Latest news with #defamation
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle
By Luc Cohen (Reuters) -Donald Trump's legal case against the Wall Street Journal over a story about the U.S. president and Jeffrey Epstein could face hurdles, one of which is that it does not appear to comply with Florida state rules over the timing of defamation lawsuits, legal experts said. If the case proceeds, Trump would need to clear a demanding "actual malice" standard that must be met by public figures to win in U.S. defamation cases. The standard means Trump must prove the paper knew the article was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The Wall Street Journal lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases Trump has filed against news outlets, and experts said his demonstrated willingness to sue could have a chilling effect on coverage of his administration even if the suit was ultimately unsuccessful. Trump sued the Journal and its owners including Rupert Murdoch in Miami federal court on Friday, seeking at least $10 billion on each of two defamation counts. He said the newspaper defamed him in a July 17 report that said Trump's name was on a 2003 birthday greeting for Epstein that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared. Reuters has not independently verified the WSJ report. A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the Journal's parent, said on Friday the company was confident in the accuracy of its reporting and would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty and the case was dismissed after his death. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged Trump to release investigative files related to the disgraced financier and sex offender. Two lawyers with experience in defamation law said Trump did not appear to have complied with a Florida law requiring anyone bringing a defamation case against "a newspaper, periodical, or other medium" to notify the defendant at least five days before filing suit. That means the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, would have no option but to dismiss the case if the Journal asked him to do so, though Trump may be able to re-file it, the experts said. The Journal published its story on Thursday. In his lawsuit on Friday, Trump's lawyers said the Journal informed Trump about the forthcoming article last Tuesday, and they sent the paper an email that same day asserting that the article would be false and defamatory. That timeline does not appear to comply with Florida's five-day notice law, said Marc Randazza, who said he had been practicing defamation law in Florida for more than 20 years. "I don't even need to look at the merits of the case. The game is over," said Randazza of law firm Randazza Legal Group in Las Vegas. Randazza said Trump's case was "at least colorable" on the merits. The White House deferred comment to Trump's lawyer in the case, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Dow Jones declined to comment. TRUMP MUST CLEAR HIGH BAR In addition to the five-day notice hurdle, Trump would likely struggle to prove that the Journal acted with "actual malice," said Andrew Fleischman of law firm Sessions & Fleischman in Atlanta. To back Trump's claim that the Journal knew the story was inaccurate, his complaint says the president informed the Journal before publication that the reporting was false. Fleischman said a disagreement about the truth of an assertion is not enough to prove actual malice. Instead, Trump would need to demonstrate that the paper was deliberately lying. The billions in monetary damages Trump was seeking is a "PR figure" designed to attract attention, said Fleischman, who frequently defends clients against defamation claims. The figure would far exceed the largest defamation judgments and settlements in recent history, including a $1.3 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News' settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. Trump, a Republican who has pledged to "straighten out the press," has a mixed record in the numerous lawsuits he has filed against media outlets. Judges have dismissed cases he brought against CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. More recently, television network ABC and CBS parent company Paramount have opted to settle cases brought by Trump. Walt Disney-owned ABC News in December paid $15 million and publicly apologized for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. Trump had been found liable of sexually abusing, but not raping, the magazine writer E. Jean Carroll. Paramount's $16 million settlement came as the company seeks approval from U.S. regulators for its merger with Skydance Media. Trump had initially sought $10 billion in his lawsuit, which alleged CBS deceptively edited an interview with Democratic former Vice President Kamala Harris to favor her rival presidential bid. Even if the Journal prevails, Trump's willingness to file claims against news organizations could have a chilling effect on journalists given the costs of defending against them, experts said. BONGINO CASE DISMISSED Trump would not be the first member of his administration to run up against Florida's five-day notice provision. In 2019, podcaster Dan Bongino - who is now the deputy director of the FBI - sued online news outlet the Daily Beast for defamation over a story about his departure from the National Rifle Association's online video channel. The case was dismissed the next year. U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez in Miami sided with the Daily Beast in finding that Bongino did not comply with the provision, but said the basis of his decision was that Bongino's case lacked merit. Neither the FBI nor Bongino's personal lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle
