www.justiceforchandra.com

[Jayne]

Just a thought here, but he may have waited until there was solid proof of just how she died, rather than face a courtroom and have to say "I know this is false because...." This way it's a given. We all know she was't dumped over the ocean from a plane, and Gary doesn't have to worry about slipping up. I can see it now....."Your honor, this is 100% fabrication on the part of Mr. Dunne, I know, because I hid her in a cave!" Also, Condit can't plead the fifth in a civil suit where he is the plaintiff. He has no choice but to answer questions and discovery is gonna be a b*tch :) All Dunne has really done here is expressed an unflattering opinion.

[Dunne]: "I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen..."

That alone will not stand as grounds for a lawsuit. Gary is so afraid of becoming a welder that he's willing to settle for whatever he can get from Dunne. Condit is so arrogant, he is probably thinking that Dominic Dunne would like to be spared the expense of this going to court, and will settle out of court.

[rd]

I agree, and Condit is in for a surprise.

rd

[Jayne]

CONDIT SUES DUNNE FOR $11M

By DAN MANGAN

December 17, 2002 -- Gary Condit slapped Dominick Dunne with an $11 million slander lawsuit yesterday, accusing the Vanity Fair writer of falsely claiming he was involved in intern Chandra Levy's disappearance and murder.

The suit says Dunne - a chronicler of crimes of the rich and famous - dished dubious dirt about lame-duck California Rep. Condit, including suggesting that his links to Arab diplomats and motorcycle gangs led to Levy's demise.

"I don't think he killed her. I think he could have known it was going to happen," Dunne said earlier this year.

But "Dunne had no reliable or credible source for the slanderous statements," says the Manhattan federal court suit, adding that as a result, "Condit has suffered stress, emotional distress, and mental pain and suffering."

Dunne made the statements on Larry King's television show, Laura Ingraham's radio show, in several newspapers and magazines, and at high-profile New York and Los Angeles dinner parties, the suit says.

The remarks began last December and ended in June, when Dunne told USA Today that "I'm a little nervous" about being sued.

Dunne was mum yesterday. "Dominick Dunne is not at liberty to comment," said a Vanity Fair magazine spokeswoman.

Condit's lawyer, L. Lin Wood, said the 54-year-old Condit "has been falsely accused . . . and feels that he is entitled to go into a court of law and seek fair compensation."

Wood added that similar suits by Condit against others are likely.

"Dominick Dunne transformed allegation of sexual misconduct into accusations of involvement in a kidnapping and murder. He crossed the line, and he did it for his own personal vendetta . . . as well as for his own publicity and profit," Wood said.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/64816.htm

[jane]

It seems odd that it took Wood so long to decide that Dunne was a good bet to sue. When I first read that he was digging around, I assumed he'd be looking at things more obscure than Dunne's writings, having already ruled those out.

From what people have posted in this thread, it does not sound like a good bet, so why would Wood encourage Condit to sue? Do you think Condit is not taking sound advice, as usual?

In the Mangan article above, Wood refers to a personal vendetta Dunne has against Condit - doesn't this sound phony? (Maybe Wood infers that since Dunne lost his own daughter to her ex-boyfriend, he is biased against Condit?)

[rd]

Condit only has American Media (NE and Star) and Dunne to sue in terms of outrageous statements from people with something in their pockets. He'll get nowhere with even these statements. But it's worth it to Lin to shake the tree and see if something falls out.

rd

[peripeteia]

Well this must be last chance cafe for Condit. Dunne's comments were out on a limb to be sure, not even believeable, more like grand standing at best. It was hard to know where Dunne was coming from, not that I'm even familar with his works, his remarks seemed rather pointed in a case where there were/are no facts. Dunne will deserve what he gets, however, Gary better tread carefully in what goes around comes around. Whatever, Dunne should have dished up the facts, he made allegations and Condit has a right to challenge him on this matter.

As mentioned; it will be interesting if Condit sues the press over carrying the story about the Ottis Thomas Affair. I doubt that Ottis has any collateral worth filing suit against. However, in terms of damage control the revealing of the Ottis Affair in the media (in Conservative Condit Country) was probably the most damaging news in terms of Condit's career; of course after the fact, that his girlfriend was missing. If anything possibily could be more damaging than this!? Especially since condit did so little to cooperate with the investigation of Chandra's disappearance.

Damage as far as losing credibility, will be difficult to assertain for Condit ; since he did so much on his own to damage his own self imagine. This simply happened as a result of the illumination of Condit's personal life. That it was discovered that Condit was not what he held himself out to be; that he was a liar and that he was unfaithful, and that Condit did little to assist the investigation of Chandra Levy's disappearance. It is suspect whether or not Condit did hinder and obstruct this same investigation.

Condit destroyed his own future in politics; he thought he held the right to a personal life, while the whereabouts of his girlfriend was held in the balanace. This was a grave political error.

