Strangest defamation case of the year

This has got to be the weirdest defamation case of the year, if not the decade - Copeland-Jackson v. Cutlip (story here). Plaintiff David Copeland-Jackson alleged that the defendant, Joseph Cutlip, had defamed him by falsely accusing the Copeland-Jackson of molesting him years before. The case, brought before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, appeared to proceed as many do, with service of process supposedly being acknowledged by the defendant, and uncontested proceedings before the court resulting in the rendition of a three-million dollar verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Except, much to the surprise of the court, the entire thing was a sham. The plaintiff forged the defendant's receipt of service of process, and forged and falsified other documents used to win the case. The defendant, so the article reports, did not even become aware of the litigation pending against him until he received notice of the judgment itself.

Some might be quick to point a finger of blame at the judge - Huvelle herself stated her regret that she was "not astute enough" to prevent this fraud. But a realistic understanding of the nature of our courts makes it clear enough that the judge is the last person who should be blamed for such a fraud falling on the court. Ours is an adversarial system, and judges not only expect to be appraised of the opposing viewpoints to be raised in a case by the contesting parties, but are duty-bound to avoid conducting any external investigation of their own. With dozens, perhaps hundreds of complicated cases pending before each federal judge at any given moment, it is folly to expect that a judge would conduct such an investigation even if the resources were at hand. Happily, however, the system works. No money could ever have been collected from the defendant without the ruse being uncovered (as it was), and judgments obtained by fraud are easily vacated (as this was). The conspirators who arranged this deception have been caught and will be jailed, as they should be, for their criminal misrepresentations.

Neatly tying up the frayed ends of this matter, the named defendant, Cutlip, now has his own clear-cut cause of action for defamation against Copeland-Jackson. The latter produced forged documents purporting to be from Cutlip asserting that Cutlip "willfully lied" in making his previous molestation allegations. These were false statements of fact about Cutlip (never mind that they were purported to be by Cutlip, since they are now known to have originated with Copeland-Jackson), which would tend to damage Cutlip in the eyes of his peers, communicated to other parties (here, to the court). Although statements made in court proceedings normally obtain a cloak of immunity from defamation actions, this protection does not inhere where the proceeding is fraudulent. Copeland-Jackson may have contrived to win a temporary victory on paper, but justice prevails in the end, as both Cutlip and the Court have the opportunity to see Copeland-Jackson pay an appropriate price for his actions towards each of them.

Woody Allen's valuable image

Another non-defamation case (at least, not directly), but still worth reporting: Woody Allen scored a settlement today against American Apparel, which had used Woody's image (in a frame out of the Oscar-winning film Annie Hall, no less) without permission. The take, although half of what Woody had sought in his suit, will nonetheless likely succeed in having the preclusive effect that was Woody's stated desire.

The more interesting part of this exercise, I thought, was what didn't end up happening. American Apparel's attorney's had threatened to call some other people from Woody's current and former orbits as witnesses - namely ex Mia Farrow, and current wife, Soon Yi Previn. Ancient history though it may be, Woody had left Mia for Soon Yi, who was 22, and Farrow's adopted daughter. The basis for calling them would, apparently, have been to show that the value of Woody's name/image had been diminished by the whole mess.

Part of the reason a settlement came out of this was that the strategy of dredging up old history would likely have failed spectacularly. The facts of the situation were played out in the press 17+ years ago, and since the basis for the "tainted image" assertion is what was perceived by the public to have happened, rather than what actually happened, there is no reason for Mia or Soon Yi to testify at all. Instead, we would likely have seen what we would have seen anyway, a parade of actuaries calculating the actual value of Woody's visage based on the sum total of his life events. Moreover, this case follows the immortal words of Bela Lugosi, "there's no such thing as bad publicity." In this reality TV-deluged age of celebrity sex tapes, splashing this case across the headlines would have boosted, rather than diminished, Woody's commercial appeal, and heightened the recovery due.

Omaha v. Oprah: an Aha Moment

Okay, not a defamation claim, but too good to pass up for this old trademark hound. Mutual of Omaha has filed an application with the USPTO to register the phrase "OFFICIAL SPONSOR OF THE AHA MOMENT" - but Oprah Winfrey (or her production company) are claiming the right to the phrase, "AHA MOMENT", leading to the filing of a lawsuit by Mutual of Omaha in the District Court in Omaha Nebraska. Oprah's people claim to be seeking an amicable settlement, but stay tuned just in case!

Courtey Love sued for libel (why am I not surprised?)

Courtney love is being sued in California for purportedly using online venues to assert that her former fashion designer, Dawn Simorangkir, is a "nasty lying hosebag thief." I'll just let that sit for a minute.

...

Now for the technical legal analysis. "Nasty"? Opinion, no basis for legal action. "Lying"? More amenable to a claim, but it's easy to prove that you honestly believed someone to have been lying about something, so unless it is attached to a specific alleged lie, recovery is unlikely. "Hosebag"? According to Wiktionary (the dictionary component of Wikipedia) a "hosebag" is:

1. (slang) An undesirable, boorish, unintelligent, or objectionable person; often used in jest; a hoser.
2. (slang) A trashy, dirty, skanky or sexually loose woman.

Characterizing someone as being "sexually loose" used to be pretty much automatic grounds for a defamation suit, but "hosebag" is susceptible to multiple meanings, and ambiguity of that sort is construed against the plaintiff. So "hosebag" will be labelled opinion, no basis for suit. However, happily for Simorangkir, Love also allegedly "accused her of being a drug addict and a prostitute," and calling someone a prostitute is a pretty straightforward claim of sexual impropriety. Finally, "thief" implies a specific criminal act on the part of the subject, so that present a slam-dunk for a libel claim.