July 22 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's legal case against the Wall Street Journal over a story about the U.S. president and Jeffrey Epstein could face hurdles, one of which is that it does not appear to comply with Florida state rules over the timing of defamation lawsuits, legal experts said. If the case proceeds, Trump would need to clear a demanding "actual malice" standard that must be met by public figures to win in U.S. defamation cases. The standard means Trump must prove the paper knew the article was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. The Wall Street Journal lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases Trump has filed against news outlets, and experts said his demonstrated willingness to sue could have a chilling effect on coverage of his administration even if the suit was ultimately unsuccessful. Trump sued the Journal and its owners including Rupert Murdoch in Miami federal court on Friday, seeking at least $10 billion on each of two defamation counts. He said the newspaper defamed him in a July 17 report that said Trump's name was on a 2003 birthday greeting for Epstein that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared. Reuters has not independently verified the WSJ report. A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the Journal's parent, said on Friday the company was confident in the accuracy of its reporting and would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty and the case was dismissed after his death. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged Trump to release investigative files related to the disgraced financier and sex offender. Two lawyers with experience in defamation law said Trump did not appear to have complied with a Florida law requiring anyone bringing a defamation case against "a newspaper, periodical, or other medium" to notify the defendant at least five days before filing suit. That means the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, would have no option but to dismiss the case if the Journal asked him to do so, though Trump may be able to re-file it, the experts said. The Journal published its story on Thursday. In his lawsuit on Friday, Trump's lawyers said the Journal informed Trump about the forthcoming article last Tuesday, and they sent the paper an email that same day asserting that the article would be false and defamatory. That timeline does not appear to comply with Florida's five-day notice law, said Marc Randazza, who said he had been practicing defamation law in Florida for more than 20 years. "I don't even need to look at the merits of the case. The game is over," said Randazza of law firm Randazza Legal Group in Las Vegas. Randazza said Trump's case was "at least colorable" on the merits. The White House deferred comment to Trump's lawyer in the case, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Dow Jones declined to comment. In addition to the five-day notice hurdle, Trump would likely struggle to prove that the Journal acted with "actual malice," said Andrew Fleischman of law firm Sessions & Fleischman in Atlanta. To back Trump's claim that the Journal knew the story was inaccurate, his complaint says the president informed the Journal before publication that the reporting was false. Fleischman said a disagreement about the truth of an assertion is not enough to prove actual malice. Instead, Trump would need to demonstrate that the paper was deliberately lying. The billions in monetary damages Trump was seeking is a "PR figure" designed to attract attention, said Fleischman, who frequently defends clients against defamation claims. The figure would far exceed the largest defamation judgments and settlements in recent history, including a $1.3 billion judgment against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News' settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. Trump, a Republican who has pledged to "straighten out the press," has a mixed record in the numerous lawsuits he has filed against media outlets. Judges have dismissed cases he brought against CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. More recently, television network ABC and CBS parent company Paramount (PARA.O), opens new tab have opted to settle cases brought by Trump. Walt Disney (DIS.N), opens new tab-owned ABC News in December paid $15 million and publicly apologized for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. Trump had been found liable of sexually abusing, but not raping, the magazine writer E. Jean Carroll. Paramount's $16 million settlement came as the company seeks approval from U.S. regulators for its merger with Skydance Media. Trump had initially sought $10 billion in his lawsuit, which alleged CBS deceptively edited an interview with Democratic former Vice President Kamala Harris to favor her rival presidential bid. Even if the Journal prevails, Trump's willingness to file claims against news organizations could have a chilling effect on journalists given the costs of defending against them, experts said. Trump would not be the first member of his administration to run up against Florida's five-day notice provision. In 2019, podcaster Dan Bongino - who is now the deputy director of the FBI - sued online news outlet the Daily Beast for defamation over a story about his departure from the National Rifle Association's online video channel. The case was dismissed the next year. U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez in Miami sided with the Daily Beast in finding that Bongino did not comply with the provision, but said the basis of his decision was that Bongino's case lacked merit. Neither the FBI nor Bongino's personal lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment.
