Court Allows Suit Against Air America (CACI International suing over Rhodes claims re: Abu Ghraib)

[LTR]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Government contractor CACI International Inc. has won bankruptcy court approval to proceed with its defamation lawsuit against liberal talk radio network Air America and one of its hosts, Randi Rhodes.

A federal bankruptcy court in New York ruled Thursday that the case could proceed despite the fact that Air America has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Under federal law, legal proceedings against a company are frozen when the company declares bankruptcy.

CACI International asked the bankruptcy court in November to allow its case to go forward, arguing that its claims against Air America are covered by an insurance policy and any damages would be paid out of that policy and not from the company's assets.

The company sued Air America and its parent company, Piquant LLC, as well as Rhodes in the fall of 2005 for defamation. The suit stemmed from comments Rhodes made Aug. 25-26, 2005 on her radio show. According to CACI's complaint, she accused CACI employees of raping and murdering Iraqi civilians at Abu Ghraib prison, claims that CACI said were "false and defamatory."

CACI is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. An Air America spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20070102&ID=6309942

[jazzjunkysue]

1. Thank god it's only money and the insurance will pay it. I just hope

it doesn't mean Randi can't get insurance in the future.

This is how democracy dies: When reporters can report lies that help the government but those who speak for themselves get sued.

If I were really rich, I'd sue them all for lying us into this war.

[Rage for Order]

12. Sick irony, isn't it?

Our "news outlets" and the government tell us obvious, verifiable lies and we get screwed in the process, but when someone speaks the truth they are sued. That's what passes for justice in Amreica these days.

[laylah]

23. jazzy...

I have often wondered why, WE, THE PEOPLE, could not bring a class action suit against these lying criminals for the same reason!

Jenn

[jazzjunkysue]

31. Right. If you throw in $2M, I'll throw in $2M, and we'll go after them.

There's your problem. And don't think they're not counting on it.

[baldguy]

2. Aug. 25-26, 2005

http://server7.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(25-08-2005).mp3

http://server7.whiterosesociety.org/content/rhodes/RhodesShow-(26-08-2005).mp3

[flyarm]

3. OH BUT RUSH AND BUSH AND ALL THE NEO CONS CAN DELIBERATELY LIE UP THEIR ASSES

AND NO ONE CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!

FUCK THOSE BASTARDS!

FLY

[bobthedrummer]

4. CACI:Torture in Iraq, Intimidation at Home by Joshua Holland

www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44506/

on edit: this is what mercenaries are all about-anything for $$$--this is what the Decider tried to hide in the Special Access Programs too

[LTR]

14. What's the point of trying to sue the insurance company?

Did CACI have a bad year? I can't imagine so, since government contracting is a pretty nice gig.

As I've said, I'd like to see them go to court. And I think they should have to prove that she was indeed not telling the truth about them. Then they can go after the other several thousand news and information sources that 'defamed' them.

[LTR]

5. I'd kinda like to see this trial

Let's see them try and prove her wrong!

:popcorn:

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/caci_internatonal/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1391431,00.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/business/iraq.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11285

[Toots]

16. They don't have to prove her wrong she has to prove she is right

She sometimes says things that just aren't true just as Rush does and that is why I never listen to her...

[John Q. Citizen]

19. What does she say sometimes that isn't true,for instance?

Who do you listen to?

When you say that she has to prove her statements are true, that is untrue.

Truth is but one defense, but CACI has to prove defamation and that requires meeting a number of criteria and proving a number of issues.

This CACI Company has a history of trying to bully, intimidate, and silence critisism of it's actions in Iraq. If you don't appreciate Randi Rhodes then of course don't listen, but if you want to accuse her of being untruthful you could at least be specific.


(edit to add the last 3 paragraphs)

[twilight_sailing]

20. She used Capitol Hill Blue as a source once

and went on and on with it. Can't remember which one it was, but it was one of those stories that ONLY existed at Capitol Hill Blue.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. How does that show that Randi was untruthful? Did she accurately

portrey the article at CHB?

Did she vouch for it's truthfulness?

Do you remember?

[twilight_sailing]

24. I am a Randi fan

but Capitol Hill Blue is NOT a reliable source. An uncorroborated Capitol Hill Blue story is fiction until proved otherwise. They just don't have a good reputation.

She reported it as if it were the true, as if it were the facts of the matter. Yes.

Now, I have heard nearly every Randi show since she came on the air at Air America and that is the one time I have had a bone to pick with her.

Please don't think that I put her in the Limbaugh class. In fact, you might be a bit pleased that as a critical thinker I have put Randi to the test too.

That one time she was wrong. Hell, I have been wrong a time or two myself. ;) I don't hold it against her. She's got a track record of proving her point and providing facts that can't be beat. Who's better?

Sorry I can't recall the issue at hand. My memory is not as good as it once was.

Best Wishes,
TS

[jazzjunkysue]

32. But she made her source clear. Rush and O'Leilly don't ever do that.

So, you can always look up what she's saying and decide for yourself. These bastards make crap up out of the GOP talking points, and never reveal a source. Foax news is known for the famous: "Some people say......" right on TV and they never get sued. It's B.S.


