Some Virginia History

Looks like Steve Chapman will go down in Virginia history as the first candidate to threaten to sue a blogger.

Click here to see the letter to BVBL.

I don't see how any blogger can support him anymore.

Comments

[Not an Attorney]

This guy went to law school??? Look at the lsat paragraph before the closing sentence. There is not a sentence here. Actually, there is but he inserted a period and started what looks like another sentence. He should apologize to his elementary school for not learning that there must be a noun and verb in a sentnece.

[republitarian's wife]

How about a link to the offending blog post

[not gretchen bulova]

haha. This is funny. Probably a scare tactic.

[CYA]

Regardless of the merits of this case, bloggers should be concerned and counseled on this issue.

[Not Ben]

I take it Mr. Chapman's attorney is somewhat unfamiliar with actual malice.

Mr. Sarsour, if you're reading this, allow me to suggest that you acquaint yourself with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254).

[Not Jack Herrity]

Not Ben, you beat me to it. It is dang near impossible to libel a public official under accepted 1st amendment caselaw. I think this guy is just trying to bully BVBL into submission.

NJH

Why is Chapman's attorney asking the owner of BVBL to contact him, the attorney, rather than have BVBL's counsel contact Chapman's attorney. It certainly seems inappropriatae for BVBL, who I do not believe is an attorney, to contact somebody who is a lawyer. I'm also wondering about the first sentence of the letter, shouldn't "apologize to" be "apologize for." The letter does, given the actual malice standard, seem like an effort to intimidate BVBL, since the possiblity of a successful law suit is minimal.

[James Young]

I doubt that Chapman would have difficulty demonstrating "actual malice" by the coward who runs BVBL. That site is among the sleaziest in the Virginia blogosphere particularly if --- as it seems from the attorney's letter --- it has made specious and false allegations. I am somewhat surprised that you would spring to its defense, Ben.

[anon]

Didn't Bill Bolling do the same thing to Connaughton's staff because of that whole Washington Examiner story?

[J. Sarge]

"Gill & Gallinger?" I can't find any record of that firm on the internet. Odd, since it claims to have offices in NY, LA, DC, and St. L.

The attorney, Jad N. Sarsour, just passed the bar recently: he (or she) took the bar in February of this year and would have been informed of passing within the month.

[Mitch Cumstein]

Jim:

Assuming these allegations are false. It looks like BVBL has done his homework on these issues. It would be very easy for Chapman to address these allegations with proof, assuming he has it.

These aren't opinions, as far as I can tell. These are documentable facts. Chapman either still has the Arlington Cemetery contract, or he doesn't. He either graduated from a specific high school on a specific date, or he didn't. BVBL appears to have credible proof that these statments are false. So, where's your beef exactly?

[Josh Chernila]

What are the facts here? Did he finish high school? Does he still have this contract? Did BVBL lie?

If the answer to all these is yes then BVBL should at least apologize. Legalities aside, lying about stuff doesn't help anyone. Of course, if Chapman lied, it's a much bigger deal.

[Virginia Liberal]

Wanting justice is not such a bad thing. If what he was saying is false there needs to be some way to keep people from outright lying. Not that he is going to win anything or should, but there needs to be some way to keep some sort of integrity in the media (especially if blogging is the outlet of the future).

[Not Ben]

James Young: "I doubt that Chapman would have difficulty demonstrating 'actual malice' by the coward who runs BVBL."

James, I'm certain you're aware of just how high a bar "actual malice" is when it comes to public officials. It effectively requires that Chapman demonstrate that the operator of BVBL had knowledge that his statement was false, or that he demonstrated reckless disregard of the truth. If BVBL has even a semi-credible reason to believe his sources on Chapman, then he's in the clear. This is bolstered by the fact that Chapman's counsel will only commit to "[t]he evidence is overwhelming" that Chapman completed HS and maintains his Arlington Cemetary contract. He refused to unequivocally state that both things are true or offer any evidence to refute the charges made. This refusal lends further credence to the believability of BVBL's source.

[Not Jack Herrity]

James, do you dispute that the standard from NYT v Sullivan is the appropriate standard to use here? I realize you and Greg have a long-running dispute, but let's set that aside for the moment and focus on the law.

It is my understanding that in order to prove malice a plaintiff has the evidentiary burden of proving "knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

In NYT v. Sullivan, the petitioner provided no evidence that the New York Times was aware of its erroneous statements or operated recklessly.

My understanding of this case is that Steve Chapman has to do two things in order to prevail. First, he has to be able to document where BVBL is wrong. Second, he has to provide evidence that BVBL knew of the erroneous statements when he made them. In the alternative, he could also argue that BVBL continued to make the statements even after being told they were false.

Still, just saying they are false does not make it so. Greg has to actually believe that they are false (or act recklessly), and how is he to do that when Chapman has provided no evidence of either his ongoing headstone contract or his graduation from Woodbridge HS?