ABC News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
The reporter and the war criminal
It was dubbed the defamation trial of the century, Australia's most decorated living war veteran, Ben Roberts-Smith sued three newspapers and three journalists over allegations he was responsible for war crimes. The case was dismissed in 2023 in a landmark decision that ruled the defendants had established, on the balance of probabilities, that Ben Roberts-Smith was a war criminal. It was a triumph for truth and justice for the murdered Afghan civilians, but the case and Roberts-Smith's subsequent failed appeal have left a lasting toll on the men who served alongside the disgraced soldier, and the journalists who told their story. Guest: Nick McKenzie, Investigative reporter and author of 'Crossing the Line' which has been re-released with exclusive new material on the appeal, the continuing fallout, and the emotional and professional toll of the case.,
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Bombshell twist you NEVER saw coming after Mark Latham's porn star ex bragged about lawyering up with Australia's top female barristers
Two of Australia's top female barristers have denied being engaged by Mark Latham's ex-girlfriend to deal with the ongoing fallout over her toxic relationship with the NSW independent MP. Nathalie Matthews claimed in a text message to Daily Mail Australia on Monday morning she was now being represented by defamation specialist Sue Chrysanthou SC and top prosecutor turned criminal defence barrister Margaret Cunneen SC. However both lawyers have told Daily Mail Australia they are not working for Ms Matthews. Ms Chrysanthou has acted for television presenter Lisa Wilkinson, billionaires Lachlan Murdoch and Gina Rinehart, Academy Award-winner Geoffrey Rush and former radio broadcaster Alan Jones. Her political clients have included Victorian state Liberal MP Moira Deeming and One Nation senator Pauline Hanson - Latham's leader when he was still a member of her political party. Ms Cunneen is a former deputy senior Crown prosecutor who has regularly appeared in high-profile cases, particularly sexual assault matters, since embarking on private practice in 2019. Ms Chrysanthou told Daily Mail Australia on Tuesday she was not acting for Ms Matthews 'and my chambers has no record of any such brief'. Ms Cunneen said she had been offered the Matthews case but declined because she was too busy. Ms Matthews, 37, claims Latham, 64, inflicted 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial and emotional abuse over almost three years. She is seeking an apprehended violence order against the former federal Labor leader, alleging he committed vile acts 'including defecating on me before sex and refusing to let me wash'. Latham's lawyer Zali Burrows served WiseTech global billionaire Richard White and Ms Matthews with subpoenas related to the AVO application on Friday. The subpoena requested emails, text messages, and OnlyFans direct messages between Mr White and Ms Matthews, who connected on LinkedIn in 2023. Mr White is not accused of any wrongdoing and this publication is not suggesting Mr White and Ms Matthews engaged in a sexual relationship, only that Latham joked about her performing a sex act on the businessman. Daily Mail Australia revealed Ms Matthews' past as an OnlyFans content creator last week. She posted graphic images and videos of herself under the suggestive name Bondi C** Sl** from 2019 to 2023. Ms Matthews declined to comment on her OnlyFans past but her previous lawyer told Daily Mail Australia her client 'has been subjected to character assassination, reputational damage and trial by media'. Sexually explicit WhatsApp messages between Latham and Ms Matthews were made public by The Daily Telegraph last week. Latham told Daily Mail Australia the outlet's reproduction of the messages was 'not accurate'. The messages included a series of lewd exchanges on February 20, 2025, during parliamentary sitting hours. 'Very hard thinking about you,' Latham wrote to Ms Matthews shortly after 11am that day, before following up with a series of suggestive emojis. 'Need badly to taste you,' he wrote that afternoon, alongside a tongue emoji. 'Made it back for first vote after dinner,' Latham wrote at 8.38pm. Having generally limited his comments to posts on X or interviews on radio station 2SM, Latham directly addressed the unfolding sex scandal in a press conference on Saturday. Latham said what he has called his 'situationship' with Ms Matthews ended on May 27 after the Australian Turf Club members voted against the sale of Rosehill racecourse. Both of them are racing enthusiasts and Latham claimed that night Ms Matthews was covered in mud when she allegedly confronted him. 