WND counters Esquire's attempt to quash defamation suit

Faked report by Esquire

Esquire magazine's contention that WND's $250 million defamation case should be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit under District of Columbia and federal law has no merit, argues a new motion filed by WND.

The suit was brought by WND, WND Books, the companies' founder Joseph Farah and author Jerome Corsi in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to Esquire's false report that the book "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President" had been recalled and repudiated by the publisher.

After Esquire posted the April 27 article on its website, the magazine later added a note insisting that the piece was satire. But WND argues that it heard from news organizations, readers and distributors who believed the report was true, and customers requested refunds.

Esquire, its parent Hearst Corp. and the article's writer, Mark Warren, have filed a motion to dismiss the case based on federal and D.C. anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to prevent meritless lawsuits that are often brought for political or economic gain.

WND's motion to deny the request for dismissal asserts that Esquire and Hearst cannot protect themselves under the common law privilege of fair comment, because the online article "was not a matter of public concern and was made to harm."

"Esquire's motion to dismiss, ironically, is its first attempt at satire," said attorney Larry Klayman, who is representing WND. "It disingenuously claims that it's protected under the First Amendment for defaming WND Books, Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi. Its motion is likely to fail."

Support WND's "Esquire Justice Fund" to support lawsuits against Mark Warren, Esquire and the Hearst Corporation for its malicious attack on Jerome Corsi's book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

When the lawsuit was filed June 29, Farah said WND was "reacting to one of the most egregious abuses of freedom of the press" he had witnessed in his 30-plus year career in journalism.

The legal action was being taken, Farah added, "not because we desire to restrict First Amendment-guaranteed protections, but because we want to police them and guard them."

The Esquire article stated that Farah had announced plans to "recall and pulp the entire 200,000 first printing of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book."

The complaint explains that Esquire purported to issue a disclaimer only after Farah issued a statement saying that he was exploring legal options against Esquire and Warren.

Esquire's disclaimer contended that the magazine had "committed satire in the matter of the Corsi book," but the complaint charges that the statement was as false, misleading and legally actionable as the initial story that was published by the defendants.

The complaint notes that Warren later told the Daily Caller he had "no regrets" about posting the item and that Corsi was an "execrable piece of sh--."

But the book never was withdrawn or pulled from shelves, and refunds were not offered. The contents of the book, said the claim, "are accurate and newsworthy."

Among the evidence that Esquire's false report damaged sales of "Where's the Birth Certificate" is an email from a WND reader who said she dropped her plan to purchase the book:

I was one of those who had already placed the book in my cart at Amazon, waiting for it to come out, because it intrigued me. But I did see the Esquire piece when it was released … and was very surprised when I saw that. I wondered if it could be true but didn't see anything in the article leading me to believe that it was a prank, so was perplexed. I never ended up ordering the book from Amazon because I figured the books were being retracted.

I had never realized that Esquire came out saying it was satire. I would never have seen it as satire – satire is intentionally funny when reading it when you know it is picking fun at something. Even if I knew they were poking fun at the book (which I did not know), looking back now, I would still not call it satire because it's not funny – it's just a story (untrue one, at that).

"You can't just make up words and put them in people's mouths, deliberately misleading the public, deliberately defaming others and deliberately lying to inhibit commerce," Farah commented when the case was filed. "Media institutions such as Esquire magazine and its parent, the Hearst Corporation, for which I was employed for nearly a decade, should know better. And they will as a result of this lawsuit."

The lawsuit includes allegations of defamation, false light, interference with business relations and invasion of privacy.

A news conference in June provided details of the lawsuit: