Oct. 17 (UPI) — President Donald Trump refiled a dismissed federal lawsuit accusing The New York Times of defaming him during the 2024 election cycle and seeking $15 billion.
The president refiled the lawsuit on Thursday after U.S. District Court for Middle Florida Judge Steven Merryday in September dismissed the original filing.
The judge ruled the initial 85-page filing was too wordy and took too long to detail any formal complaints against the news outlet, The New York Times reported.
Merryday gave Trump 28 days to refile his lawsuit, which the president did on Thursday in the same federal court.
Trump’s revised filing is 40 pages long and accuses The Times’ reporters Peter Baker, Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig of writing “false, malicious and defamatory statements” against him in two news articles, according to NBC News.
Baler and Buettner also wrote a book titled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”
Trump’s legal team argues that he asked The Times to retract defamatory and false information, which its leadership refused, The Hill reported.
“Defendants rejected President Trump’s reasonable demands for retraction and instead doubled down and expanded on the malicious and defamatory falsehood,” the legal team says.
“These breaches of journalistic ethics are further proven by The Times’ enthusiastic aiding and abetting of the partisan effort to falsely link Russian interference to President Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election,” Trump’s filing says.
The claims of Russian interference on behalf of Trump “is well on its way to becoming one of the most profoundly disturbing criminal political scandals in American history,” Trump’s legal team argues.
Officials for The New York Times in a statement on Friday said the lawsuit lacks merit.
“Nothing has changed today,” the statement said. “This is merely an attempt to stifle independent reporting and generate [public relations] attention.”
The Times’ executive editor Joseph Kahn previously said the news outlet will not settle the case, which other news outlets have done to end similar cases filed by the president.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and left in place the $1.4-billion judgment against him over his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a hoax staged by crisis actors.
The Infowars host had argued that a judge was wrong to find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without holding a trial on the merits of allegations lodged by relatives of victims of the shooting, which killed 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Conn.
The justices did not comment on their order, which they issued without asking the families of the Sandy Hook victims to respond to Jones’ appeal. An FBI agent who responded to the shooting also sued.
A lawyer who represents Sandy Hook families said the Supreme Court had properly rejected Jones’ “latest desperate attempt to avoid accountability for the harm he has caused.”
“We look forward to enforcing the jury’s historic verdict and making Jones and Infowars pay for what they have done,” lawyer Christopher Mattei said in a statement.
A lawyer representing Jones in the case didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. During his daily show on Tuesday, Jones said his lawyers believed his case was “cut and dry,” while he had predicted the high court wouldn’t take up his appeal.
“I said no, they will not do it because of politics,” Jones said.
Jones mocked the idea that he has enough money to pay the judgment, saying his studio equipment, including five-year-old cameras, was only worth about $304,000.
“It’s all about torturing me. It’s all about harassing me. It’s about harassing my family. It’s about getting me off the air,” said Jones, who urged his listeners to buy merchandise to keep the show running.
Jones filed for bankruptcy in late 2022, and his lawyers told the justices that the “plaintiffs have no possible hope of collecting” the entire judgment.
He is separately appealing a $49-million judgment in a similar defamation lawsuit in Texas after he failed to turn over documents sought by the parents of another Sandy Hook victim.
In the Connecticut case, the judge issued a rare default ruling against Jones and his company in late 2021 because of what she called Jones’ repeated failure to abide by court rulings and to turn over certain evidence to the Sandy Hook families. The judge convened a jury to determine how much Jones would owe.
The following year, the jury agreed on a $964-million verdict and the judge later tacked on another $473 million in punitive damages against Jones and Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company, which is based in Austin, Texas.
In November, the satirical news outlet The Onion was named the winning bidder in an auction to liquidate Infowars’ assets to help pay the defamation judgments. But the bankruptcy judge threw out the auction results, citing problems with the process and The Onion’s bid.
The attempt to sell off Infowars’ assets has moved to a Texas state court in Austin. Jones is now appealing a recent order from the court that appointed a receiver to liquidate the assets. Some of Jones’ personal property is also being sold off as part of the bankruptcy case.
Sherman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.
Sept. 23 (UPI) — The Wall Street Journal filed a motion Monday to dismiss President Donald Trump‘s $10 billion defamation lawsuit over the newspaper’s reporting on a 50th birthday letter he claims he did not write to Jeffrey Epstein more than two decades ago.
According to the filing, The Journal argued the case should be thrown out because “the article is true.”
“Epstein’s estate produced the Birthday Book, which contains the letter bearing the bawdy drawing and Trump’s signature, exactly as The Wall Street Journal reported.”
“While this case’s threat to the First Amendment is serious, the claims asserted by President Trump are meritless and should be promptly dismissed with prejudice,” the newspaper said.
Trump has denied writing the letter, saying, “This is not me,” and “This is a fake thing.” He is asking for $10 billion on two counts of defamation, which could total more than $20 billion.
