborate?

Edit: better yet, how about addressing my post?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

13. Thanks

I find it amazing what venues people will try using to promote a theory clearly rejected by the public.

I understand the desire to rid the US of Bush, but lets not turn our institutions upside down in the process.

[Jazz2006]

16. Yes,

While we can all agree on the desire to rid the world of Bush and his administration, that is no excuse to advocate launching thousands of frivolous, time wasting, and ridiculous court actions at our own expense.

[petgoat]

41. I think the concept that the news media owe it to the public

interest to report the news, and not to facilitate coverups, is an interesting one--one worth
exploring, defining, and refining in the legal system.

It seems particularly important in a small town environment where there may be only one local
daily paper and where its ownership may be in cahoots with City Hall, and thus highly motivated
to cover up criminal activities of local officials. I'm very curious about what kind of case
law exists on the subject.

[Jazz2006]

46. Curiosity killed the cat...

but satisfaction brought it back.

So, go and satisfy yourself.

There is no shortage of legal research facilities.

Use some of them.

[petgoat]

50. The concept interests me; the potential that some hick court

will actually address the issues seems so slight that
I'm not inclined to waste any time on it.

[mrgerbik]

20. Yes turn things upside down!

I think most folks would be surprised at how much the people can do without Big Brother holding our hand. Not to mention Bush is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to high level corruption and disastrous foreign (and domestic) policy. It's time America woke up from this broken record and realized that we are being taken for a ride.

[petgoat]

21. What if the suit is about the merits? Nobody's claiming the

newspaper has to report "any and all stories that an individual or a group wishes
to see published."

I'll suppose this suit says that important stories should be published.

Let the court throw it out if it's frivolous. What's the need to pre-judge it?

[Jazz2006]

22. What are you on about, Ms. Goat?

I'm simply spelling out the state of the law, which is that there is no obligation upon a newspaper to report any and all stories that an individual or group wishes to see published ~ which is exactly what this particular suit is about.

Of course, there is nothing stopping anyone from making a frivolous claim. That's the beauty of the system. Anyone can file suit about anything. That's what makes it open to everyone. But that doesn't mean that anything and everything that is filed is credible. And the act of filing a ridiculous lawsuit doesn't lend it credibility. You can find all manner of outrageous and totally whacko filings if you look (and you should since you seem not to understand how the system works).

Your objection to my pointing out the state of the law seems rather silly. I'll put that down to your not actually knowing what the law at issue is or how it works.

[petgoat]

23. My point was quite clear in the previous post.

Your framing of the issue as "there is no obligation upon a newspaper to report any
and all stories that an individual or group wishes to see published" is not necessarly
correct.

Ms. Pfeif is not suing so that all groups can publish their issues. She's suing on
the basis that this particular issue should be published.

[Jazz2006]

24. You clearly have no concept of

law.

Get back to me when you snag a clue.

[petgoat]

25. Try mounting an argument once in a while, counselor.

If the suit has no merit, let the court throw it out.

[Jazz2006]

26. Try snagging a clue, Ms. Goat.

Of course, it's up to the court to consider the case. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Someone posted a story.

People comment on the story.

That's how a talkboard works.

Read my posts again if you can't figure out what my "argument" is.

Read a little bit about tort law if you don't understand how it works.

[petgoat]

27. "figure out what my "argument" is"

It was clear what your "argument" was: a dishonest straw man framing of the issue.
Your stateemt said the issue was "that there is no obligation upon a newspaper to
report any and all stories that an individual or group wishes to see published."

There are several interesting issues that could be raised with respect to a
newspaper's duty to its readers--especially in a monopoly environment like a small
town. Your assumption that the suit is based on a very weak issue is not justified.

[Grateful for Hope]

28. There is no obligation

for the cable networks to report the "news" as they are listed as "entertainment". But, local news, I don't know.

| would suspect that local news is more answerable to the population it serves. I am not sure I am right, however.

I am going to research this.

[LARED]

29. Wow, talk about strawman arguments

There are several interesting issues that could be raised with respect to a
newspaper's duty to its readers--especially in a monopoly environment like a small
town. Your assumption that the suit is based on a very weak issue is not justified.

