Whatever happens with Libby Trial there's still Wilsons' "Civil Suit"

[KoKo]

and maybe what has come out of the Libby Trail/Trial will mean that the Wilson's Suit won't be dismissed. Certainly seems that Media was complicit in smearing the Wilsons and that the "smear" and defamation of their character based on a Policy to avoid having unfavorable information come out about Bush/Cheney's war looks much more clear even with the narrowness of Fitzgerald's case.

Link to Wilson's web site:

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/
----------------------------------------------

and here's what John Dean said on "FindLaw" about them doing a Civil Suit before Pat Fitzgerald was hired:

More Vicious than Tricky Dickey...
Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation. In the case of the DNC's civil suit, Judge Charles Richey, a good Republican, handled it in a manner that was remarkably helpful to the Nixon reelection effort. But any judge getting a lawsuit from Wilson and Plame today would be watched a lot more carefully.

While I have made no effort to examine all the potential causes of action that Wilson and Plame might file, several come to mind. For example, given the fact that this leak was reportedly an effort to harm them, a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be appropriate. (Because I am not aware of their residence -- the District of Columbia, Maryland or Virginia -- I will only state the law generally.)

Typically, there will be a statute to this effect: "One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." Most often, these actions fail because the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous. But blowing the cover of a CIA operative by anyone with access to such classified information is outrageous by any standard. By way of comparison, it's been found outrageous for a doctor to refuse to treat an unconscious infant and leave mother and child out in the cold; it has been ruled outrageous for a mortician to mishandle a corpse and lie about it; and it was considered outrageous to recklessly issue a report of a person's death that had not happened.

Also, there is an entire body of law relating to civil actions based on criminal statutes and constitutional activities. Suffice it to say that there are a number of potential causes of action, and I have no doubt that a good civil litigator can fashion a powerful lawsuit for Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson.

A key question is: Who would they sue? No one has admitted to the dirty deed. In Watergate, the DNC had a hook: They named not only the burglars arrested in their offices but also the Nixon reelection committee, charging a conspiracy to deny the civil rights of Larry O'Brien and other Democrats. From a tactical standpoint, as any lawyer will tell the Wilsons, what's vital is to survive a motion to dismiss, or other such summary action, so that they can conduct all the necessary discovery to find everyone who should be named. Newspaper accounts suggest the first potential defendant might be Karl Rove, who, Ambassador Wilson has been told by reporters, has repeatedly said Wilson's wife was "fair game." And we know this is not the first time Rove might have leaked to Robert Novak, who broke the Wilson story; Rove was removed from the 1992 George H.W. Bush campaign for just such a smearing leak, according to many reports (which Rove has denied).

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/10/03/dean/index.html

[Kagemusha]

1. The media would usually be protected by the 1st amendment

But sure, the noose is just a little tighter than it was before the trial. Also, not all civil suits against the government are categorically failing these days; as slow as these successes are, they do shine a little favorable light on the Wilsons' case. I wish them well.

[KoKo]

2. And...John Dean won two lawsuits against powerful RW Smearers

who tried to connect his wife "Mo" to a Prostitute ring in DC. If John Dean could win against them...then surely the Wilsons can also.

It was meda and a book writer who smeared Dean...so it can happen...

[KoKo]

4. John Dean wins Lawsuit against St. Martin's Press and G. Gordon Liddy...

A smug-sounding voice said, "This is G. Gordon Liddy, calling you from the Merle Pollis Show. John, you have ..." "W-E-R-E Cleveland, let's get our call letters in," the host interrupted. Liddy then continued, "... you have promised that you will sue me and Len Colodny and Bob Gettlin. Let's get this suit started, John. We want to get you on the stand, under oath, yet again.... Come on, John. I'm publicly challenging you to make good on your promise to sue." The host added, "John, this is Merle Pollis, the host of the program. Would you say hello to Maureen, for me? I said she was the prettiest of the Watergate people, next to G. Gordon Liddy. I hope she's still just as pretty. I, ah, this, this new book, however, reveals some things about Maureen that irk me. I didn't want to think of her in that way, and it makes me very sad, and it also makes me feel, well, never mind. Thanks, John."

Liddy would get his lawsuit, but on our terms, not his. Rather than give him the publicity he desperately wanted, we spent the next eight months collecting evidence and preparing the case. For eight years our lawsuit made its way through the federal courts, and St. Martin's tried every possible ploy to prevent its going to trial. Had we taken the case to trial, Phillip Mackin Bailley, the key source for the story about the purported call-girl ring, might rank as the worst possible source of information in the annals of defamation law. Bailley had been in and out of mental institutions throughout his adult life. When we deposed him, Bailley's attorney arranged for a psychiatrist to testify under oath that his client's mental condition made him unable to distinguish fact from fiction. While St. Martin's and the other defendants were spending over $14 million of insurance company money trying to make us go away, it eventually became clear to them that we were prepared to go whatever distance necessary to make fools of them all, and that we had the evidence to do it.

By the fall of 1998 we had also accomplished our underlying goal of gathering the information necessary to show that Silent Coup was bogus history. Ultimately, it seems, they had hoped to win the lawsuit by simply outspending us, but when that strategy failed, they sought a settlement. Neither Colodny nor Liddy wanted to settle, however. Colodny had somehow used a rider on his homeowner's policy to get the insurance company to pay for his defense in the litigation, though ultimately his insurer forced him to settle. Liddy, on the other hand, had nothing at risk, since all of his assets were in his wife's name and St. Martin's was paying for his attorney. After we settled with St. Martin's and Colodny, US District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan put an end to the litigation. While the final settlement agreement prohibits me from discussing its terms, I can say the Deans were satisfied.

more at TruthOut.......

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bYGTce35ap4J:www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206X.shtml+John+Dean+wins+lawsuit+against+St.+Martins+Press&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[mmonk]

3. Thanks for posting. This keeps the pressure on.

Anyone thought about what the damages could total? This in conjuction with Fitz keeps hope alive and well. Do what you can everybody and contribute. Any amount over expenses goes to help government whistleblowers.