At least she told you clearly where to look, and didn't pretend she had inside information.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. From a historian's point of view, I've heard her mis-state the

historical record re: Nixon's impeachment most recently. She said that Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in, but that has never been demonstrated definitively. She implied that Nixon was threatened with impeachment for the break-in but the truth is that it was all the stuff that the break-in allowed to be uncovered and not the break-in itself that set the stage for Nixon's impeachment.

But that's a pretty venal sin, compared to the sins of the BFEE.

Also heard her mis-state the historical record of the U.S. Civil War but can't remember exactly how she did. She repeated a popular truism that is actually not true according to the scholarship of the past 50 years.

[NI4NI]

Do any DUers know why this case was first dismissed?

According to the article, CACI's case was already dismissed in Federal Court; Does anyone know on what grounds?

[Tempest]

18. Alternet has the story

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44506/

But CACI's tried hard to make it go away. The company sued Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes for $11 million for defamation, including $10 million in punitive damages. The supposed defamation? Rhodes read a portion of an interview with Janice Karpinski, the former Brigadier General who commanded the MPs at Abu Ghraib. The suit was dismissed with a summary judgment in April.


It seems obvious it was thrown out because it wasn't Randi accusing CACI, it was Karpinski.

[NI4NI]

6. Do any DUers know why this case was first dismissed?

According to the article, CACI's case was already dismissed in Federal Court; Does anyone know on what grounds?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. It would appear to be due to the bankruptcy issue

[NI4NI]

10. I did see in the Alternet article

that the CACI case was dismissed on a "summary judgement", whatever the hell that means? I need to reread both articles to possibly learn what date CACI's case was dismissed, if before or after AAR declared bankruptcy.
And also, if Rhoades made her statements quoting an already written article about CACI.
Thanks.

[Contrite]

11. The way I read it is AAR declared bankruptcy after CACI filed suit

and the bankruptcy court has allowed CACI to proceed because they can claim compensation from the insurer rather than the parent company of AAR.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. Summary judgment means there are no issues of fact to be decided

Summary judgment means there are no issues of fact to be decided. In other words, the suit is baseless and groundless; it has no merit. The defendant (entity sued--Randi and AAR and parent company) wins because the judge read the petition and dismissed it because it was groundless.

Yes, I have a Juris Doctor. And worked at the courthouse for many years.

However, the business about suing the insurance company is not the same thing. Where the insurance company steps into the shoes of the insured part, is called subrogation, I believe.

[0rganism]

29. Do you know what the rules of discovery might be in such a case?

I'm particularly curious as to what leverage the defense will have in corroborating events at Abu Ghraib, if the case proceeds.

[Polemicist]

30. In my experience with E & O insurance....

Errors and Omissions, which I would think would be similar to insurance coverage to protect against defamation, the insured isn't 100% "off the hook" just because the insurer assumes responsibility for fighting the litigation.

There can be lots of loopholes in these policies that allow recoupment of any loss by the insurer against the insured. That would depend upon the circumstances of the case, that wouldn't be fully revealed until the trial. Bad faith or intentional illegal actions would likely hold the insured responsible. You can't insure against willful illegal actions by employees in one of these type of policies, to my knowledge.

Thus the bankruptcy court erred in allowing the trial to go forward. There likely still exists liability for Air America, in spite of the subrogation by the insurance company. I wonder if AA filed a contingent liability claim with the bankruptcy court to attempt to wipe out any possible award in this suit that they might be responsible for. It's always interesting when civil courts intersect with Federal Bankruptcy courts.

And I have no Juris Doctorate. I have just dealt with insurance issues in my life. I'm not an expert on this particular type of insurance policy, I just suspect there would be similarities to the E & O policies I am familiar with.

[Placebo]

7. I heart Randi.

'Nuff said.

[Nutmegger]

9. Rec 5 - Sending this to the Greatest

:kick:

[oasis]

15. Let's get into court and let the world know what really happened. (eom)

[TexasLawyer]

28. Yes-- TRUTH is a perfect defense to a slander charge

So let's see what's true and what's not.

[Tempest]

17. This is a case CACI can't win

But CACI's tried hard to make it go away. The company sued Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes for $11 million for defamation, including $10 million in punitive damages. The supposed defamation? Rhodes read a portion of an interview with Janice Karpinski, the former Brigadier General who commanded the MPs at Abu Ghraib.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44506/

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Awesome!

An in-depth investigation of exactly what happened in Abu Ghraib, conducted with a thoroughness that only a trial attorney can bring to the job. We'll learn exactly who did what to whom and when -- and who knew about it. No politician covering his ass, just an attorney eager to earn a buck: Long Live Capitalism!

Whether Air America wins or loses, this is a good thing.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Lenin: Capitalists will sell you the rope to hang them with! n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Remember this: truth is an absolute defense in cases involving

libel and defamation. In other words, if during discovery, it becomes clear that CACI was involved in rape and murder, there goes the defamation case. Judge will dismiss with a summary judgment.

Discovery will determine the outcome of this case. And motions -- I fully expect ACLU and other organizations to file friend of court briefs on Randi and AAR's behalf.