James O'Keefe Sues Current Media, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster for Defamation

[hyphenate]

Source: Reuters

By Tim Kenneally at TheWrap
Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:09pm EST

Conservative journalist/activist James O'Keefe has often been accused of skewing the truth with his work. And now O'Keefe has charged others of doing the same to him.

O'Keefe's hit pieces on Planned Parenthood, ACORN and NPR have made him a hero of the right wing but have gained him a reputation for dishonesty in other circles. Now he's filed a defamation lawsuit against Current Media -- the parent company of Al Gore's Current TV -- as well as "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann, and guest host David Shuster, claiming that he had been falsely branded as a "convicted felon" who had been accused of rape during a December episode of "Countdown."

According to O'Keefe's complaint, which was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, during the December 22, 2011 edition of "Countdown," Olbermann called O'Keefe a convicted felon" on "federal parole after he was charged with [a] felony for attempting to maliciously interfere with Senator [Mary] Landrieu's office telephone system in New Orleans."

The suit further claims that on the Feb. 24, 2012 edition of "Countdown," guest host Shuster stated that there is a "rape allegation facing...conservative activist...James O'Keefe." In actual fact, O'Keefe's lawsuit claims, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses in connection with the Landrieu incident, and an investigation did not uncover any evidence that O'Keefe and his cohorts actually intended to tamper with Landrieu's phones.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/29/idUS163636531220120229

---

O'Keefe really yearns for the spotlight, doesn't he?

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Sounds like it might be nice to do some discovery on this guy

[tooeyeten]

12. Now

won't that be fun? The suit will surely backfire.

[nanabugg]

69. He's trying to fill the Breitbart void

Another lying sack trying to pretend he is a journalist.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. How you like them "frivolous" lawsuits now? nt

[jillan]

3. This could, maybe, possibly be a good thing with the spotlight being on that slimeball.

And I'm not talking about Keith or Shuster.

[itsrobert]

4. Olbermann addressed this yesterday as a script error

and issued a full retraction and apology.

[csziggy]

5. I was wondering why Olbermann apologized to O'Keefe the other day

But I guess an apology is not good enough for someone like O'Keefe.

[aquart]

26. What I can't imagine is why one would be necessary.

[csziggy]

28. Keith called O'Keefe a "convicted felon" which O'Keefe is not under the law

Keith should have called O'Keefe an "alleged felon" since there are things that technically O'Keefe should have been charged with as felonies.

I'm sure that O'Keefe and Breitbart think they can pressure Current TV to fire Olbermann and Schuster.

I hope their attorneys are smart enough to use the discovery process to dig up every speck of dirt on O'Keefe, tie him to Breitbart and prove conspiracies between the two to take down ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and other liberal organizations.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. Meh, call him a douchebag asswhipe...

[leftynyc]

40. Convicted criminal

would have worked as well. This suit goes nowhere.

[Plucketeer]

55. Despicable,

overstuffed vomit-bag. Would THAT be defamatory?

[Kelvin Mace]

60. Yes, Keith messed up on this one

He should have called him a "convicted criminal" instead.

Still, O'Keefe has an uphill battle that would damage him more than he would damage Keith, et al.

[EricsHolder]

32. Olbermann screwed up

O'Keefe over-stepped in the phone case.
There was plenty of stuff for Olbermann to go after, but Keith got sloppy.
Keith apologized in order to get a smaller settlement and put this behind him.
Live to fight another day.

[fasttense]

47. O'Keefe is a public figure.

And as a public figure or celebrity he has a very complex case to prove. He may not win this.

[csziggy]

56. I love the idea of Current TV and Olbermann counter suing

And using the discovery process to dig out ALL of O'Keefe's dirty secrets. It would be worth it, even if Current TV end up having to pay O'Keefe some money.

[wilsonbooks]

6. The discovery phase of the lawsuit could be very interesting.

I think the suit will be dropped.

[SunSeeker]

9. Let the depositions begin!

And pass the popcorn! Olbermann's attorneys can ask about anything. Their defense is simple: this little worm has no damages since he is already perceived as a slimy nutter.

[Lint Head]

7. Pleeeeeze Fate. Let me meet O'Keefe face to face one day.

[stonecutter357]

21. K&R...

[nolabear]

8. Doesn't one have to HAVE character for it to be defamed?

[YvonneCa]

30. EXACTLY. n/t

[Richardo]

10. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Bring it on, douchebag.

[tooeyeten]

11. some claim

"In actual fact, O'Keefe's lawsuit claims, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses in connection with the Landrieu incident, and an investigation did not uncover any evidence that O'Keefe and his cohorts actually intended to tamper with Landrieu's phones.


