Defamation Lawsuit – Latest News and Analysis – Page 2 | Straight Arrow News

Straight Arrow News

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

Jonathan Majors’ ex-girlfriend drops assault and defamation lawsuit

November 22, 2024
People Magazine is reporting that actor Jonathan Majors’ ex-girlfriend has dropped her lawsuit against him, according to court documents released Thursday, Nov. 21. Grace Jabbari, a British dancer, first filed the civil suit in March 2024, accusing Majors of assault and defamation.

The allegations stemmed from incidents during the couple’s nearly two-year relationship. Jabbari and Majors met in 2021 on the set of “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,” where Majors was gaining recognition as a rising star.

Legal troubles and court trial

Majors faced a legal trial in New York after an altercation with Jabbari in March 2023. According to court records, the dispute allegedly began when Majors received a suggestive text message from another woman. The text read, “Wish I was kissing you right now.”

Jabbari claimed Majors attacked her in the back of an SUV and later found her unconscious in the apartment they previously shared. Police bodycam footage shows her partially unclothed with a blanket across her waist.

During the trial, evidence included text messages and audio recordings. One incident Jabbari recorded during an altercation revealed Majors suggesting she emulate figures like Michelle Obama and Coretta Scott King.

Despite maintaining his innocence, Majors was convicted in December 2023 on two misdemeanor assault counts. The court ordered him to complete a year-long counseling program in April 2024.

Court documents filed Thursday revealed both Majors and Jabbari agreed to dismiss all claims against him “with prejudice.” This means Jabbari cannot refile the lawsuit in the future, bringing a close to the legal battle between the two.

Meagan Good’s public support

Majors’ relationship with actress Meagan Good became a focal point of public discussion. The two started dating a few months after Majors’ March 2023 arrest. Good appeared by his side during nearly every court appearance, sparking widespread discussion about her support during the legal proceedings.

The couple announced their engagement Nov. 17 on the red carpet at the Ebony Power 100 Gala.
Related Stories
- Jussie Smollett’s conviction overturned in hate crime hoax case
Infowars sale to The Onion on hold pending judge’s review

November 15, 2024
A judge has paused the sale of Alex Jones’ Infowars to satirical news outlet The Onion over concerns about the auction’s transparency. The decision comes as families of Sandy Hook victims back the deal, which would transform Infowars into a parody site focused on far-right conspiracy theories.

According to The Associated Press, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez announced the pause during a court hearing Thursday, Nov. 14, stating that he plans to hold an evidentiary hearing to review the sale.

“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing, and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” Lopez said.

Getty Images

Lopez, presiding in Houston, did not set a date for the hearing but raised concerns over why the auction didn’t include an overbidding round. Walter Cicack, an attorney for First United American Companies, which bid $3.5 million, said his client was not allowed to improve their offer.

Christopher Murray, the trustee overseeing the auction, said The Onion’s bid was deemed better despite not being the highest because some Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo proceeds to pay other creditors.

Alex Jones owes nearly $1.5 billion to these families after falsely claiming the 2012 school shooting was a hoax.

Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, said the company’s bid was intended to prevent Jones from continuing his controversial online presence.

If approved, Infowars would relaunch in January as a satirical site parodying far-right conspiracy theories. Everytown for Gun Safety would serve as the exclusive advertiser, aligning with The Onion’s history of promoting gun law reform through satire.

The judge plans to review the auction process at next week’s hearing, though no date has been set.
Related Stories
Giuliani calls $148M defamation judgment a ‘political vendetta’

November 8, 2024
Outside a Manhattan federal courtroom Thursday, Nov. 7, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he is the victim of political persecution. “But the reality is that this case is obviously a political vendetta,” Giuliani said. “Just the mere fact that it’s a $145 million judgment, I’m very, very disappointed that this judge doesn’t take seriously how ridiculous the judgment is.”

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Giuliani must turn over his Manhattan apartment and other personal possessions, including luxury watches, jewelry and a Mercedes, to two Georgia election workers who won a defamation judgment against him.

The judge gave Giuliani seven days to comply with the ruling.

On Election Day Tuesday, Nov. 5, in Palm Beach, Florida, Giuliani was spotted in the passenger seat of a car matching the description of the Mercedes listed in the judgment, The New York Times reported.

So far, Giuliani has not complied with the judge’s order, arguing that the court has been “less than clear” and insisting that he did not commit a crime.

“So I am pretty sure – you’re never absolutely sure – this case can get reversed,” Giuliani said. “This judge could wait until this case was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit. Most judges would rather just take all of a man’s property away.”

The judge has threatened to charge Giuliani with contempt of court — a charge that carries the possibility of jail time — if he does not surrender the items by the end of next week.

Last December, election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were awarded $150 million after Giuliani was found liable for defamation over false claims that they tampered with ballots in the 2020 election. The women said his lies endangered their lives.