The Journal’s filing asks the court to order Trump pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. The newspaper argues the article is not defamatory.
“Even if it had reported that President Trump personally crafted the letter — and it does not — there is nothing defamatory about a person sending a bawdy note to a friend,” according to the motion, which detailed the note that included a drawing of a naked woman.
Trump disagreed.
“The Wall Street Journal and News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social in July. “The press has to learn to be truthful and not rely on sources that probably don’t even exist.”
The Wall Street Journal’s motion to dismiss comes days after a federal judge threw out a $15 billion lawsuit, also filed by the president, against The New York Times. The judge called Trump’s allegations “superfluous.”
Last year, Trump won a $15 million settlement from ABC News in a defamation suit against the network over false statements. Trump also won a $16 million settlement from CBS News over what he called deceptively edited comments during the presidential election.
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Friday tossed out a $15-billion defamation lawsuit filed by President Trump against The New York Times.
U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday ruled that Trump’s 85-page lawsuit was overly long and full of “tedious and burdensome” language that had no bearing on the legal case.
“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Merryday wrote in a four-page order. “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”
The judge gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint that should not exceed 40 pages.
The lawsuit named four Times journalists and cited a book and three articles published within a two-month period before the last election.
The Times had said it was meritless and an attempt to discourage independent reporting. “We welcome the judge’s quick ruling, which recognized that the complaint was a political document rather than a serious legal filing,” spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said Friday.
Merryday noted that the lawsuit did not get to the first defamation count until page 80. The lawsuit delves into Trump’s work on “The Apprentice” TV show and an “extensive list” of Trump’s other media appearances.
“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” wrote Merryday, an appointment of former President George H.W. Bush. “Although lawyers receive a modicum of expressive latitude in pleading the claim of a client, the complaint in this action extends far beyond the outer bound of that latitude.”
The lawsuit named a book and an article written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig that focuses on Trump’s finances and his pre-presidency role in “The Apprentice.”
Trump said in the lawsuit that they “maliciously peddled the fact-free narrative” that television producer Mark Burnett turned Trump into a celebrity — “even though at and prior to the time of publications defendants knew that President Trump was already a mega-celebrity and an enormous success in business.”
The lawsuit also attacked claims the reporters made about Trump’s early business dealings and his father, Fred.
Trump also cited an article by Peter Baker last Oct. 20 headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment.” He also sued Michael S. Schmidt for a piece two days later featuring an interview with Trump’s first-term chief of staff, John Kelly, headlined “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”
Trump has also sued ABC News and CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” both of which were settled out of court by the news organizations’ parent companies. Trump also sued The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
NEW YORK — President Donald Trump filed a $15-billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and four of its journalists on Monday, according to court documents.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Florida names several articles and one book written by two of the publication’s journalists and published in the lead up to the 2024 election, saying they are “part of a decades-long pattern by the New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump.”
“Defendants published such statements negligently, with knowledge of the falsity of the statements, and/or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity,” the lawsuit says.
The New York Times did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment early Tuesday.
In a Truth Social post announcing the lawsuit, Trump accused The New York Times of lying about him and defaming him, saying it has become “a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.”
Trump has gone after other media outlets, including filing a $10-billion defamation lawsuit against the The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch in July after the newspaper published a story reporting on his ties to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Sept. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump filed a suit for defamation and libel against The New York Times, seeking $15 billion in damages over alleged false statements about him, family members and his businesses and accusing the newspaper of flagrant political bias.
Court records indicated that the lawsuit was filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., on Monday.
Trump took to his Truth Social platform to accuse the newspaper of being a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democratic Party,” but did not give details of the alleged falsehoods.
The action for damages amounting to more than the full market capitalization of The New York Times Company, was, Trump said, motivated by an imperative to “restore integrity to journalism.”
“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” said Trump.”
He also criticized the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris for president in the 2024 election.
However, experts said it was another instance of a strategy of using lawsuits of doubtful legality to gag critical voices and suppress free speech.
Defamation and libel allegations are incredibly difficult to make stick in court because of the burden of proving “actual malice” — showing the defendant was aware the statements were untrue, or was reckless with regard to their veracity.
Endorsing a candidate running for political office is not defamatory.
The move came a week after Trump vowed to sue The New York Times over stories it ran about a letter he is alleged to have written to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two months after he sued the Wall Street Journal over the same letter, a note consisting of the outline of a naked woman with text printed above his alleged signature.
The note, written for Epstein’s 50th birthday, dates from 2003, before Epstein was convicted.
Trump has won multi-million dollar settlements from ABC News and CBS News, in December and July, respectively, prompting groups representing the journalism industry to warn that opting to settle out of court was only fueling Trump’s “lawfare.”
Addressing the Reporters & Editors 50th anniversary gala in New York on Monday, before the latest suit was filed, NYT publisher A G Sulzberger warned of a growing so-called “anti-press playbook” trend among “aspiring strongmen” globally of leveraging civil law to exert financial pressure on media.
