Tuesday, March 07, 2006
ANC 6A Commissioner Rivera Suing Kimber?
The following document was in my inbox when I checked my email this morning. I can't guarantee that it's authentic...yet. But it is worth looking at. Assuming that this document is legit, Mr. Rivera is suing Mr. Kimber (who is hoping to take over Mr. Rivera's ANC 6C seat) for defamation. Mr. Rivera was recently indicted by the DOJ on some money laundering related charges. On Friday afternoon, Mr. Robert Hall, who was indicted earlier by the DOJ for related charges, was convicted on numerous charges (he was charged with a lot more than Mr. Rivera is) & now faces fines of up to $1,000,000.00 in fines & 350 years in prison. Mr. Hall represented himself in court & in what I can only assume was a highlight of the trial, introduced nearly 200 bounced checks bearing his signature as evidence that he intended to pay the investors he was ripping off. Oh, and it was Mr. Hall's seat before it belonged to Mr. Rivera. Not to be outdone, it appears that Mr. Rivera has filed this complaint pro se (i.e. w/out an attorney). My favorite part is where he asks for $1,200,000.00 in damages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Er, truth is a defense....
I am oh so happy that I am represented by this clown.
I will definitely sign the recall petition now.
The other problem is that he has to prove actual damages doesn't he? IMHO, this is a rather poorly drafted complaint.
"To prove defamation, [a] plaintiff bringing a defamation action ... must show: (1) that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party; (3) that the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and (4) either that the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or that its publication caused the plaintiff special harm." Carter v. Hahn, 821 A.2d 890, 893 (D.C. 2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
For a public official to recover on a defamation claim related to her public duties, the official must prove "actual malice" on the part of those responsible for publishing the defamatory statement. Beeton v. District of Columbia, 779 A.2d 918 (D.C. 2001) (citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). "Actual malice" has been defined as "the commission of an act without just cause or excuse, with such a conscious indifference or reckless disregard as to its results or effects upon the rights or feelings of others as to constitute ill will." Carter, supra, 821 A.2d at 894.
This is an impressively weak-sauce complaint. As previously noted, truth is a defense, and actual damages must be shown to recover. My goodness, the fact section is only one paragraph long, and it isn't a particularly meaty paragraph. The pleading standard is very generous, but he has essentially alleged nothing beyond a boiler plate recitation of the legal elements of defamation. He is basically inviting a motion to dismiss or motion for a more definite statement. Also, the actual malice standard for public officials is a notoriously difficult standard to meet. There is so little to this complaint that it raises the possibility of sanctions for filing a frivilous cause of action, but sanctions are rarely awarded against a pro se plaintiff (although if the pro se plaintiff is an attorney that makes it more likely). This is a publicity stunt, pure and simple, and a not very good one at that.
Post a Comment