My former employer sued me in the New Jersey Superior Court for defamation because I wrote an article about his mistreatment of the mentally ill.
The defamation lawsuit was based on a report I had written about the mistreatment.
My former employers lawyers threatened to sue me, and they did.
But I had done nothing wrong.
I was merely writing about what my employer had done.
The case is being heard by a judge.
My experience with the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post all helped to explain my reasoning in writing my article.
My story was a response to the mistreating of mentally ill people, and I believed it was important to bring attention to what was happening.
The Times published my story and the article, and all of my former employers and the press ran with it.
My case was heard by Judge William C. McBride in March 2018.
The judge ordered me to pay $5,000 in attorney fees, $100 in court costs, and $1,000 to the New Yorkers Civil Liberties Union for legal fees.
In March 2019, Judge McBride issued a stay on the stay pending the outcome of the case.
He ordered me and my attorney to immediately return the money, but also to cease any further defamation of my employer.
I had not violated any law in writing this article, nor did I intend to.
I have not published it in the newspapers or in the online discussion boards.
I am not making any money from this lawsuit.
Judge McBriere is very good at his job.
I hope this is an isolated incident.
In his ruling, Judge McGowan wrote: “This is a story about how the United States Courts have a tendency to favor defendants who are not just good lawyers but good at what they do.
The result is that defendants, including the media, and not just defendants, are able to create a ‘public relations’ narrative about their actions.”
I am pleased that the case has been resolved and that Judge McBritt has reversed the stay.
In general, the media and public relations professionals are very good.
They can create a false narrative and, in the process, make a good living.
But the result is, ultimately, that defendants are left with no money.
It is unfortunate that the media has become so well-paid that many people have no choice but to accept it.
It was unfortunate that I was forced to defend myself in court.
I do not know what it would have cost to file a libel lawsuit in this country, or whether there are any similar cases in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, or other countries.
The cost of defending my article was less than $5K.
I will continue to publish my story, and if the case proceeds to trial, I expect the media will be able to make much more money than I did.
Judge McGaw’s ruling is a step in the right direction.
He has done the right thing by making the case public.
He should be commended for doing so.
My position on the case is that I did not commit a crime, and that the First Amendment protects me from the defamation suits that I am currently facing.
I think the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution protect me against libel suits, and it is unfortunate to see that some of the media is trying to use the First Amendments to sue people for saying things they may not want to say.
I stand by my article and will continue with it, but I will not be defending myself in this case.
I’m glad the case was resolved and I am happy that the New Orleans Times and the New England Patriots are not in a position to make money off this case, but they should not be.
I believe the media should respect the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of our Constitution and the First amendment, which protects people from lawsuits based on lies, false information, or defamation.
The First Amendment is the only one that protects people’s right to publish truthful and accurate information about their government, their political leaders, and their private lives.
The New York Post and the Boston Herald, two publications with far more readership than me, should not have sued me for what they believe is an honest and accurate story about their workplace.
The Boston Globe and the Philadelphia Inquirer, two newspapers with far fewer readership, should have sued, as well.
These publications should not needlessly take a chance that the news media will ignore a story they do not like, even if they are a bit right or wrong.
The Washington Post should have taken a chance with my article, rather than sue me for defamation.
In a nutshell, my former job was a highly profitable enterprise for my employer and I was rewarded with a lucrative job.
My employer is an excellent employer, and its reputation is built on good journalism and good news.
If they were to sue, I would likely lose