Bangkok, Thailand – A court is poised to decide whether Thailand’s most consequential and controversial political figure of the past 25 years, Thaksin Shinawatra, insulted the country’s revered monarchy, a crime that can land a culprit in jail for up to 15 years.
The charge, under Thailand’s strict “lese-majeste” royal defamation law, stems from an interview the 76-year-old business tycoon and former prime minister gave to a South Korean newspaper in 2015 regarding a military coup that toppled his sister and then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in 2014.
Though holding no official role in government, Thaksin remains a towering figure bearing over Thailand’s stormy politics, and the verdict on Friday will test the state of his long-fraught relationship with the country’s powerful royalist establishment.
“The prosecution is of great political significance,” said Verapat Pariyawong, a Thai law and politics scholar at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) University of London.
“If found innocent, Mr Thaksin would rely on the verdict as proof that he has always been a loyalist, contrary to the accusations by his political opponents which inflamed conflicts over the past two decades,” Verapat told Al Jazeera.
A guilty verdict, on the other hand, could “trigger a new round of political conflicts”, he said.
“Some would see it as a breakdown of the so-called grand compromise that paved the way for Mr Thaksin’s return to Thailand, and undoubtedly many will link the guilty verdict to other pending major court decisions not just against Mr Thaksin but also his daughter and suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra,” he added.
After 15 years in self-imposed exile, Thaksin returned to Thailand in 2023.
That lengthy absence from Thailand helped him to avoid a prison sentence on a prior corruption charge, though he was still forced to complete a commuted term in custody on his return home.
His latest tribulations stem from a royal defamation charge in June 2024, and he is also on trial for allegedly faking ill health in order to serve his sentence for corruption outside of jail.
Thaksin’s daughter and currently the country’s suspended prime minister, Paetongtarn, is being prosecuted for an alleged breach of ethics over a leaked phone call with Cambodia’s former prime minister and strongman Hun Sen.
A court suspended Paetongtarn from her duties as premier on ethical grounds last month after Hun Sen leaked their phone conversation, in which the Thai prime minister spoke reverentially to the Cambodian leader.
During the call, Paetongtarn referred to Hun Sen as “uncle” and criticised a Thai army commander.
Her political adversaries and other people said it was unbecoming of a Thai premier to have addressed a foreign leader so deferentially, and criticising the military is also a red line in a country where the politically powerful armed forces are held in high esteem.
A court is due to rule in Paetongtarn’s case on August 29, a verdict which could see her removed from office permanently.
With the help of a government scholarship, he earned a master’s degree and then a doctorate in criminal justice in the United States before returning to public service in Thailand and resigning from the police force as a lieutenant colonel in 1987.
Leveraging his professional contacts, Thaksin tried his hand at a number of business ventures before striking gold in telecommunications, founding and, in time, building his Shin Corp into an industry leader.
It also launched Thaksin onto Thailand’s richest list.
Last month, Forbes ranked Thaksin 11th among the country’s wealthiest families or people, with a personal net worth of $2.1bn.
In the 1990s, Thaksin started parlaying his business success into a political career, founding his first of many parties by the end of the decade.
On the back of a populist platform that promised affordable healthcare and debt relief, he landed in the prime minister’s office with a resounding general election win in 2001 and another in 2005.
But mounting scandals cut his second four-year term short.
Amid accusations of corruption over the $1.9bn sale of Shin Corp and an unrelated land deal that prompted mass protests, the Thai military removed Thaksin and his government in a 2006 coup.
A Thai court convicted him over the land deal the next year. To avoid jail, he fled into self-imposed exile in 2008.
Wanwichit Boonprong, a Rangsit University lecturer, says Thaksin had made powerful enemies within the country’s military – a force that has grown accustomed to managing its internal affairs largely independent of the government – by trying to steer the appointment and transfer of high-ranking officers.
By seeming to meddle in the military’s work, Wanwichit told Al Jazeera, Thaksin raised fears that he was bent on both “undermining the military and weakening the monarchy”.
The military has long prided itself as the ultimate protector of the Thai monarchy, a touchstone of the country’s influential conservative movement.
Thaksin also pulled off the rare feat in 2005 of winning enough seats in the House of Representatives to form a government without the need for any coalition partners, making him uncommonly potent as a political force.
That popularity scared his critics, says Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, an assistant professor at Chulalongkorn University.
“That popularity, combined with his quick and outspoken manner, raised a lot of people’s suspicion that he might want to or he might try to compete with King Bhumibol [Adulyadej],” he said.
While there was little, if any, proof to back that up, Khemthong said, “it became a very convenient tool to mobilise people” against Thaksin.
Army officials take pictures in front of Thailand’s then-King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s portrait as people gather to mark his 88th birthday, in Bangkok in 2015 [File: Jorge Silva/Reuters]
‘Super active’
But even in exile overseas, Thaksin continued to dominate Thai politics.
