(Charlotte) Pritt's libel case begins 8 years later

[Lt. Governor 2B]

http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/News/Other%20News/2006030325?pt=10

March 04, 2006
Pritt libel case begins 8 years later


By Susan Williams
Staff writer

FAYETTEVILLE — A long-delayed libel suit that a former Democratic candidate for governor brought against three Republican organizations started Friday in Fayette County Circuit Court. Former state Sen. Charlotte Pritt believes that ads paid for by Republicans who lived out of state distorted her voting record in the final days of her campaign and cost her a chance to be West Virginia’s first woman governor....

....Roberts said the Victory Committee was born to handle ads against Pritt and dissolved soon after Pritt was defeated. Roberts also said the address for the West Virginia Victory Committee was the same as the Washington address for National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it had the same officers. In researching for the case, Roberts and his co-counsel, Roger Forman, discovered that all the people who gave money to the West Virginia Victory Committee were from out of state. They could not find a single dollar contributed by a West Virginian.

....Although Pritt’s Republican opponent for governor was Cecil Underwood, her lawyer made clear that the suit was not against Underwood. Underwood rejected the ads, AND HE WILL BE A WITNESS FOR PRITT.

[MountainLaurel]

1. Do you think Manchin will be called to testify?

Since he was so heavily involved in "Democrats for Underwood"?

[Sydnie]

2. Go Char Go!

thanks for the update Drew.

[Sydnie]

3. Giving this an evening kick n/t

[hollowdweller]

4. Recommended! Where is Charlotte anymore anyway! She disappeared!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

5. Libel suit against RNC by WV progressive populist begins

For those not in the know, this was the dirtiest campaign in WV political history, with the now-governor of the state, 'democrat' Joe Manchin, jumping ship from the party and actively campaigning for the GOP candidate as a 'democrat for underwood'

---
Pritt libel case begins 8 years later

By Susan Williams
Staff writer
FAYETTEVILLE — A long-delayed libel suit that a former Democratic candidate for governor brought against three Republican organizations started Friday in Fayette County Circuit Court.

Former state Sen. Charlotte Pritt believes that ads paid for by Republicans who lived out of state distorted her voting record in the final days of her campaign and cost her a chance to be West Virginia’s first woman governor.

But the ads were so distorted, Pritt stated in her libel suit, that they also harmed Charlotte Pritt the person, not just Charlotte Pritt the political figure.

The first day of trial included mention of some well-known Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich and Alfonse DeMato. One of Pritt’s lawyers promised in his opening remarks that the trial will be “spirited.”

Pritt’s suit names three Republican organizations: The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the West Virginia State Victory Committee.

more at;
http://sundaygazettemail.com/section/News/Other%20News/2006030325?pt=0

[Sydnie]

6. This is a VERY important case for all of us

I know Charlotte and I know that she wouldn't bring these charges if she didn't think she had a good case.

I hope she whips the pants off of them!

I would love to see her run again too.

[tabasco]

7. Go Charlotte!

It's about time to hold these liars accountable.

[TaleWgnDg]

8. Legally speaking, libel is going to be VERY hard for her,

Charlotte Pritt, to prove. She must prove malicious intent, a next to impossibility. On the other hand, she may be merely using this litigation to get her name out there as not allowing anyone to roll over her re for further political campaigns, etc. Who knows? Only she knows.

[Warpy]

11. Tale, sometimes winning the suit isn't the point

See my post below.

[TaleWgnDg]

13. Warpy . . . as a lawyer, I won't Monday morning quarterback

another lawyer's legal decision-making particularly when the alleged wrongful activity has been dogging the other lawyer for more than 25+ years as well as the other lawyer has an excellent reputation as a state prosecutor and private practitioner in their own right. I won't venture into that lawyer's legal theories and rationale as to "yeas" and "nays."

Nope. I won't dance that dance!

Lawyers know better than that . . . that is, lawyers who refuse to sell themselves to the talking-head industry, or sound-off on internet msg/bulletin boards. Instead, I'll allow others to play around w/ 20-20 hindsight.

I will say, however, that libel of a public figure is very damn hard to prove which is why so much fabrication passes today as "truth" no matter how twisted in the so-called "news media" and elsewhere.

It's as simple and as difficult as that.

___________________

edited to repair broken hyperlink url

.

[MasonJar]

9. I'd say it is pretty malicious to lie to the point that an election

is subverted. If she wins, we can go after the Swiftboaters.

[TaleWgnDg]

12. It's a far different legal burden for the plaintiff to prove than . . .

that; see, e.g.,

1.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=376&invol=254

2.) http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/277/
.

[Warpy]

10. If only Kerry would grow a spine and follow her lead

He had a golden opportunity to sue Regenery and John McNeil during his campaign, get subpoena power, and blow the lid off the GOP dirty tricks squad. He blew it.

He's had a golden opportunity since then to do the same, but he's blowing it.

Winning the suit is not always the point, especially if one has the resources Kerry has. Sometimes just destroying your enemy in the process of pursing the action is the point.

That's something the GOP found out a long time ago. I wonder what has been keeping Kerry uncharacteristically passive.