Spitzer sued for libel

[Seedersandleechers]

Source: Kansas City Star

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was hit with two libel lawsuits seeking $90 million by former Marsh & McLennan Cos executives over a column posted on Slate.com about an insurance bid-rigging scandal.

The lawsuits arose from Spitzer’s August 22, 2010, column, “They Still Don’t Get It,” advocating prosecution of corporate wrongdoers and defending his own enforcement activity against Marsh and insurer American International Group Inc.

William Gilman, a former Marsh executive marketing director, and Edward McNenney, a former Marsh global placement director, contended that they were defamed by the column, which appeared thee months after a judge threw out their convictions on felony antitrust charges. Neither is named in the column.

Slate.com is owned by Washington Post Co, and its parent Slate Group LLC is a defendant in both cases.





Read more: http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/spitzer-sued-libel/

[Seedersandleechers]

1. dupe

[sfpcjock]

2. Delayed reaction... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....

They probably first tried to dig a few million out of Spitzer for reporting on their crimes, and now we have a $60 million suit from one and a $30 million one from the other. But, these guys are no way guilty, right? Right....

"Marsh, then the largest U.S. insurance broker, agreed in January 2005 to pay $850 million in a civil settlement with Spitzer, and eight insurance executives including Gilman and McNenney were indicted eight months later in the probe."

Great article. Thanks.

Read more at: http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/spitzer-sued-libel/#ixzz1VnP5Dtlo

[cascadiance]

4. Now that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is "done", they need to go to the next WB on the "Inside Job" list!

Seems like the PTB want to find a way to send a message to those that got interviewed on that film (and might be in other future films) are that "though shalt not fuck with us! We don't care if you won an Oscar for doing so or not!"

[mdmc]

3. kr

[SoapBox]

5. "former Marsh & McLennan Cos executives..." BUT then,

"Neither is named in the column."

Sooooo....I'm confused.

Neither was named but they are claiming defamation.

...seems a stretch for money.

[elleng]

6. I somehow suspect Slate and Spitzer are clear on this.

'Defamation is a statement that gives a negative impression of a person, company, group, product, government, or country. The statement is made as though it were true, when in fact, it is false. Defamation can be slander, which is made with spoken words, sounds, sign language, or gestures. Defamation in any other form, like in printed words or pictures, is libel. To be considered defamation, the claim has to be false, it has to be made as if it were true, and it has to have been communicated to people other than the entity being defamed...


When the defamation is a statement made against public figures, like members of the government, officers of large corporations, or performing artists, additional proof is needed for a successful lawsuit. The defamed person must prove that the statement was made with "actual malice" and with disregard for the truth. In other words, the person who defamed must have done so with the intention of doing harm and/or with a reckless disregard for the truth.'

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamation_character.htm

[Warpy]

10. Right, this is a frivolous lawsuit

and my best guess is that they're trolling for a settlement.

They won't win in court. In fact, any judge worth the paycheck would just toss it out.

[BR_Parkway]

11. That last sentence should give Obama a way to go after a ton of Republicans

[placton]

7. the name is "slap suit"

bit biz goes to the evil court system, often, to sue folks who tell the truth, trying to make it too expensive to do so

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Bullshit lawsuit by the banks to keep their critic quiet going into the 2012 election.

I hope Spitzer takes it to court. His dad's a billionaire, so he's got the money.

[Donnachaidh]

9. If they weren't *named* in the article, how could they possibly sue?

This makes no sense.