Parties tied to the Shinawatra family kept winning elections and forming governments, only to be thwarted by the military or the courts each time.
With a prison sentence hanging over him, the tech mogul stayed abroad for 15 years, until returning to Bangkok to cheering crowds on August 22, 2023.
Before leaving the airport, Thaksin ostentatiously prostrated himself before a portrait of the country’s new king, Maha Vajiralongkorn, son of the late King Bhumibol.
The very same day, the Shinawatras’s latest party, Pheu Thai, secured the premiership for its candidate, Srettha Thavisin, by backing out of a planned coalition with the more progressive Move Forward party, which had won that year’s general election.
Pheu Thai rejected speculation that it had struck a “grand bargain” with the conservative establishment by pulling away from Move Forward, which had campaigned on reining in the military and the monarchy’s powers, in exchange for Thaksin’s safe return.
However, only nine days later, King Vajiralongkorn commuted Thaksin’s prison sentence from eight years to one, and he was out on parole within months. He had also spent his entire six months in custody in a private room in the luxury wing of a state hospital.
Now, with Thaksin on the brink of another conviction that could again send him to jail, the “grand bargain” is seen to be fraying.
“A lot of people understand that when Thaksin came back he would lay low, that he was allowed to come back but he wasn’t allowed to be politically active, he should stay at home, be quiet. But instead of that he was super active,” said Chulalongkorn University’s Khemthong.
Despite having no official role in the Pheu Thai party or the government it now leads, Thaksin has spent little time out of the spotlight since returning home less than two years ago – proposing grand policy prescriptions at public fora, touring constituencies with reporters in tow, conferring with domestic and international leaders alike.
“So, a lot of people speculate that the [defamation] charge was to put more control over him, to control his behaviour, his political activism,” Khemthong said.
Thaksin’s continued high-profile lifestyle has also led to the popular belief that he, not his daughter, is still the real power behind the party, and by extension the government.
“Everyone knows that Thaksin is the spiritual leader and the real owner of the Pheu Thai Party,” said Rangsit University’s Wanwichit.
“Using this [defamation] case is akin to trying to keep Thaksin in check in the conservative power play,” and amounts to insisting that “he must obey the conservatives’ established guidelines,” Wanwichit added.
‘Court battle’
Critics of Thailand’s royal defamation law, or of how the courts use it, say it has long been swung like a cudgel against threats – real or imagined – to the conservative establishment’s political power and privilege.
The law, under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, prescribes up to 15 years in jail for anyone who “defames, insults or threatens” the king, queen, heir apparent or regent.
But Verapat, of SOAS, says many have “fallen victim” to the courts’ “expansive interpretation” of the law.
In January 2024, the country’s Constitutional Court ruled that the Move Forward party had breached the law by promoting a bill that proposed limits on how it could be used.
The panel of judges accused the party of harbouring a hidden agenda to undermine the country’s constitutional monarchy and ordered Move Forward to disband as a political movement.
When thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bangkok through much of 2020, calling on the military-aligned government at the time to step down, their list of demands grew to include reforms meant to rein in the monarchy’s alleged influence over politics in the military’s favour.
Since then, more than 280 people have been charged under Section 112, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, a local advocacy group.
Among the most prominent of the 2020 protesters was lawyer Arnon Nampa, who has been sentenced to a cumulative 27 years and eight months following his 10th conviction on a royal defamation charge in July.
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights has called the use of the law “a form of violence against those who exercise their right to freedom of expression”.
The defamation case against Thaksin, which is based on a 10-year-old interview in which he criticised no one strictly covered by Section 112, fits into that same, expansive “modus operandi”, Chulalongkorn University’s Khemthong said.
Whichever way the verdict goes on Friday, analysts say the fallout for Thaksin and the Shinawatra family is unlikely to be immediately known, as either side can and probably will appeal.
Khemthong said the case against Thaksin could continue to drag out for months, if not a year or more.
Rangsit University’s Wanwichit concurred.
“The appeals court battle will likely continue regardless of the verdict,” he said.
The former Los Angeles fire chief filed a legal claim against the city Wednesday, alleging that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of misinformation, defamation, and retaliation” to protect her political image after the most destructive wildfire in city history.
Kristin Crowley and her lawyers accuse Bass of ousting her, and repeatedly defaming Crowley as Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled the catastrophic Palisades Fire “while concealing the extent to which she undermined public safety” with cuts to the fire department’s budget.
The legal claim alleges that Bass scapegoated Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, when the fire erupted. Bass left Los Angeles despite her knowing of the potential severe winds and deadly fire danger, the claim alleges.
“As the Fire Chief, for nearly three years, I advocated for the proper funding, staffing and infrastructure upgrades to better support and protect our Firefighters, and by extension, our communities,” Crowley said in a statement to The Times. “The lies, deceit, exaggerations and misrepresentations need to be addressed with the only thing that can refute them — the true facts.”