Well knock yourself out Gary Condit and power to you. By the same token may we learn that which we do not know in the process of the trials
that will be in no short supply compliments of our very one and only Gary Condit...

Hope someone gives me a popcorn maker for Christmas...lots of good reading....in the coming months
kate
_________________
A vision sent me on the path of seeking justice for Chandra, nothing I've seen in print to date has diminished the vividness but only served to reaffirm the validity of this vision.

[rd]

"As mentioned; it will be interesting if Condit sues the press over carrying the story about the Ottis Thomas Affair."


It's news, those are facts, you can't sue a newspaper for reporting facts. OC was interviewed by the FBI and that's what he told them, that's a fact.


"Hope someone gives me a popcorn maker for Christmas...lots of good reading....in the coming months "


I'm pretty sure Condit will join the ranks of OJ and Patsy in getting away with murder, but good reading will make sure that everyone knows it, and who knows, maybe he'll join the ranks of Skakel someday, but hopefully not 30 years later either...

rd

[propria]

i was delighted to see judge andrew napolitano confirm on fox tonight that filing the suit against dunne has opened gary condit to being questioned on every single aspect of his personal life, starting with his birth if that's where dunne's counsel wants to start. the most important difference between gary condit's suit against dunne and carolyn condit's suit against the national enquirer lies in the discovery attached to each case ... it might or might not be possible to depose gary as a witness in carolyn's suit, and to call him to testify at trial, but it is a matter of settled law that the plaintiff in a law suit is ALWAYS subject to being deposed, served with interrogatories and requests to produce documents, and called to testify at trial. napolitano specified that the questioning which condit is subject to in this case includes not only every possible detail of his kinky sexual interests, but also every possible detail of his family life and his history of serial adultery. looks to me like the condit clan is about to get still another reminder that everyone lives with the realistic repercussions of their own life decisions ... i'd say it's time for gary condit to dust off his blow torch, just in case he doesn't get to share one with bubba for the rest of his life.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!

[rd]

holy cow, nanci! Given what Dunne's statements imply, that's a whole lot of questioning that a lawyer would go for to provide some basis for the Dunne statements being reasonable. I'm sure Condit will answer only with no's and I don't know's, but his very lack of being forthcoming will make a judgement against Dunne harder to come by.

rd

[EmmaPeel]

Here's a another version of same, but which gives info on just what Wood must prove via his suit.

They are going for people/companies with deep pockets (just wait--I'll bet Fox is next--remember the Fox reporter following Condit up the steps asking pointed questions while Condit had that frozen "Joker" smile on his face?). Also as you'll see below they have a lot harder case to prove as Condit is a public figure.....


Condit files libel suit against Vanity Fair columnist Dunne

By MICHAEL DOYLE
Fresno Bee
December 16, 2002

WASHINGTON - Departing Rep. Gary Condit on Monday filed an $11 million defamation lawsuit against columnist and raconteur Dominick Dunne.

Condit contends Dunne slandered him repeatedly over the past year during public and private discussions about the disappearance of former intern Chandra Levy. In explicit comments as well as suggestive innuendo during radio and television appearances, Dunne raised suspicions about Condit's role in Levy's fate.

"This is not derived from a desire to financially benefit," Condit attorney L. Lin Wood said in an interview Monday. "As a matter of principle, there are some statements that one simply cannot ignore."

The potentially uphill and possibly unprecedented lawsuit is the first filed by Condit in the wake of extraordinarily extensive media coverage, and it comes as he prepares to join the ranks of the jobless in January. His wife, Carolyn, using different lawyers, is currently suing two tabloid newspapers.

Attorneys for the Florida-based Star tabloid urged U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger on Monday to dismiss one of Carolyn Condit's cases, an argument that Wanger will now consider.

As an undeniably public figure, though, Condit would have a harder time than his wife in advancing the lawsuit filed in federal court in New York City. To succeed with his 15-page suit, he must prove Dunne knowingly spoke falsely or, at the least, spoke with "reckless disregard" for what was true or false.

"It's a very difficult standard to meet," noted Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "The reason we have such strong libel laws is so we can have a vibrant political discourse ... (and so) when a member of Congress is involved with something unseemly, we have a structure to discuss this very public event."

For this reason, defamation lawsuits by politicians are extremely rare. Officials with Capitol Hill historical, library and legal offices could not cite any congressional precedent, and Wood agreed this represented a "very unique" set of facts.

"Members of Congress since the beginning have considered themselves defamed, particularly by the media, but I can't think of any member who's gone so far as to file a defamation suit," Senate Historian Don Ritchie said.

Usually, politicians take a different approach, some more muscular than others. In 1855, Ritchie recalled as one example, an Arkansas congressman pummeled New York City newspaper editor Horace Greeley following the publication of one of Greeley's signed, anti-slavery editorials.

At the same time, Dalglish characterized Wood as a "very smart" libel specialist who's successfully represented other clients including Atlanta Olympic security guard Richard Jewell and the family of JonBenet Ramsey. She said Dunne would be wise to hire a very strong lawyer of his own.

