Tuesday

I got sued...



Newsday and a number of other papers are reporting that I've been sued by former ADA Sara Schall. And though I haven't yet been served with papers, I do, thanks to the lovely reporters, have a sense of what she alleges.

Oh my--if ever there were a pathetic vanity suit this is it. She's actually suing me because I called her "dowdy" I mean get serious. Leaving aside that I think she is dowdy, you can't actually sue people for that. It's almost hilarious. I know you think I'm kidding but the lawsuit actually says Ms. Schall "took great care with her personal appearance and grooming." How awesome is that?

Oh, hey, don't bother googling her--there's no picture available so you can't even judge for yourself.

Anyway, what's really going on here is that she, along with many others doesn't like the fact that INDEFENSIBLE reveals the systemic and personal shortcoming of justice in the Bronx. This is all about the fact that I've written a book that tells it like it is, and done it while naming names. It seems pretty clear that Ms. Schall just can't stand being called out and my guess is that she's just horrified that her actions have been brought to light. She also seems to forget that truth is an absolute defense.

5 comments:

Anon said...

. . . . I assume, David, that in New York "truth" is a defense in such causes of action. If so, I suggest a panel of experts (I know several – self proclaimed, of course) who would doubtless voluntarily testify, offering opinions as to the “dowdiness” of Ms. In the process, it might be appropriate to subpoena for jury comparison a variety of “un-dowdy” prosecutors. (I’m sorry, that may be an oxymoron. You may need to search elsewhere for your un-dowdy exhibits.) Perhaps there is an accepted test for dowdiness that might pass Daubert (I think I misspelled that).
. . . . Venue is, of course, critical. I’ll wager there are a number of judges in the Bronx before whom you would be “toast.”
. . . . In the meantime, I suggest that in future publications you refrain from subjective characterizations. You might be better served by objectively provable descriptions – As opposed to “dowdy”, you might actually describe articles of clothing, hair style, approximate weight, personal hygiene and habits. Even if accurate, I would stay away from characterizations such as “often farts when she thinks no one can hear” or “Mark Brenner’s only known friend.”
. . . . Careful! You never know who might be offended.

Georgiana said...

It seems a little mean use truth as a defense to calling somebody "dowdy." "Dowdy" is clearly an opinion, and it's protected for that reason. Truth as a defense to the other stuff, though seems reasonable.
If the main offense is calling the woman "dowdy" and is actionable, quick, everybody start suing Go Fug Yourself and fashion bloggers everywhere.

schrader said...

i had a professor once that opined that the best way to get slandered is to file a libel and slander suit against someone.

Steve said...

Get yourself a copy of Sack on Defamation. There are many, many defenses to a defamation suit. Just place the book on your keyboard and Sack on Defamation will practically write the motion to dismiss for you.

Anonymous said...

You will probably prevail in the defamation suit. Had the plaintiffs brought a claim that you were a self-promoting douchebag they would have won their case at the summary judgment stage