Monopoly environment? You must be kidding. Please tell me you just have not thought it out before posting.

You have heard of the internet? Yes? Last time I checked there were something like a few thousand on-line newspapers.

Also, let's be honest here. You know and I know this suit is only being brought to small claims court because it is a easy way to raise awareness about the so called 9/11 conspiracy. Plus some 9/11 CT'ers get to say "see I told you there is a massive cover-up" after it thrown out of court.

But hey, maybe the judge will do something weird and set hundreds of years of legal precedence on its ear. You can always hope.

[petgoat]

31. Monopoly environment?

Monopoly environment.

This is Durango we're talking about. How many newspapers in Durango?
How many people have internet access?

[Jazz2006]

34. That was YOUR strawman, Ms. Goat.

Why do you expect someone else to research it for you?

[petgoat]

40. I have researched it. LARED was suggesting that the

notion of a monopoly environment was not reasonable.

[LARED]

43. I'm glad you researched this

Can you explain how a monopoly environment exists in Durango, and hopefully tell me how a small claims court is going to address this concern if it exists.

Thanks in advance.

[KJF]

47. Durango

What propotion of newspapers sold in Durango does the Durango Herald account for?

Is it enough to satisfy the relevant/any legal definition of "monopoly"?

[LARED]

48. I've no clue as to what the ratio may be

and it does not matter.






Exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill (see also antitrust Sherman Antitrust Act in the Important Laws section)

[KJF]

54. Baffled

Well, I'm glad you agree that the question of whether the Herald is a monopoly in Durango is irrelevant to the action. However, I'm baffled by some of your earlier comments, for example

"Monopoly environment? You must be kidding. Please tell me you just have not thought it out before posting. You have heard of the internet? Yes? Last time I checked there were something like a few thousand on-line newspapers."

which I had the pleasure of reading in your post 29 and indicated that you did think the monopoly issue was relevant.

[Jazz2006]

49. Ms. Goat says she's researched it. Surely, we can expect the

results of her research soon.

ish.

[petgoat]

51. No you can't. Google is your friend. 1 daily. Some weeklies. nt

[LARED]

52. How disappointing.

I was really looking forward to your defense that small town newspapers create monopolies that can be remedied in small claims court.

[petgoat]

53. "monopolies that can be remedied"

Ideally they could be, in practice I doubt it. Durango is not Vermont, after all.

[LARED]

55. So does that mean you think there is a newspaper monoploy

in Durango?

[petgoat]

56. " does that mean you think there is a newspaper monoploy"

No I don't think that. I don't care if there's a newspaper monopoly in Durango.
But despite that fact, it appears that I'm the only one who spent fifteen seconds
researching the question and found that there's only one Daily there.

http://www.abyznewslinks.com/unitecodr.htm

I don't think there is a newspaper monopoly or isn't. I think the proposition
that there is a newspaper monopoly is a reasonable one, as there are indications
that there is a monopoly, and no evidence that there isn't.

But the "gotcha" game isn't worth the candle.

[Jazz2006]

45. I, too, look forward to

reading the results of that research.

[Jazz2006]

30. Wrong again, Ms. Goat

But that is not a surprise.

Like I said, read a little bit about tort law. Oh, and media law.

My conclusion that the suit, as set out in the limited fashion that it is in the linked story, is based on intimate knowledge of the current state of the law.

[petgoat]

32. Your conclusion is based on your framing of the issue. nt

[Jazz2006]

33. Wrong again.

It's based on my intimate knowledge of tort and media law.

And as I've said upthread, at least a couple of times now, you should read a bit about same and maybe snag a clue along the way.

[dailykoff]

35. Your "intimate knowledge" of tort law?

You can't even get his gender right and you're supposed to know something about law? Please give me a break.

[Jazz2006]

37. Oh, the inanity.

Appears rather contagious in your circles.

Ms. Goat made her gender quite clear on another thread.

And even if that weren't the case, what on earth would that have to do with the state of the law and my knowledge of it?

Your post is rather ridiculous and inane.