Giuliani’s lawyers said they are appealing the judgment to the District of Columbia Circuit and are confident the verdict will be overturned.
Related Stories
- Giuliani’s son claims World Series rings awarded in defamation suit are his
- Rudy Giuliani must turn over NYC apartment to Georgia election workers
Judge orders Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ accuser to reveal identity

October 31, 2024
A federal judge ruled that a woman accusing Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual assault couldn’t proceed with her lawsuit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe.” Instead, the woman must identify herself if she wishes to continue with her case.

In her decision, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil explained that Combs had the right to defend himself. That includes the opportunity to investigate his accuser’s claims.

“Defendants have a right to defend themselves, and the people have a right to know who is using their courts,” Vyskocil wrote.

This lawsuit is one of more than a dozen filed against Combs since his September arrest on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Vyskocil’s case was filed individually but could impact other cases involving the rapper.

The accuser, a Tennessee woman, claimed that Combs raped her in 2004 when she was 19 years old. Her legal team argued that she should be allowed to remain anonymous due to concerns that Combs might harm her.

However, Vyskocil rejected this argument. She noted that Combs has had no contact with the woman in nearly 20 years and is currently detained while awaiting trial.

The judge emphasized that “public humiliation” alone wasn’t sufficient grounds for keeping the woman’s identity secret. Vyskocil also highlighted that several other plaintiffs in similar cases had filed under their real names.

Combs has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing. His representatives issued a brief statement following the ruling, saying, “The ruling speaks for itself.”

Vyskocil set a deadline of Nov. 13 for the woman to refile under her real name; otherwise, her lawsuit will be dismissed.
Related Stories
Rudy Giuliani must turn over NYC apartment to Georgia election workers

October 22, 2024

A federal judge has ruled that Rudy Giuliani must turn over his Manhattan apartment and other personal possessions to two Georgia election workers. The decision on Tuesday, Oct. 22, comes after the workers won a defamation judgment against the former New York City mayor.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, are now appointed receivers of Giuliani’s New York City penthouse apartment, his 1980 Mercedes Benz, some of his luxury watches and jewelry and also cash in two checking accounts.

The judge ordered Giuliani to relinquish the possessions within seven days of the order.

For now, the judge has decided that Giuliani can keep his home in Palm Beach, Florida, along with four New York Yankees World Series rings — which Giuliani’s son has stated are his and were given to him by his father.

Last December, Freeman and Moss were awarded $150 million after Giuliani was found liable for defamation for making false claims that the women were involved in ballot tampering during the 2020 presidential election.

The women argued that Giuliani put their lives in danger by spreading false information. A hearing regarding the Florida property is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 28.
‘Central Park 5’ sue Donald Trump for defamation after debate remarks

October 21, 2024

Members of the “Central Park Five” sued former President Donald Trump for defamation. Their lawsuit comes after the comments Trump made about their case at the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris in September 2024.

The five black and latino men were teenagers when they were wrongfully convicted of raping and beating a white female jogger in Central Park in 1989.

At the time, Trump bought a full-page ad in multiple newspapers including the New York Times and called for the teens to be executed.

The men spent years in prison and were exonerated in 2022 after DNA linked another person to the crime.

During the debate on Sept. 10, Trump said they pleaded guilty to the crimes and “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

The lawsuit alleged what Trump said was defamatory because they never pleaded guilty to the assaults.

Trump campaign spokesman, Steve Cheung said the lawsuit is, “Just another frivolous, election interference lawsuit, filed by desperate left-wing activists, in an attempt to distract the American people from Kamala Harris’ dangerously liberal agenda and failing campaign.”
Giuliani’s son claims World Series rings awarded in defamation suit are his

October 10, 2024
Two former Georgia poll workers who won a $148 million defamation suit against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani want his Yankees World Series rings. However, his son, Andrew Giuliani, said his father gave those rings to him as a gift in 2018 and he’s not giving them back.

The former poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won their defamation suit over false claims the former mayor made, accusing the election workers of trying to steal the election from former President Donald Trump in 2020. As part of the settlement, Freeman and Moss, sought to get Giuliani’s apartment in Manhattan and Yankees memorabilia.

The younger Giuliani requested to intervene in the case and claim ownership of the four World Series rings, and a judge approved his request on Wednesday, Oct. 9.

In court filings, Andrew Giuliani said his father gave him the rings following Rudy Guiliani’s 74th birthday celebration in New York.

Andrew Giuliani said, “As child and young adult, I had spent many nights with my father watching Yankees games and bonding over our love for the team, and I was excited about receiving the rings.”

In a recent bankruptcy filing, Rudy Giuliani listed the rings as part of his personal property along with jewelry valued at around $30,000. Giuliani is appealing the settlement, arguing his assertions about the workers were protected under the First Amendment and saying that they failed to show he acted with “actual malice.”