'This was like something from World War Z,' he said. '[But] one thing's abundantly clear - what we had for over two years was a sexed-up, consensual, open arrangement between adults with a fair bit of other contacts, such as fun days of the races, thrown in. I didn't make any moral judgment about her.' Latham went on to say the pair shared a consensual relationship, adding that 'probably 95 per cent of the things she's complaining about, she initiated'. 'So the media disease here... is to take this stuff which is not rational, not true, from someone who... is obviously not thinking clearly about anything and exploit her for these salacious smutty stories that you run about someone's sex life,' he said. Latham did not deny accusations he had sex with Ms Matthews in his parliamentary office, saying people could 'write whatever they like'. 'Members of parliament are allowed to run their own office,' Latham said. 'These are not matters of public interest… but the truth is, members of parliament have privilege for whatever happens in their office. It is their own domain.' Latham said the subpoenas requesting communications between Mr White and Ms Matthews had not been intended to intimidate her, as she had alleged. Instead, Latham insisted he wanted access to those communications to test Ms Matthews' allegations that he had made her have sex with other men. Daily Mail Australia is not suggesting the abuse claims against Latham are true, only that they have been alleged by Ms Matthews.
Free Malaysia Today
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Dr M, Zahid withdraw libel suits against each other
Judicial Commissioner Gan Techiong ordered former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (right) to each bear their own costs. KUALA LUMPUR : In a surprise move, two defamation suits involving Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad before Judicial Commissioner Gan Techiong have been discontinued. This came after lawyers for both parties informed the judge that they had reached an amicable settlement and would not proceed with the suits, including one in which Zahid had cited Mahathir for contempt. The judge thanked both parties for not prolonging the matter. 'The suits are struck out with no liberty to file afresh,' Gan said, adding that each party would bear their own costs. Before the open court proceedings, lawyer Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman, representing Zahid, along with Mahathir's counsel Mior Nor Haidir Suhaimi and Nizam Bashir, met with Gan in his chambers. Mahathir and his son, Mukhriz, had taken the stand, while Zahid was scheduled to testify as the defendant. Zahid, the deputy prime minister, had initiated committal proceedings against Mahathir over a press conference which the former prime minister held last year after testifying in his defamation suit. Gan was scheduled to deliver his ruling today, but the lawyers informed the court that both suits would be withdrawn. Zahid's suit against Mahathir had yet to commence. Mahathir, who turned 100 on July 10, filed his suit over Zahid's allegedly derogatory use of the name 'Kutty' in reference to him. In his statement of claim, Mahathir alleged that Zahid had defamed him during an Umno divisional meeting in Kelana Jaya on July 30, 2017. He claimed the statement was meant to imply that he was not born a Malay or a Muslim, and that his original name was Mahathir son of Iskandar Kutty. In his defence, Zahid said the name Mahathir son of Iskandar Kutty referred to an individual based on information from an old copy of an identity card. Zahid meanwhile filed his suit after Mahathir claimed that the Umno president had sought his assistance to have corruption charges against him 'dropped'. At a press conference on Feb 23, 2022, Mahathir claimed that Zahid and several others had met him at his home immediately after the 14th general election in 2018. He allegedly said Zahid wanted to be 'friendly' with him before Mahathir became the prime minister for a second time in May 2018. Zahid claimed that Mahathir's remarks were untrue, unwarranted, unsubstantiated and mischievous. Mahathir however stood by his remarks and said he was relying on the defence of justification.