[dailykoff]

42. Your lack of specificity

complements your lack of accuracy. Very amusing. I don't suppose your "clients" include the Ringling brothers?

[Jazz2006]

44. You obviously know nothing about

tort law or media law, so you are hardly in a position to comment on the accuracy of my position.

I've given you a roadmap to satisfy yourself as to the legal requirements.

1) tort law primer;
2) duty of care;
3) media law and the obligations of the news media to its readers/viewers/etc.

Not my problem if you choose to remain ignorant on the subject and post nonsense through that veil of ignorance.

[dailykoff]

60. Still no link I see.

Don't hurry on my account.

[Jazz2006]

61. I've given you the roadmap....

why aren't you using it?

Don't hurry on my account.

[Jazz2006]

62. delete dupe.

[boobooday]

2. That's pretty damn creative

Sue the media for not doing their jobs!

So at the very least she forces them to report on her suing them.

That's resourceful.

[tulsakatz]

4. $$$.....the only thing they truly understand

If they find out it costs them money, they may start doing their jobs again!

[Twist_U_Up]

36. Every bit of exposure helps and

It keeps the naysayers busy trying to keep their heads above water before they drown in a pool of truth.

[KJF]

38. This is quite interesting

From the Aspen Daily News:

A New Take on Newspaper Warnings
They sued a Durango newspaper this week for covering up the 9/11 investigations. What's next? A woman named Judith Pfeif -- no phone number listed -- claimed that somehow the paper had suppressed her theories as to how the attacks came to be. The suit was filed on behalf of the "Durango 9/11 Group," with 193 signatures.

Let the games begin.

The suit stands little chance, we all know. But it raises a fascinating issue: When may publishers be held accountable not for what they printed, but for what they did not? Could anyone sue the Durango Herald not for what showed up, but for what didn't? The case was filed in small claims court, where damages are limited to $7,500. Small claims judges usually don't hear cases in which outfits are accused of libel or negligence, but that doesn't mean they can't.

Continued at link:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:t3n1i1CAp3EJ:www.aspendailynews.com/article_14199+%22Judith+Pfeif%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=firefox-a

FWIW, I doubt she has much chance. I wonder if the paper has a mission statement or something and what it says.

[Grateful for Hope]

39. I agree that it is quite interesting

At the very least, Pfeif has brought attention to the 9/11 questioning in a way that would not have happened if this were a typical small claims court suit.

[neebob]

57. I live in Durango

and my office is near the courthouse. I'm very tempted to attend this hearing.

[Americus]

58. Durango Mayor

Is his name Tom Dugan?

[neebob]

59. No, it's a woman named Sydny Zink.

Why do you ask?

[SidDithers]

63. Update...her suit in Small Claims Court was dismissed...

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060602_7.htm

There's a thread of it's own in 9/11, but thought the result should also be posted in the thread discussing the case.

Sid

[Jazz2006]

64. Thanks, Sid. It was the correct - and expected - result as the

suit was without merit.

[SidDithers]

65. Kick...

just in case the posters upthread didn't see the verdict.

Sid

[Jazz2006]

66. Uh oh... the plaintiff's name was "Pfief" ...

which is awfully similar to "Pfiefer" - and the latter was the name of one of the hundreds of firefighters on the scene .... gee, maybe Ray Ubinger should look into this given his posts on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=92403&mesg_id=93187

Hey, if he can weave a convoluted conspiracy theory out of the fact that a long time poster here who happens to be a piper of Scotch background and uses the gaelic for "piper" as his user name (piobair), to dream up a theory that the poster is a murderer or a conspiracy to murder (according to his site, complicit in a "snuff film" no less) on the basis that the german tranlation for the word piper is something like pfeifer, well, hey, this plaintiff (whose name is much, much closer to his conspiracy theory and doesn't require translations across several languages) should be a slam dunk for him to figure out a way to equate her to the ringleader of the entire affair, I would think.

Surely, the CT cheerleaders will look forward to his analysis on this as much as I will.

[SidDithers]

67. Now THAT is some serious conspircacy thinking...

I don't know whether to applaud, or be worried about you :)

Sid