Doesn't mean it didn't happen or what was actually "uncovered", Jimbo!

[suffragette]

13. Who is funding James O'Keefe?

I plan on asking this every time I see his name.

Also, how does someone who entered a Senator's offices under false pretenses and tried to gain access to communication equipment there get off so lightly?

[Justice wanted]

14. Really?

Thank you for the laugh.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. O'Keefe is obviously not familiar with pretrial discovery

In a civil trial, the defense attorneys have wide latitude in the discovery process. For example, they can force O'Keefe to:

1. Produce all documents, letters, emails, videotapes, etc., relating to every organization that you have been in contact with which has even the slightest relationship to the current action.

2. Depositions (testimony under oath) of O'Keefe, Breibart, his accomplices in New Orleans, the "prostitute" in the ACORN tapes, the news anchor he tried to set up on his sailboat, etc. -- stuff that is related to his character.

3. Copies of all speeches he's given.

4. Copies of his financial records.

5. Unedited copies of all videotapes he has been involved in, including those which document his criminal actions of voting under an assumed identity.

6. Copies of his legal transgressions, including deposing the prosecutor in the Landrieu case.

They can also depose anyone who has had any dealings with O'Keefe, including employees of ACORN that he attempted to deceive and people who have been involved in his schemes. They could even go so far as to depose people from Fox News to determine if O'Keefe engaged in collusion with the network.

Also (and here's the fun part):

When you bring a civil action against someone, the defendant has the right to file a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, as well as any other person (Breibart, Fox News) who can logically be linked to the plaintiff's action. When I practiced law I made it a point to always file a cross-complaint; suddenly the plaintiff finds himself with something to lose. In fact, he might lose his case but the defendant win his, and then guess who gets to pay? It really made a difference in negotiating a settlement, which usually began with a phone call from the plaintiff's attorney, "What the hell are you doing?" I'm filing a cross-complaint; look up the rules of civil procedure, sir.

Despite what you've heard, very few cases actually go to trial -- most civil cases are settled and criminal cases are plea bargained.

O'Keefe can invoke the Fifth Amendment during his case, but if he does it, or invokes it too many times, the judge can rule that he is engaging in behavior that disrupts the litigation and therefore is acting in bad faith.

This case will probably take a few years, but it'll be interesting to see what shakes out of O'Keefe's tree. I think his ego has caused him to open a bucket of worms that he will wish had remained sealed.

[stonecutter357]

22. K&R...

[csziggy]

29. I so hope you are right - and that the Current TV lawyers are as good as you

Because I would love to see O'Keefe and his backers (Breitbart?) forced to reveal all their dirty little secrets!

[MADem]

37. Nice breakdown, thanks! nt

[Katashi_itto]

41. K & R!!

[whistler162]

45. Nice but I stil prefer the West WIng Leo McGarry

version of what can happen when you sue someone in civil court.

Yes, tis the season to watch West Wingf reruns.

[lunatica]

46. Wonderful post!

Thank you. I love learning stuff from smart DUers!

[peace frog]

48. Typical wingnut overreach

In their bubble world, they are untouchable and invincible. In reality world, they are as vulnerable as anyone else.

GO GET THE LITTLE BASTARD, CURRENT! Ready, aim, hurl everything you've got at the sniveling weasel.

[99 Percent Sure]

68. Thank you! eom

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. Yep, cross-actions can be all sorts of fun.

I was a court reporter for twenty years (that is why I am crazy now).
I also have a law degree.

Cross actions and counterclaims; fun and games!!!

[lonestarnot]

16. All due respect to Davy Jones, but I hope they make a monkey's ass of that rat bastard O'Keefe.

[Downwinder]

17. Hasn't he made himself a "public figure?"

[SemperEadem]

43. he is a public figure

that much is established through all of his publicity-seeking antics.

It won't be easy for him to prove actual malice because he is a public figure.

It's too bad his lawyer didn't bother to school him on simple law truths.

[shakker]

18. Is that definition or defamation?

The basis for this suit is that he was charged with a felony and pleaded to a misdemeanor. So he is not a convicted felon, but just an admitted misdemeanor criminal.

[The Wizard]

19. Mr. O'Keefe

has to prove damages and that would require potential employers to give testimony as to how they would have hired him and for what purpose and why a minor misstatement on a minor cable outlet made them not hire O'Keefe.
The criminals behind O'Keefe (Breitbart, et al), are trying to hold smoke.
They probably got some young right wing lawyer to take the case on contingency with the hope that he'll make his bones among wingnut fellow travelers.
O'Keefe and Breitbart getting cross examined would be fun, but the case will most likely get tossed by an "activist" (rational) judge.

