1. When they tried to make a conspiracy over the birth of my daughter
3. When they made fun of my mom for wanting to defeat ISIS
4. When they loved it that this media host suggested someone sh-t in my mom’s mouth
5. When they said my mom hated gay people
6. When they said Mom was hired at Fox News for her “tits”
7. When they said I should’ve aborted my baby
At the outset, it is obvious that the allegations that Gawker lied regarding the Palins are clearly not statements of fact but clearly opinions. For example, number 7, which was cited by Bristol as the most outrageous, was clearly an opinion rather than a fact. The Palin family has been outspoken in its defense of 1st Amendment Rights. To say that any publication should not be allowed to express the opinion of the writer would be, per-se, a violation of the writer’s 2nd amendment rights.
If anybody published a false statement of fact, there is a civil remedy available to the aggrieved party. For example when Joe McGinniss published his book
which included the statements that Sarah had snorted cocaine off a barrel drum in the Alaska wilderness, had a one night stand with Glen Rice,
or an affair with Todd’s business partner,
a defamation suit could have been filed if any one of the statements was untrue. In fact, Sarah’s attorney threatened to file suit. Clearly she was aware of her right to file suit if the allegations were untrue. However a defamation suit was never filed.
When the National Enquirer published a story regarding Todd’s business as a pimp, a defamation suit could have been filed. It never was.
In that case Sarah’s attorney never even threatened suit. Truth is a defense to a defamation suit. If suit is filed for defamation, depositions can be taken where people are sworn to tell the truth about the allegations. For example each of the people identified by name, including a member of the Anchorage Police Department, in Shailey Tripp’s book could be subpoenaed to testify. If they lied they could go to jail for perjury.
There is also a legal requirement that the injured party in a suit “mitigate damages.” That means that an injured party has a duty to act reasonably to reduce damages they suffer if at all possible. For example, if Todd was accused of being a pimp, and he was given an invitation to deny the allegations, he has an obligation to deny the allegations if he later plans to ask for damages resulting from defamation of his character. That means that when I sent a letter to Todd and his attorney inviting them to deny the allegations of Shailey Tripp that he was her pimp, they had a legal obligation to deny the allegation to mitigate their damages, if they ever intended to sue me for defamation. That letter was sent March 8, 2013. More than three years have passed and I have received no denial from Todd or his attorney. If Todd or his attorney had denied the allegations of Shailey Tripp, they might be exposed for a defamation suit themselves by Shailey Tripp. They did not respond. You can draw your own conclusions.
In May of 2013, I sent a letter to Sarah and her attorney, inviting a denial of the allegations of Shailey Tripp regarding a description of Todd’s anatomy. I also invited Ms. Palin to deny the assertion that she had a massage by Ms. Tripp a few weeks before she purportedly gave birth to Trig, and she declared at that time that she was NOT pregnant. Again, no response was made by Sarah or her attorney. That was over three years ago. I indicated in that letter that I was planning to write a book, and would not want to assert anything that was not true. Still no response came from Sarah or her attorney.
As a final comment, it is hard not to comment on Bristol’s assertion that there was a “conspiracy” over the birth date of her daughter. Remember that (1) I personally called the hospital every day for two weeks before Bristol supposedly gave birth and was advised that they did not have a patient by the name of Bristol Palin, (2) there was the photo of the IV in Bristol’s hand that showed a November date when she purportedly gave birth to Sailor, and (3) there was the photo-shopped image of Bristol in the hospital with Sarah behind her which demonstrates the photo-shopping as a result of the IV in the wrong hand, and the colors of the wall to have been reversed!
The failure of Bristol Palin to understand the difference between a claim for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is obvious. The failure of Bristol to understand that “truth” is a defense to a defamation suit is equally obvious. The failure of Todd and Sarah to offer any denial of the allegations of Shailey Tripp is clearly an indication they could never win a claim for defamation as they have failed to mitigate their damages.