Beth Kseniac, a spokeswoman for Vanity Fair magazine, said Dunne "is not at liberty to comment" on the lawsuit. Dunne has been a contributor to the glossy magazine since 1984 and has used his monthly column to float some of his theories about Condit and Levy.

Police have repeatedly said Condit is not a suspect in the disappearance of Levy, whose body was discovered in May in Washington's Rock Creek Park.

Nonetheless, questions about Condit's involvement with Levy have persisted in the 19 months since she disappeared. Last week, her parents appeared before a Washington grand jury, and Chandra's mother, Susan Levy, later told a CNN interviewer that she believes Condit still "has answers that he hasn't shared."

A former Hollywood producer who has detailed his own past battles with drugs and depression, Dunne now embraces the true-crime genre. He has recounted how he traveled to London to investigate murky suggestions that Levy had stumbled into a sex ring centering on Middle Eastern embassies.

Dunne carried his theorizing onto cable television shows eager to delve into the Levy affair. On one appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" show, Dunne speculated that Levy had "gone off on the motorcycle of one of Condit's motorcycle friends."

Dunne subsequently shifted gears. He claimed that an "animal behaviorist who traveled through the Middle East" had contacted him to advise he'd talked to a "procurer of women for Middle Eastern men of high rank." This alleged procurer supposedly mentioned that Levy had been drugged and kidnapped.

During a radio appearance last December on the nationally syndicated "Laura Ingraham Show," Dunne connected the dots by speculating that Condit had confided to a Middle Eastern friend that Levy had become a bother.

Condit's lawsuit cites a number of instances in which Dunne elaborated on his motorcycle and Middle East theories, including several parties attended by other authors and Hollywood celebrities. The primary complaint, though, centers on Dunne's Dec. 20, 2001, appearance on Ingraham's talk show, where he gave full vent to his speculations about Levy and Condit.

"This was not simply a case of theorizing," Wood said of Dunne's assertions. "He was making factual representations ... (and) I don't believe you can fairly accuse someone of murder and then simply preface it by saying that 'it's my opinion.'"

Pure expressions of opinion are protected under prior Supreme Court decisions, but the court has also ruled that a statement that can be subjected to factual verification may be defamatory.

Wood said he's investigating the possibility of additional lawsuits that could include tabloid newspapers or others that tried linking Condit to criminal conduct.

[Scarlett]

He is actually suing for that exact line you posted Jayne. Claims it harms him from finding a decent job by ruining his reputation. Uh...it was already gone Dumbo. Oh brother! Great reporting on Napolitano, Nanci. I watched that interview with glee too. Condit has opened himself wide up and Napolitano saw right through him...why did he do it? He needs money, Napolitano said. He thinks it will be dismissed as Condit will never show up to be deposed. They said if he lied (like Clinton) he could be charged with perjury, but we all know that never happens. What's to stop him from doing just that?

This guy is so transparent, it's unbelievable.

[rd]

"The potentially uphill and possibly unprecedented lawsuit..."


Possibly unprecedented? That's interesting, Emma. No historical precedents in Congressional history of suing for defamation. There's no practical basis for it, that's why. It truly is an act of desperation. He has no money.

rd

[stillwaters]

If the lawsuit ends up dismissed on motion from the defense(which appears to be quite likely), one has to ask why bother? Wood certainly is knowledgeable enough to have already covered that possibility with Condit, and yet they still go ahead and file. Could this be as simple as it being Condit's way of publicly blustering a pronouncement of his "innocence", knowing the suit will likely come to naught? Since many have wondered why Condit has been so silent and not sued anyone yet, this could be his reply: " see, I'm innocent and I've got the guts to sue!" From his warped viewpoint, he could see filing the lawsuit as having more "teeth" than simply saying he's guilty of nothing. (Especially since no one listens to him.)Just another move in his chess game. Also, and perhaps Nanci or another of you legal eagles might know, would any depositions take place prior to any motion in court, and who gets to be deposed first? Any possibility of there being a ploy to see just what, if anything at all, Dunne may have on Condit, or at the least, to get some names of sources? I have lots of questions as do we all. I'm both surprised at this turn, yet not so suprised, if that makes any sense :) sw

[stillwaters]

Judge Napolitano did say he felt there would be no depostions and the suit would be dismissed, so that partially answers my question as to whether Dunne's attorney would file a motion to dismiss before anything else occurs. But, Dunne could call Gary's bluff...... there are risks for both. The question remains who's at most risk? I think we know the answer.

[rd]

yes, interesting perspective stillwaters. I especially like the bravado aspect of it as the grand jury finishes questioning the Levy's. Condit and his lawyer Garagos were threatening the very grand jury process earlier this year for violating secrecy mandates, which is hysterical in that no one even knew if Condit ever showed up at the grand jury. Suing is all he can do to try to ward off the quest for justice.

rd