Bass and the city had yet to respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Crowley’s lawyers say Bass “initially praised the department’s preparedness” and even portrayed the response positively. “But as criticism mounted over her absence, Bass reversed course,” the legal claim said. “She sought to shift blame to Crowley, falsely stating that Bass was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, that Crowley sent 1,000 firefighters home who could have fought the blaze, and misrepresenting the department’s budget…”
Bass removed Crowley on Feb. 21, six weeks after the firestorm that consumed Pacific Palisades, killing 12 people and destroying nearly 7,000 homes.
The mayor said she was demoting Crowley for failing to inform her about the dangerous conditions or to activate hundreds of firefighters ahead of the blaze. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.
According to her lawyers, Crowley had “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis,” prior to the fire, and warned that “aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls, and shrinking staff left the city at risk.”
In the 23-page claim, Crowley said Bass cut the department’s operating budget by nearly $18 million that year and “eliminated positions critical to maintaining fire engines, trucks, and ambulances.”
After Crowley complained publicly that the budget cuts had “weakened the department’s readiness, Bass retaliated,” the lawyers allege. On Jan 10, after Crowley told FOX LA, “we are screaming to be properly funded,” Bass called her to the mayor’s office.
“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” the lawyers say Bass told the chief, but said she wasn’t fired.
The next day, retired Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a Mayor’s office badge. Then Feb. 3, 2025, two weeks before Chief Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as Interim Fire Chief” — a position he now holds.
Crowley was eventually ousted and put on leave. Her lawyers allege Bass’s public accusation at the time that Crowley refused to participate in an after action report of the Palisades fire after being asked to by the Fire Commission President Genethia Hayes, a Bass appointee — was blatantly false and she was never asked.
A legal claim is a precursor to a civil lawsuit, and is required by California law when suing a government entity. In her claim, Crowley alleges Bass and her subordinates have conducted a “public smear campaign aimed at discrediting Crowley’s character and decades of service,” following her dismissal.
Crowley’s attorneys, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s First Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages above $25,000.
Harrison, who has represented numerous victims of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, said Crowley’s claim “presents her extensive advocacy efforts to obtain the funding and resources the LAFD needed to fulfill its public safety mission. It also shows Mayor Bass’ repeated refusals to provide those resources.”
But Crowley and her lawyers say in the legal claim the “LAFD did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” In simple terms, the department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the claim alleges.
The Times investigation found the department had more than 40 engines available to battle wildfires, but fire officials staffed only five of them.
Crowley’s lawyers dispute that in the claim. They say “the LAFD staffed all its front-line fire engines (including all the 40 engines that Bass later falsely stated sat “idle.”
PARIS — A lawyer for France ‘s first couple said they’ll be seeking “substantial” damages from U.S. conservative influencer Candace Owens if she persists with claims that President Emmanuel Macron ‘s wife, Brigitte, is a man.
The lawyer, Tom Clare, said in an interview with CNN that a defamation suit filed Wednesday for the Macrons in a Delaware court was “really a last resort” after a fruitless yearlong effort to engage with Owens and requests that she “do the right thing: tell the truth, stop spreading these lies.”
“Each time we’ve done that, she mocked the Macrons, she mocked our efforts to set the record straight,” Clare said. “Enough is enough, it was time to hold her accountable.”
The Macrons have been married since 2007, and Emmanuel Macron has been France’s president since 2017.
In a YouTube video, Owens called the suit an “obvious and desperate public relations strategy,” and said the first lady is “a very goofy man.”
Owens is a right-leaning political commentator whose YouTube channel has about 4.5 million subscribers. In 2024, she was denied a visa from New Zealand and Australia, citing remarks in which she denied Nazi medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps during World War II.
The 219-page complaint against Owens lays out “extensive evidence” that Brigitte Macron “was born a woman, she’s always been a woman,” the couple’s attorney said.
“We’ll put forward our damage claim at trial, but if she continues to double down between now and the time of trial, it will be a substantial award,” he said.
In Paris, the presidential office had no immediate comment.
In France, too, the presidential couple has for years been dogged by conspiracy theories that Brigitte was born as a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux, who supposedly then took the name Brigitte as a transgender woman. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in fact, Brigitte’s brother.
Last September, Brigitte and Jean-Michel Trogneux won a defamation suit against two women who were sentenced by a Paris court to fines and damages for spreading the claims about the first lady online. A Paris appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this month. Brigitte and her brother have since turned to France’s highest court to appeal that decision, according to French media.
The Macrons first met at the high school where he was a student and she was a teacher. Brigitte Macron was then Brigitte Auzière, a married mother of three children.
Macron, 47, is serving his second and last term as president. The first lady celebrated her 72nd birthday in April.
Macron moved to Paris for his last year of high school, but promised to marry Brigitte. She later moved to the French capital to join him and divorced before they finally married.
