Clarifications
Posted on | July 25, 2011 | 4 Comments
I was asked to clarify a couple of things
The subpoenas ae not signed by the judge, they are signed by the clerk of the court. Health department of Hi through their attorney, Attorney General of Hawaii were served with the subpoena signed by the clerk of the court, as it supposed to be. When a case is over 100 miles away from the residence of the party being subpoenaed, typically, the party seeking subpoena will go to the local sister court, in this case it is the US district court in HA. That is exactly what I did, the subpoena is signed byy the clerk of the court in HI.
Everything is proper in the subpoena. they need to respond one way or the other.
In regards to the law suit by Jerry Corsi, it is a law suit against Esquire magazine. It is extremely difficult to win a law suit against the media, because the standard of proof is extremely high. You need to show, that not only their statements are not true, but that they knew about it and acted with malice. It is all but impossible to prove. There were famous cases brought by actress Carol Burnett and by former Prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon. Even though they proved that allegations against them in the media were not true, they could not show that the media acted with malice. This case will not provide Obama’s birth certificate, as it is not at issue. What it will revolve around, is malice. Esquire will probably state, that they relied on Obama’s statements and reasonably believed those to be true. I support Jerry Corsi, I think he is a great patriot and a great writer, but I am sorry to say, I do not believe that this law suit against the Esquire will succeed because of a very high threshold of the standard of proof. This case will not go into discovery of Obama’s BC either. At issue will be standing and relevance. Esquire might even stipulate, that Corsi might have been correct and they were wrong, but they did not act with malice.
I might be wrong, but this is my take.
Comments
4 Responses to “Clarifications”
Leave a Reply












29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy, 
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld 

July 25th, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
“What it will revolve around, is malice. Esquire will probably state, that they relied on Obama’s statements and reasonably believed those to be true.”
I was not aware that Obama made any statement about the book. How could this be the issue?
Their malice was to hurt sales of the book and deprive the publisher of access to the normal and usual expectation of commerce. Its like placing a defamatory ad in the hopes of destroying a competitors business. imo.
July 26th, 2011 @ 2:29 am
And bookstores are saying that the Esquire article did have an effect on their sales of Corsi’s book. Esquire’s article was meant to do just that. And some people even were taking their books back and wanting refunds. The article definitely hurt sales, and Corsi.
July 26th, 2011 @ 2:38 am
I hope he will get the money, what can I see.
I remember Esquire reporter shadowed me for two days, when I went to officials in KY, but he misrepresented the truth