I seriously doubt any court would hold BVBL liable when all the evidence about the charges so far adds up in his favor. If Chapman's lawyer wants a favorable verdict, he/she/it is going to have to do better than this.

NJH

[nasuna]

Any chance that "Gill" of "Gill & Gallegher" is the notorious Faisil Gill?

[Pastor John]

the homosexuals are slandering my main man steve chapman. he is a honorable man. i lay flowers at the grave of his dog every sunday.

Bloggers should take notice of this case. There will be atime when they are sued successfully just as newspapers and rags like the National Enquirer have been.

Malice will be easier to prove against many political bloggers almost all of them are supporting specific candidates or have well-known axes to grind.

The more a blog wallows in trashy posts, the more likely they are to be sued. Even if the blogs win, a lot of small-time bloggers will have to pay some real big money to defend themselves.

How many Virginia bloggers can afford to hire a real lawyer?

It's a bit strange to find a multi-city law firm(especially very large cities with tough legal markets) spring up so quickly. These guys are not listed in Martindale Hubbell (at least not in my edition), the standard reference directory for the legal profession. I guess they could have been formed rather recently, but you'd think the phone number in Virginia would not give you the reverse listing of some place called "Sapentia." (anyone no what/who Sapentia is?) As J. Sarge alertly notes, Mr. (or Ms.) Sansour just passed the bar within the past few months. It's not often that recent admittees get to sign letters threatening lawsuits, especially in large multi-city firms.

More to the substance, it ought to be possible to establish whether Chapman graduated from high school, was indeed a high school drop-out, and whether and when he did or did not have the contract to power-wash headstones at Arlington Cemetery. If those facts aren't verifiable, they shouldn't be stated as fact by MSM or by bloggers. Part of the problem with Mr. Chapman is that there are stories in circulation that he has told people that he is an HS dropout in order to make the point that his business has been very successful without benefit of a high school degree. The people re-circulating these stories might have heard it wrong, might be malicious, or Chapman himself may have, in other contexts, misrepresented his educational qualifications in a context where he was trying to impress in ways that aren't particularly impressive for a political campaign.

re an earlier comment, Bolling's lawyers threatened the Washington Examiner with suit after an op-ed columnist questioned Bolling's ties with and role in the failed Reciprocal Group. The threat to the Connaughton campaign staff by Bolling's lawyers was that they should not re-publish or circulate the column, given that Bolling had alleged it to be defamatory. Of course, it's very hard for an op-ed piece questioning elements of a political candidate's business background to actionably defame or libel under applicable legal standards. But, generally speaking, the threat of legal action slows everyone down and can be an effective way to delay or impede further exploration of touchy issues. Consultants are increasingly aware of how to use this legal approach as a tactical weapon in a campaign. Newspapers are generally geared up to ignore it, but individuals can't be cavalier about threats that could ruin them personally.

[Not Ben]

Anon 11:24, I think you're confusing the dictionary definition "malice" with "actual malice," which is a legal term of art.

"Actual malice is knowledge (by the person who utters or publishes a defamatory statement) that a statement is false, or reckless disregard about whether the statement is true. To prevail, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must overcome the defendant's qualified privilege by proving the defendant's actual malice. And for certain other types of claims, a plaintiff must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages." (Black's Legal Dictionary)

[hirons]

"Mr. Chapman is that there are stories in circulation that he has told people that he is an HS dropout"

Are you saying Chappy is a big enough dumbass to claim he's a high school dropout when he may very well not be. Where's Prince Gary? He needs to post his lyrics over here.

[AWCheney]

"How many Virginia bloggers can afford to hire a real lawyer?"

Anon.11:24AM, what you seem to forget is that many Virginia bloggers ARE lawyers, and very likely to protect one of their own. Steve Chapman, I presume (Anon.)?

[James Young]

Most of these who address me are beneath contempt, as I don't debate discrete points of law with those who remain anonymous/pseudonymous. Why bother?

As for Josh's comment, that is the basic point. I have no idea whether BVBL's statements are true or not, which is the reason I have pointedly NOT disputed those allegations. But that they are made mostly anonymously (my only dispute with Greg is his association with BVBL) speaks volumes about their likely merits. It's not so much their merits (if any) as their tone, which demonstrates beyond question that their motivation lies not so much in contempt for Chapman as in their authors' dismay that someone as lowly as Steve Chapman was able to earn 45% of the vote against the Revered (and Misguided) Harry Parrish upon the latter's abandonment of the core Republican principles of limited taxation.

[Virginia Centrist]

I'm below contempt.

[Not Ben]

"Most of these who address me are beneath contempt, as I don't debate discrete points of law with those who remain anonymous/pseudonymous. Why bother?"

Translation: James's position is indefensible. You ARE a lawyer, aren't you? How could you be so unfamiliar with such a basic tenet of tort law as actual malice?