Their relationship came under the spotlight in May when video images showed Brigitte pushing her husband away with both hands on his face before they disembarked from a plane on a tour of Southeast Asia.
Macron later dismissed the incident as play-fighting, telling reporters that “we are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife,” and that it had been overblown into “a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe.”
Just two weeks earlier, his daughter Paetongtarn was suspended as prime minister by the country’s Constitutional Court.
Former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra has testified in court, seeking to defend himself against royal defamation charges that could land him 15 years in prison, just weeks after his daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended as prime minister.
Thaksin stands accused of breaching strict lese-majeste laws shielding Thailand’s royal family from abuse and criticism in a closed-door trial in the capital, Bangkok, that began earlier this month and continued on Wednesday.
The prosecution’s case revolves around remarks Thaksin made to South Korean media a decade ago, with the defendant due to give at least three days of testimony. A verdict is not expected for several weeks.
Recent events for both father and daughter are a serious blow to the powerful Shinawatra political dynasty. For the past quarter-century, the 75-year-old telecoms magnate has been a defining figure of Thai politics, founding a movement which has competed with the traditional pro-royal, pro-military elite.
His prosecution, combined with Paetongtarn’s suspension two weeks ago, represents a dramatic waning of their family’s political fortune, analysts say.
Thaksin’s lawyer Winyat Chatmontri told the AFP news agency his client testified on Wednesday morning “and will continue throughout the rest of the day”.
About 50 Thaksin supporters gathered at the court, wearing red shirts, the colour of his political movement, emblazoned with a portrait of his face.
“He is a very talented guy,” 79-year-old retired accountant Vaew Wilailak told AFP. “But from past experience, bad people just want to get rid of him.”
Thaksin returned to Thailand in August 2023 after 15 years in exile, following a military coup which removed him from the prime minister’s office that he won in two elections.
He returned the day his family’s Pheu Thai party took office, at the head of a coalition government backed by their conservative former enemies, prompting suspicions a backroom deal had been struck.
Thaksin was immediately sentenced to eight years in prison on corruption and abuse of power charges – later reduced to one year by a pardon from King Maha Vajiralongkorn in another apparent sign of reconciliation.
In recent interviews, Thaksin affirmed his loyalty to the monarchy and expressed gratitude for the king’s pardon.
Speaking to AFP outside the court on the trial’s opening day on July 1, Winyat said his client appeared “chill” despite the seriousness of the case.
On the same day, Paetongtarn was suspended by the Constitutional Court, pending an ethics probe into her conduct during a leaked diplomatic phone call discussing a deadly border clash between Thai and Cambodian troops on May 28, which resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier and reignited longstanding tensions in the region.
The scandal “became a full-blown crisis” after the leaked call suggested that Paetongtarn had “compromised her position by kowtowing” to former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, professor of political science and international relations at Chulalongkorn University, told the Turkish news agency Anadolu.
In the call, Paetongtarn referred to Hun Sen as “uncle” and described a Thai military commander as an “opponent”.
Pheu Thai’s coalition has been abandoned by key conservative backers over the call, leaving it with a razor-thin parliamentary majority steered by a caretaker prime minister.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for defamation, alleging that the news outlet intentionally manipulated its coverage to give the appearance that the governor lied about a phone call with President Trump.
The governor’s demand for $787 million in punitive damages escalates his aggressive effort to challenge misinformation. The lawsuit, announced Friday, places Newsom at the forefront of the political proxy war between Democrats and Republicans over the press by calling out an outlet that many in his party despise.
“By disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda, Fox continues to play a major role in the further erosion of the bedrock principles of informed representative government,” the suit states. “Setting the record straight and confronting Fox’s dishonest practices are critical to protecting democracy from being overrun by disinformation and lies.”
Newsom, a potential presidential candidate, said he decided to sue in part because Fox failed to change after admitting in a legal settlement two years ago to spreading falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.
In response to Newsom’s lawsuit, Fox criticized the California governor, accusing him of undercutting the 1st Amendment.
“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” Fox News said in a statement Friday morning.
Trump told reporters on June 10 that he spoke with Newsom “a day ago.”
“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said. “Causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death.”
Newsom immediately rejected Trump’s timeline on social media.
The governor had already spoken publicly about talking to Trump on the phone late in the night on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. Newsom said the National Guard was never discussed during that call. They didn’t talk again, he said.
“There was no call,” Newsom posted on X. “Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”
Trump attempted to fire back at Newsom through Fox and shared a screenshot of his call log with anchor John Roberts. The log showed that a phone call occurred on June 7 and provided no evidence of a call on June 9 as Trump claimed.
“It is impossible to know for certain whether President Trump’s distortion was intentionally deceptive or merely a result of his poor cognitive state, but Fox’s decision to cover up for the President’s false statement cannot be so easily dismissed,” the complaint states.
Newsom’s legal team said Roberts initially misrepresented the situation to viewers “to obscure President Trump’s false statement of fact.”
