WOOT!! COURT *DISMISSES* PATEL DEFAMATION LAWSUIT (NOT THE ONE AGAINST THE ATLANTIC – BUT AWESOME TIMING!) (DOCUMENTS INCLUDED)
Long before Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic, he filed a similar defamation suit against former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Cesare Frank Figliuzzi, Jr., for comments that Figliuzzi made on MSNBC on the Morning Joe show. That complaint was filed last June (and is included for Notes from the Front members).
In that complaint Patel whines that during that Morning Joe show Figliuzzi said, of Patel, that “Reportedly, he’s been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building.”
And then:
“Defendant previously wrote, “Patel is one of the most ill-suited Cabinet nominees—not just now, but of all time.” And, “The FBI’s motto is ‘Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.’ The record suggests that Patel doesn’t possess any of those traits.”
Defendant also wrote, “It isn’t just that Patel is wholly unqualified to lead the pre-eminent law enforcement and intelligence agency in the nation and perhaps the world . . . Patel’s particular problem goes far beyond competence: His record shows no devotion to the Constitution, but blind allegiance to Trump.”
Defendant even “warned that Patel may be even more dangerous than the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.” ”
Ok class, we’ve been over this very recently, what is required to prove and prevail in a claim of defamation *of a public figure*?
That’s right, you have to prove not only that what the defendant said was false, and not only that the defendant *knew* it was false, but *also* that *it was said with malice*.
First, of course, a whole lot of what Figliuzzi said is opinion, and informed opinion at that.
Second, none of what Figliuzzi said was necessarily with malice, however the Court didn’t even need to get to that analysis in order to dismiss Patel’s lawsuit.
Said the Court “A statement is defamatory when a person of ordinary intelligence would interpret it in a way that tends to injure the subject’s reputation and thereby expose the subject to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or financial injury, or to impeach the subject’s honesty, integrity virtue, or reputation.”
I just keep coming back to that “a person of ordinary intelligence”.
The Court goes on “Here, Figliuzzi argues that a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive his statement as nothing more than “rhetorical hyperbole.” He asserts that Dir. Patel’s allegations include an “unreasonably literal interpretation of the remark,” and therefore Dir. Patel’s complaint fails to assert a claim for defamation. The Court agrees.”
The Court concludes “The Court finds that Dir. Patel has failed to successfully allege a claim for defamation against Figliuzzi.”
Notes from the Front members: the Complaint (it’s kind of hilarious) and the Opinion (it’s kind of awesome) dismissing the lawsuit are in your inbox now!
Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal updates (like this one) or Epstein updates – get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I do for you. Join here and instantly get the documents:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-court-dismisses-patel-defamation
Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss a legal update (just like this one) or Epstein update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (yes, it’s really completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://notesfromthefront.fyi
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “malice”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about malice! ;~)
Source