The Esquire article certainly didn’t fool me, any more than Klayman’s legal briefs fooled the judge.
– Dr. Conspiracy
– Comment at WorldNetDaily
In 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.
Interestingly, the Circuit Court decision was split 2-1, with the dissenting judge not writing an opinion. The Circuit Court majority noted that satire is protected speech. There has been some division between the courts on the application of anti-SLAPP statutes in diversity cases. That could have been the basis of the dissent.
Is this one destined for the Supreme Court? Do pigs wish they could fly?