Then during an evening broadcast on June 10, Fox News host Jesse Watters showed a video of Trump’s comments about the phone call but omitted the president saying that it happened “a day ago.” The edit made it appear that Newsom alleged the two never spoke at all.
“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?” Watters then asked.
A banner at the bottom of the screen during the segment claimed “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”
Newsom’s lawyers said Fox “willfully distorted the facts” and defamed Newsom to tens of millions of people.
“Fox advanced this lie about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically,” the complaint states.
Newsom is particularly attuned to his critics on Fox, a conservative-leaning television network that he describes as the epicenter of a right-wing media ecosystem that misleads the public to benefit Trump and his allies. Similar to reports of Trump watching CNN, the governor regularly follows Fox political coverage. He pays close attention to the outlet’s assessment of his leadership.
Fox commentators and opinion hosts, such as Watters, are given a wide berth to express their views, even when they contradict the reporting of its nonpartisan correspondents. They aggressively defend Trump and his policies, while often casting California as a failed state with incompetent leadership.
But Newsom has also benefited from Fox and used his appearances on the network to brandish his image as a brawler for Democrats and his standing as a potential future presidential candidate.
Fox hosted a much talked about debate between Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023. The California governor also participated in a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity, which drew praise from within and outside of his party.
During a talk on the social media website Substack on Friday, Newsom said he started going on Fox to disrupt propaganda and the network’s narrative about Democrats.
“I have a high threshold for the bulls— on Fox, is the point,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do this unless I felt they really did cross the line.”
The amount of the governor’s request for damages was a subtle dig at the outlet.
Fox agreed two years ago to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to drop a lawsuit related to the network’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help President Biden win the 2020 election. The news organization settled the case rather than put its executives and on-air talent on the witness stand in a high-profile trial.
Fox faces a similar lawsuit from Smartmatic, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based voting machine company that claims its business had been hurt because of the network’s reporting.
The news outlet has maintained that reporting on Trump’s fraud claims was newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. Barring a settlement, the case could go to trial next year.
In a letter to Fox, Newsom’s lawyers said they will voluntarily dismiss the governor’s suit if the outlet retracts its claims that he lied about speaking to Trump.
“We expect that you will give the same airtime in retracting these falsehoods as you spent presenting and amplifying them,” his lawyers stated. “Further, Mr. Watters and Fox News must issue a formal on-air apology for the lie you have spread about Governor Newsom.”
The governor said any damages he might receive from the lawsuit, punitive or otherwise, would go to charity.
Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles.
The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated.
Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor’s office.
In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard.
“I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,” Newsom said.
“He never once brought up the National Guard,” he added.
Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor “a day ago”.
The suit alleged that the network had a “willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife”.
The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump.
“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint.
Watters’s report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call,” the complaint added.
According to the complaint, Fox’s claim that Newsom lied was “calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm” by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections.
“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email.
In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification.
To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth.
According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump.
The governor’s office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office.
In an emailed statement, Newsom said, “If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump’s behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.”
Out of Trump’s playbook
Newsom’s lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault.
The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a “world-class hater”. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network.
Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance.
Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was “radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news’”.
June 19 (UPI) — An appeals court on Wednesday ruled against the Justice Department’s attempt to replace President Donald Trump as the defendant in a multimillion-dollar defamation case.
Trump is fighting a 2023 defamation judgment ordering him to pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for denying that he sexually assaulted her at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s.
Though the president denies the assault, he was found liable for sexual abuse and then for defaming her by denying the assault after she made it public.
The Department of Justice had asked the court for permission to substitute itself as the defendant in the appeal under the Westfall Act, a mechanism that allows the United States to defend claims against federal officers and employees when the alleged offense occurred within the scope of their duties.
Federal prosecutors argued that Trump was president during his first term in 2017 when he first denied sexually abusing Carroll.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its denial of the Justice Department’s request in a brief order Wednesday stating: “The Court will issue an opinion detailing its reasoning in due course.”
The ruling is the latest setback in Trump’s fight against paying Carroll the judgement.
Late last week, the same court rejected Trump’s attempt to get a retrial challenging the $5 million civil judgement he was ordered by a jury to pay Carroll.
Trump has long accused the Justice Department of being politically weaponized against him, and a spokesperson for his legal team issued a statement Wednesday rejecting the ruling.
“The American People are supporting President Trump in historic numbers, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoaxes, the defense of which the Attorney General has determined is legally required to be taken over by the Department of Justice because Carroll based her false claims on the President’s official acts, including statements from the White House,” the spokesperson said, The Hill reported.
CNN’s chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt, whose 2021 story on a military contractor led to a defamation suit loss in court, announced Monday he is leaving the network.
“Tough to say goodbye but it’s been an honor to work among the very best in the business,” Marquardt wrote on X. “Profound thank you to my comrades on the National Security team & the phenomenal teammates I’ve worked with in the US and abroad.”
