"The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits," said a DC Superior Court judge in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. "The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that 'actual malice' is present in the [National Review's] conduct."
This language is somewhat stronger than the previous ruling, which merely suggested that evidence of "actual malice" might be found during discovery (but was not present in the NR piece itself).
2 comments:
Problem is, that like Beivik inspiration Pam Geller, this kind of legal action will only embolden Steyn and the munchkins at National Review. It increases their need to be thought of as victims.
Emboldened Mark hasn't said a thing about this in weeks, presumably on the advice of his lawyers. You start taking their money, these speechy types start weighing their words.
Post a Comment