Main Menu

Farah v. Esquire appeal unsuccessful

The Esquire article certainly didn’t fool me, any more than Klayman’s legal briefs fooled the judge.

— Dr. Conspiracy
— Comment at WorldNetDaily

imageIn a satirical article, Esquire Magazine made a birther joke, that since Obama released his birth certificate, Jerome Corsi’s ill-titled book Where’s the Birth Certificate were being recalled. Joseph Farah, perhaps seeing a publicity opportunity sued. He lost under a statute designed to prevent meritless lawsuits from chilling public comment, the court ruling that Farah had no reasonable chance of convincing a jury. Farah’s attorney was the well-known litigator, Larry Klayman.

Farah appealed the decision, and lost. WorldNetDaily announced the loss in an article a few minutes ago.

“It’s dishonest,” said WND’s attorney, Larry Klayman, of the decision. “This is an issue for the jury to decide. They took it away from the jury, and that’s inappropriate.”

Klayman blames the loss on the political ambitions of the judges who ruled against him.

“These judges know that if they make an unpopular decision against the establishment that they will never be able to be promoted to the Supreme Court or any other position they might get through political patronage,” he said.

Well, the purpose of the DC anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation)  statute is to prevent the threat of litigation and its associated costs from chilling public participation. Klayman was unable to show the suit could win.

Is this one destined for the Supreme Court? Do pigs wish they could fly?

Update: This article previously stated, erroneously, and it was reported elsewhere, that there was a 2-1 spit decision by the court. This is not correct. All three judges agreed on the decision, but only two concurred on the opinion.

Related articles:

Media coverage:

  • Courthouse News Service – Warren’s reference to Corsi as an “execrable piece of shit,” is clearly his personal opinion as it “does not appear to convey any factual assertion, but is rather ‘the sort of loose, figurative or hyperbolic language which would negate the impression’ that a factual statement was being made,” Brown wrote (emphasis in original).

, ,

13 Responses to Farah v. Esquire appeal unsuccessful

  1. avatar
    Terry K. November 26, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

    Here’s the ruling, for your reading pleasure:

    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B2D8943FCD3EEE2F85257C2F00544835/$file/12-7055-1467977.pdf

  2. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    Now if the BAR would just be kind enough to SLAP Klayman with disbarment. I look forward to seeing “former” in front of his name in future articles.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 26, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    Thank you. That was interesting reading. The majority opinion didn’t address the anti-SLAPP statute, ruling that the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

    Terry K.: Here’s the ruling, for your reading pleasure

  4. avatar
    Smirk4Food November 26, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Do pigs wish they could fly?

    Great. That question will keep me awake all night…

  5. avatar
    Curious George November 26, 2013 at 11:55 pm #

    There’s that Klayman name again.

  6. avatar
    bob November 27, 2013 at 12:23 am #

    And the “dissent” was actually Judge Brown concurring in the judgment.

    I would guess they all agreed the suit was a loser, but there was some disagreement about whether (and how) to apply the anti-SLAPP suit, so the panel punted.

  7. avatar
    Thinker November 27, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    I love that the court actually had to address the question of whether calling Jerome Corsi an “execrable piece of shit” is a factual assertion. Apparently there was some question about whether this was a statement of fact or an opinion.

  8. avatar
    The Magic M November 27, 2013 at 4:10 am #

    Interestingly, the Circuit Court decision was split 2-1

    OMG, one honest judge! Quick, someone tell Orly, she can tell her flying monkeys to write this judge to look at Obama’s eligibility! *lol*

  9. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 27, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    I’ll play psychic here…and guess that the Supreme Court does not grant certiorari.

  10. avatar
    predicto November 27, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    There is no dissent. Justice Brown concurred in the judgment, but had different reasoning to reach it, and she didn’t want to bother to explain her different reasoning in a separate opinion because it wouldn’t make any difference in the result.

    Standard stuff.

  11. avatar
    predicto November 27, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Now if the BAR would just be kind enough to SLAP Klayman with disbarment. I look forward to seeing “former” in front of his name in future articles.

    I can’t stand Klayman, but nothing here screams out for disbarment. He brought the (very weak) suit that his client wanted, and he lost. Disbarment takes a lot more than that.

  12. avatar
    predicto November 27, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    The Magic M: OMG, one honest judge! Quick, someone tell Orly, she can tell her flying monkeys to write this judge to look at Obama’s eligibility! *lol*

    Janice Rogers Brown is an extremist judge, but even she isn’t going to buy into the birther pile of crap.

  13. avatar
    The European November 27, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    predicto: I can’t stand Klayman, but nothing here screams out for disbarment. He brought the (very weak) suit that his client wanted, and he lost.Disbarment takes a lot more than that.

    It is not this case that screams, but a lot of other things. Don’t you hear his children scream ? He’s a court approved child abuser,