Earlier this year, a Florida jury awarded $5 million to former CIA operative Zachary Young after a jury found he was defamed in a November 2021 report by Marquardt on how Afghans were being charged thousands of dollars to be evacuated after the U.S. military withdrawal from their country.
After deliberations began on punitive damages, CNN attorneys reached an undisclosed settlement with Young.
A CNN representative declined to comment on Marquardt’s departure, calling it a personnel matter. One network insider who was not authorized to comment publicly said there was a feeling among many people at CNN that Marquardt had to go after the loss in court.
Marquardt has served as CNN’s chief national security correspondent since 2017. He was previously a foreign correspondent for ABC News.
Young lives in Vienna and has his business based in Florida. He was seeking $14,500 for getting people out of Afghanistan after the chaotic U.S. military withdrawal. He claimed his services were limited to corporate sponsors.
The business was described in Marqurdt’s report alongside interviews with Afghans who spoke about desperate efforts by people to escape, but they had no connection to Young.
Young’s suit said his inclusion in the story, which used the term “black market” in an on-screen banner, implied that his activity was criminal, even though Marquardt’s segment made no such charge. “Black market” was also used in the introduction of the report when it first ran on “The Lead With Jake Tapper,” other CNN programs and the network’s website and social media accounts.
CNN lawyers argued that the term “black market” was used to describe an unregulated activity, even though the dictionary definition describes it as illegal.
Young claimed the story destroyed his reputation and ability to earn a living — driving his annual income from $350,000 to zero — and caused severe emotional and psychological distress.
May 29 (UPI) —Smokey Robinson and his wife, Frances Robinson, filed a defamation suit against a group of women who have accused him of sexual assault.
The cross-complaint suit claims the sexual assault allegations by four former housekeepers, filed on May 6, were “fabricated” in order to support an “extortionate scheme.”
The suit contends that the Robinsons did not harm or abuse the former housekeepers and seeks to force the women who filed their suit using “Jane Doe” names to be publicly identified.
It also alleges they first demanded $100 million before filing the suit.
“When the Robinsons resisted the extortionate demands, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit,” attorney Christopher Frost wrote.
The suit further alleges that John Harris, an attorney for the housekeepers, and his firm Harris and Hayden, defamed Robinson by referring to the singer as a “serial and sick rapist” who must be stopped.
Harris and Hayden said in a Wednesday statement they will file a motion to strike down Robinson’s suit based on California’s law on “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP.
The law was designed to prevent harassing lawsuits filed by wealthy celebrities and corporations intended to silence free speech and intimidate accusers.
To succeed in legally striking down a SLAPP lawsuit, defendants must show they are being sued for “any act … in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.“
“The cross-complaint … is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault. It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward,” lawyers for the women accusing Robinson said in a statement to USA Today.
The women accusing Robinson alleged in their suit that Robinson committed sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, and gender violence for years.
On May 15, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced Robinson is under criminal investigation for sexual assault.
Decorated veteran Ben Roberts-Smith failed to have reports that he ‘murdered four Afghan men’ quashed.
Australia’s most decorated living war veteran has lost an appeal against a civil court ruling that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.
Australia’s Federal Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Ben Roberts-Smith on Friday, in the latest setback for the 46-year-old’s fight to salvage a reputation tattered by reports that he took part in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners.
Three federal court judges unanimously rejected his appeal of a judge’s ruling in 2023, which said Roberts-Smith was not defamed by newspaper articles published in 2018 that accused him of a range of war crimes.
In the earlier ruling, a judge had found that the accusations were substantially true to a civil standard and Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths of noncombatants he had been accused of.
Delivering the appeal court’s verdict, Justice Nye Perram explained that the reasons for the decision are being withheld due to national security implications that the government must consider.
The marathon 110-day trial is estimated to have cost 25 million Australian dollars ($16m) in legal fees that Roberts-Smith will likely be liable to pay.
He has however said he will fight to clear his name in Australia’s High Court, his last avenue of legal appeal.
“I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations,” Roberts-Smith said in a statement. “We will immediately seek to challenge this judgement in the High Court of Australia.”
Tory Maguire, an executive of Nine Entertainment that published the articles Roberts-Smith claimed were untrue, welcomed the ruling as an “emphatic win”.
“Today is also a great day for investigative journalism and underscores why it remains highly valued by the Australian people,” Maguire said.
Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of United States and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups.
Perth-born Roberts-Smith, a former SAS corporal, had won the Victoria Cross – Australia’s highest military honour – for “conspicuous gallantry” in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander.
An Australian military report released in 2020 found evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners and civilians. The report recommended 19 current and former soldiers face criminal investigation.
It’s not clear whether Roberts-Smith was one of them.
Police have been working with the Office of the Special Investigator, an Australian investigation agency established in 2021, to build cases against elite SAS and Commando Regiments troops who served in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times said in a series of reports in 2018 that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him.
He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel.
