Federal judge hears arguments in Nichols brother's libel case against Michael Moore

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

July 15th, 2004, 06:31 PM
travelinman

Federal judge hears arguments in Nichols brother's libel case against Michael Moore

By JIM IRWIN
The Associated Press
7/14/2004, 6:59 p.m. ET

DETROIT (AP) ? A federal judge heard arguments Wednesday on whether a libel lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore by James Nichols, brother of the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, should be thrown out.

Nichols, a soybean farmer from Decker in Michigan's isolated Thumb region, claims Moore tricked him into appearing in the Oscar-winning 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine." Nichols also contends Moore libeled him in the film by linking him to the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.

Neither Moore nor Nichols attended Wednesday's hearing in U.S. District Court. Judge Paul Borman did not specify when he would issue a ruling.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is seeking a jury trial and damages ranging from $10 million to $20 million on each of nine counts.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michi...4626831430.xml

[ July 15, 2004 03:32 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
July 15th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Piña

You always leave out the best parts. Wonder how much this will boost ticket sales?

Federal judge hears arguments in Nichols brother's libel case against Michael Moore

By JIM IRWIN
The Associated Press
7/14/2004, 6:59 p.m. ET 

DETROIT (AP) ? A federal judge heard arguments Wednesday on whether a libel lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore by James Nichols, brother of the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, should be thrown out.

Nichols, a soybean farmer from Decker in Michigan's isolated Thumb region, claims Moore tricked him into appearing in the Oscar-winning 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine." Nichols also contends Moore libeled him in the film by linking him to the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.

Neither Moore nor Nichols attended Wednesday's hearing in U.S. District Court. Judge Paul Borman did not specify when he would issue a ruling.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is seeking a jury trial and damages ranging from $10 million to $20 million on each of nine counts.

Moore's Detroit attorney, Herschel Fink, said his client's assertions in "Bowling for Columbine" ? including implying that Nichols "slipped away" from authorities investigating the Oklahoma City bombing ? are protected by the First Amendment.

"It's a bit of hyperbole, but ... hyperbole is also a Supreme Court-protected form of speech," Fink said. "Whatever you call it, it's Moore's opinion and it's protected as such."

Moore, whose recently released "Fahrenheit 9/11" has eclipsed "Bowling for Columbine" as the top-grossing non-concert documentary ever, "obviously thinks (Nichols' suit) has no merit," Fink said.

Much of Wednesday's hour-long hearing focused on whether the 1-year statute of limitations for libel claims had expired by the time Nichols filed suit on Oct. 27, 2003.

Fink said that, after screenings at individual venues including the Cannes Film Festival, "Bowling for Columbine" opened in New York and Los Angeles on Oct. 11, 2002, more than a year before the lawsuit was filed. The film opened in widespread release in the United States on Oct. 25, 2002, he said.

Nichols' attorney, Stefani Godsey of Lansing, told Borman that the film opened Oct. 28, 2002 in Flint ? the nearest city to Decker, 40 miles to the northwest, to screen it. Nichols was not aware of the movie's existence until a newspaper called him for comment the next day.

Godsey said outside court that Nichols has seen only "clips" of "Bowling for Columbine." But, she said, "He knows what's in it."

Godsey also said Nichols did not know who Moore was when the filmmaker requested an interview for "Bowling for Columbine," a study of guns and violence in American culture that includes references to the Oklahoma City bombing. James Nichols' brother, Terry, is serving life in prison for his role in the bombing.

"He didn't have a clue," Godsey said of James Nichols. "(Moore) had on a T-shirt and jeans. He looked small-time."

Fink said it doesn't matter whether Nichols did or didn't know who Moore was.

"The only question is, did they blow the statute of limitations or not?" Fink said outside court. "It's pretty clear they did. She's clutching at straws."

Fink had argued in court that Nichols' libel claim was further flawed because, by the time he sued, Nichols was a "limited purpose public figure" who ? besides giving Moore an on-camera interview ? had held numerous news conferences and in 1997 self-published a book claiming federal agents committed the bombing.

Godsey said in court that Nichols consented to the interview with Moore because he "wanted to educate people about the Oklahoma City bombing."

Nichols' farm was raided two days after the bombing after Terry Nichols and former Army buddy Timothy McVeigh were identified as suspects. McVeigh, who was executed for masterminding the bombing in 2001, listed James Nichols' home as his address on some forms and said when he was arrested that Nichols was his next of kin.

Source
July 15th, 2004, 07:39 PM
travelinman

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You posted the same article I did. Do you think the people who post here are to dumb to go to the link and read the whole article?
July 15th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Piña

Nope, just thought it read better in it's entirety.

Why is that a problem for you. I would think at worst you wouldn't really care but here you are getting upset. Things that make you go hmmmmm. (I don't care what anyone says, I liked Arsenio!)
July 16th, 2004, 01:11 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Nope, just thought it read better in it's entirety.

Why is that a problem for you. I would think at worst you wouldn't really care but here you are getting upset. Things that make you go hmmmmm. (I don't care what anyone says, I liked Arsenio!)

Once again, you have your head up your ass.

Michael Moore uses the same tactics in his films as I do when I post links. Selectively editing out part of the information and/or conversations so the resulting post/film portrays a very different view then the actual facts.

You have a problem when I do it, even though I provide the link to the source so if your interested you can read all of the information.

Yet you lay down and lick Moore's feet when he does it and you defend his films as documentaries even though he makes no attempt to give the complete source at the end of his films.

Your nothing more then a fucking hypocrite.

[ July 16, 2004 10:12 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
July 16th, 2004, 05:40 PM
gae

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Nope, just thought it read better in it's entirety.

Why is that a problem for you. I would think at worst you wouldn't really care but here you are getting upset. Things that make you go hmmmmm. (I don't care what anyone says, I liked Arsenio!)

Pi?a,
Since the material is under copyright, it's technically a violation of the law to post entire articles.

I really don't think we're on anyone's radar screen, and I really doubt we'd ever get sued for posting an entire article.

That's why Trav excerpts articles.
July 16th, 2004, 05:55 PM
Piña

Do you two actually talk to each other?

Quote:

Trav wrote:
Michael Moore uses the same tactics in his films as I do when I post links. Selectively editing out part of the information and/or conversations so the resulting post/film portrays a very different view then the actual facts.



Quote:

Gae wrote:In the very next message
Since the material is under copyright, it's technically a violation of the law to post entire articles.
. . .
That's why Trav excerpts articles.

Maybe you guys should take a quick break to try and get your stories straight.
July 16th, 2004, 05:57 PM
gae

He was making a point.

I was telling you why.

Next time we'll both type a little bit slower. Maybe that will help.
July 16th, 2004, 06:01 PM
Piña

Quote:

Trav wrote:
Michael Moore uses the same tactics in his films as I do when I post links. Selectively editing out part of the information and/or conversations so the resulting post/film portrays a very different view then the actual facts.

So you despise moore for allegedly using the same tactics that you seem so proud of using yourself?

Does anyone else get the feeling that the profilers at the FBI would use trav as a final exam case study? I can just see prospective agents running screaming from the building, tearing thier hair out and foaming at the mouth.

It's kind of like a carnival hall of mirrors inside that head of your's isn't it, trav?
July 16th, 2004, 06:07 PM
gae

Quote:

Does anyone else get the feeling that the profilers at the FBI would use trav as a final exam case study? I can just see prospective agents running screaming from the building, tearing thier hair out and foaming at the mouth.

After the Jane Fonda thing, I think the FBI has BTDT.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page