Reform needed in law of defamation and extortion

One lawyer, Jeff Anderson, is on a one man crusade against the Catholic church.  He is a plaintiff’s counsel who has taken on an enormous number of the child abuse cases. 

 

Mr. Anderson apparently has a press conference for every new unproven case and ensures that these matters are constantly in the press.

 

Whereas the few wicked priests have harmed thousands, Mr. Anderson has harmed millions of Catholics with the manner of his approach.

 

As noted in the articles about Mr. Anderson, the Vatican attacking the news media has backfired and is misconceived.  It is misconceived.  They should be attacking Mr. Anderson. 

 

One bad priest could molest 100 children.  100 cases can bankrupt a huge diosese if the payouts are over $1 milllion per person.   A system where one man can deny the right of millions to attend at the religious institution of their choice is a threat not just to that religion, but to every religion and every other institution.   The only reason that the Anglicans, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, public schools, public libraries, recreation centers, day cares, parks, children’s sports teams, and all the other institutions or locations with lots of children aren’t in the same predicament is because they do not yet have an opponent as vindictive as Mr. Anderson. 

 

I would be greatly surprised if US protestant denominations do not have rates of abuse that are considerably greater than the Catholic church.   US protestantism has a long and dubious history of being dominated by personality cults of creeps and weirdos. 

 

In other words, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Maintain the same damages ratios that are hitting the Catholics consistently and almost all forms of human activity will be uneconomical. 

 

There is no reason to be settling abuse claims for over $1 million each, other than bad tort law in a given state or bad press.    People who are damaged just as badly as a result of a car accident or any other claim don’t get remotely that much. 

 

Then there is Gloria Allred.   I have mixed feelings about Ms. Allred’s recent revelation that one of her clients was attacked by Roman Polanski.  I can say at the outset that there is every reason to believe that the allegation is true, and indeed I had predicted that Mr. Polanski would have other victims. 

 

I am however concerned that Ms. Allred’s motivations in other cases have not seemed appropriate.   She has become known as the "mistress lawyer", representing women whose profession is seducing celebrities then trying to cash in on it.   At least one received a payment to remain silent. 

 

Given that a mistress doesn’t have any rights to compensation from a married man under most circumstances, I have difficulty seeing why such persons need a lawyer whose apparent function is to deal with the press.

 

While a lawyer may serve some function there in making sure certain lines aren’t crossed as far as defamation the appearance is questionable. 

 

The traditional law of extortion requires that there be a formal demand for something in return for silence.   The difficulty is that if no demand is made that this can be circumvented.  If a person continually goes to the press until paid to shut up, the effect is the same as extortion even if the law has not technically been violated.  The wrongdoer receives money to which he or she is not entitled in return for dropping something.   I can think of no sound legal, moral or ethical principle for allowing such practices to continue.  There needs to be a law against that practice.

 

The law of defamation has a similar weakness.  Traditionally, it has been a complete defence to a defamation complaint that the defamation is true.  I can think of no sound legal, ethical or moral reason why that should be a defence in the absence of public interest, which is difference from the public being interested in the sense of titilated.   The current system allows people to profit from wrongdoing. 

 

Tiger Woods isn’t accused of doing anything illegal with any of his mistresses.   In the case of the quarterback Ben R., the football player was accused of sexual assault and it sounds like at least the second allegation could be proven at least to a civil standard.   Reporting the Big Ben incidents is public interest.   Reporting Tiger Woods’ affairs only allows wrongdoers to make money.  It is against the public interest to allow any reporting of Tiger Woods’ affairs.   Of course there would have to be some distinction between mass media vs. other forms of communication- you don’t want to say that nobody can ever mention an affair, including to the wife. 

 

The implicit extortion issues should be dealt with in the case of lawyers by law societies preventing lawyers from holding press conferences except for defence to allegations in almost all cases.  I’ll leave the door open that there might be some case where generating a public outcry may be the only way to a remedy.  People should not be litigating through the press as the effect is so analogous to extortion.  Defence is a different issue- sometimes it is necessary to publicly respond when a case is high profile and a reputation would otherwise be destroyed.   The best example was when a swimming coach at Simon Fraser University was accused of raping and harassing a student and dismissed.   His lawyers held a press conference to prove that the student had in fact been harassing the coach who had spurned her numerous advances which included sending him inappropriate emails and photographs. 

 

And then there is the question of what to do in the meantime until the law is fixed, while Mr. Anderson and Ms. Allred are techically not violating any law or any code of professional conduct.   

 

In Mr. Anderson’s case, here is my suggestion:  he has or has had thousands of these cases.   It is inevitable with that number of cases and the easy money that, just as with any other area, there will be some fraudulent cases.   I would be highly surprised if there is no case in which it cannot be proven that a would-be plaintiff never attended where he claimed to have attended.   Most fraudsters aren’t rocket scientists.   Even good cases always have a hole or two, bogus cases are usually like Swiss cheese.

 

The church should be selecting the cases most likely to be fraudulent, as well as doing due diligence in every case to check if people did attend where they said they attended, etc.  Announce several of these cases when proven false.  Ensure that criminal prosecutions are begun where appropriate.  Make sure that Mr. Anderson’s name is repeated at least 17 times in any related statements or interviews.  Show clips of Mr. Anderson’s news conference from back when the case was started.  He probably wouldn’t know of any specific client being a fake but that is no reason to not ensure that he is judged by the same unfair measure as he would have the church judged.   Do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Judge not lest ye be judged.   

 

And nip this nonsense in the bud before it starts spreading to anything else.