[tblue37]

64. Well, Breitbart at least won't be cross-examined about anything. nt

[alp227]

20. This man-child thus loses the right to criticize 'trial lawyers' over frivolous lawsuits.

[Mopar151]

23. Gotta do something to keep up the brand

Of Breitbart/O'Keefe. They don't do all that well with "actions" - thus the arrests, and likely pending indictments. And this is the kind of "kick 'em in the balls" gesture the RW base loves

[niyad]

24. can journalists sue reuters for referring to that scum as a journalist?

[aquart]

25. Now that cheers me right up.

Hope he gets court costs and has to pay for the other guys' attorneys.

[center rising]

27. how can he sue for something he doesn't have, which is character??

[Old and In the Way]

31. I've got an idea that KO is going to make a lot of hay with this.

This could actually be something that gets Current and Keith some hi-profile exposure...and who won't be rooting for O'Keefe to get his ass handed to him...again.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. Oh... you mean THAT "journalist"???

[NightHawk63]

34. Best laugh I've had all day!! Nt

[DFW]

35. That is akin to shit suing someone for saying it stinks n/t

[47of74]

66. lol

[Loudmxr]

38. Dude it is called NYT vs Sullivan. You are a public figure. You have no standing.

I learned about NYT vs Sullivan in college.

How was I to know that within a few years I would be covered by it.

NYT vs Sullivan says that anyone can say anything against you once you become a public figure. It has to be false, knowingly false and said with malice.

35 years or so as a public figure I know this. The first time I ever saw my name in print...it was the construction of the paragraph.Wow!! someone has my name in the industry!!! And he works .... at ..the ..same place..I do.

It took a little while for it to sink in that I was now covered under NYT vs Sullivan.(1964)

Since then I have discovered I am an internationally famous civil rights leader. How did that happen???

To those who would oppose me and say nasty things about me. I have no legal recourse.

And that is kinda cool. I gave up my rights years ago ... so come after me!!!

[JohnnyRingo]

39. What character?

He has none to defame.

[SemperEadem]

42. but he has no character to defame

that being the case, this is a frivolous lawsuit aimed at publicity and getting money he didn't earn.

Judicial welfare, if you ask me.

[99th_Monkey]

44. So do you have enough rope yet James??? May it be so. ~nt

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Can't slander a public figure...or Fox would be broke.

[tanyev]

50. Oh, goody.

[Pab Sungenis]

51. A little historical perspective.

This is how Oscar Wilde wound up in prison. The Marquess of Queensbury accused him of being "a somdomite." Wilde sued. The truth came out in court. Wilde was prosecuted.

This is the move with which O'Keefe is going to bring down not only himself but Andrew Britebart. Fox News will escape by cutting all ties with the two of them.

[Javaman]

52. this won't end well for little jimmy.

as someone in this thread stated, the discovery phase will be very interesting. the case will probably be dropped.

[90-percent]

53. Epic Battle of Good vs. Evil

For the love of God, Keith I sure hope you and Al's Current TV lawyers are all over this.

This could be the 3 dimensional chess game that gives that smarmy little twerp his just desserts.......

UP THE RIVER IN THE BIG HOUSE AT STATESVILLE PRISON!

-90% jimmy

[LynneSin]

54. He won't have his buddy Andrew Breitbart to help him out anymore

O'Keefe is slim and needs to fade away.

I'm sure Keith Olbermann welcomes this suit because he can prove what a lying weasel this idiot is.

[ashling]

57. "journalist"? Really?

[Dollface]

58. Keith apologized for the felony statement when he corrected it. If O'keefe wins on this can you

imagine the Pandora's box this will open over at FOX.

[crim son]

59. OFFS.

All Olbermann has to do is announce that whatever he said was not intended to be a factual statement. Problem solved.

[Sheepshank]

61. Good lord......seriously O'Keefe, case law already provides

for entertainment news media to say what they want. Perhaps looking at FOX and reading the court findings will give him some perspective.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Hey Jimmy, who's your daddy now

that Breitbart went all zombie?

[apnu]

63. So its OK for Rush to call a woman a "slut" but KO can't call someone a "rapist"?

I'm blown away by the double standard here.

[saras]

67. Why? By their standards it's ok to rape, not just say it, and not okay to defend yourself.

The words match the actions. What's to be surprised about?

What progressives call a "double standard" IS conservative politics. In their world, things are right if the right people do them and wrong if the wrong people do them. It doesn't have to do with the action, it has to do with the position in the primate dominance hierarchy of the aggressor versus that of the victim. If it's power-down, it's okay.