He also asked the New York judge to refrain from giving his property to the two women until after a ruling on the appeal.
Related Stories
Garth Brooks sues sexual assault accuser, alleging extortion

October 9, 2024
Country music artist Garth Brooks is naming his sexual assault accuser in a lawsuit, claiming she is trying to extort millions from him. The suit, brought forward by a former hairstylist and makeup artist identified as Jane Roe, claims he raped her during a work trip in 2019.

She also accuses Brooks of publicly outing a sexual assault victim out of spite and without justification. According to the complaint, Roe claims Brooks repeatedly exposed himself, shared sexual fantasies with her, and in one instance forced her to touch him after stepping out of the shower.

In response, Brooks filed a complaint this week in a Mississippi court. Initially, the country singer attempted to keep their identities anonymous, but that changed after Roe allegedly leaked his name.

Brooks then filed a second complaint, which revealed both of their names. In the lawsuit, Brooks claims the woman, who worked with him for 15 years, threatened to go public with false allegations of sexual misconduct unless he paid her a hefty sum.

Court filings state the woman sent two letters, one in July and one in August, demanding millions.

The singer denies all allegations of misconduct and says he filed the lawsuit to “preserve his reputation, establish the truth and to put a stop to her scheme.”

He’s asking for compensatory and punitive damages for emotional distress, defamation and invasion of privacy.

His wife, Trisha Yearwood, recently broke her silence with a simple post on Instagram. She said “Love One Another,” alongside a photo of the couple performing together on stage.
Related Stories
- Country star Garth Brooks accused of rape
- Johnny Cash takes center stage in the US Capitol with new statue unveiled
Deadspin loses effort to get defamation lawsuit over blackface article tossed

October 9, 2024
A Delaware judge has ruled that a defamation lawsuit against the sports website Deadspin can move forward. The case involves a 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan, Holden Armenta.

The controversy began when Deadspin published an article criticizing the NFL, featuring an image of Armenta. The article claimed the league needed to speak out “against the fan in black face” and “Native headdress” during a Raiders-Chiefs game last November. However, while the child’s face was painted half-black and half-red, the article only showed the black-painted side.

Holden’s parents filed the defamation lawsuit in February, asserting that their son is a dedicated Chiefs fan who takes pride in his Indian heritage. They claim the article, written by Carron Phillips, smeared their son as a racist.

Phillips stated in the article that the child had “found a way to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,” and suggested that his parents had instilled “hatred” in him.

Both Deadspin and the Armenta family faced backlash after the article went viral. In response, Deadspin changed the headline to “The NFL Must Ban Native Headdress And Culturally Insensitive Face Paint in the Stands,” adding, “We regret any suggestion that we were attacking the fan or his family.”

Dissatisfied with this response, the Armenta family proceeded with their defamation lawsuit.

This week, Judge Sean Lugg denied Deadspin’s motion to dismiss the case, stating, “Deadspin published an image of a child displaying his passionate fandom as a backdrop for its critique of the NFL’s diversity efforts… Having reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing H.A. of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable.”

A spokesperson for G/O Media, which owns Deadspin, has not commented on the case. The Armenta family’s attorney said they are “eager to present their case to a jury.”
Related Stories
- Commanders exec criticizes NFL fans, players, leadership in undercover video
- Judge overturns $4.7B NFL ‘Sunday Ticket’ verdict
Newsmax defamation trial over 2020 election claims underway

September 26, 2024

Media company Newsmax’s defamation trial began Thursday, Sept. 26, over rhetoric concerning the 2020 presidential election. Voting machine company Smartmatic claims Newsmax damaged the election tech company by alleging it changed votes and helped steal the election from former President Donald Trump.

The trial in Wilmington, Delaware, begins with the selection of 12 jurors to decide if Newsmax deliberately misrepresented the 2020 election to harm Smartmatic or if it fairly reported Trump and his allies’ claims.

The case resembles the Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News lawsuit from 2021, in which Dominion accused Fox News of peddling lies about its voting machine technology, claiming Dominion’s voting machines changed votes from Trump to Biden. Fox News settled with Dominion last year for nearly $800 million.

During the Newsmax trial, Smartmatic must prove to a jury that the channel acted with actual malice by either knowingly airing false claims about Smartmatic’s role in the election or by recklessly ignoring the truth.

Newsmax released a statement Wednesday, Sept. 25, saying it “reported accurately on allegations made by well-known public figures, including the president, his advisers and members of Congress, as well as reporting on Smartmatic’s claims in its defense.”

The judge in the case ruled Monday, Sept. 23, that Smartmatic may not ask for punitive damages related to the case, stating, “There is no evidence that Newsmax acted with evil intent towards Smartmatic.”

Smartmatic is also suing Fox News, with a trial expected in 2025.