PROJECT VERITAS SCORES LEGAL WIN AGAINST THE NEW YORK TIMES

Undercover journalist group Project Veritas raked in a substantial legal win last week in the New York Supreme Court concerning the group’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.

The decision ruled that James O’Keefe—the founder of Project Veritas—was able to provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the Times may have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” in several posts attacking the group’s work.

Jonathan Turley reported that while the case had received little attention in the mainstream media, Project Veritas “won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach.”

The outlet continued by noting that in a “16-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood said Veritas had shown sufficient evidence that the New York Times might have been motivated by ‘actual malice’ and acted with ‘reckless disregard’ in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu.”

“This ruling means Project Veritas will now be able to put New York Times reporter Maggie Astor and New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions,” O’Keefe said in reaction to the win, according to The Post Millennial.

“Project Veritas will record these depositions and expose them for the world to see,” he added.

The decision partially reads:

The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden. The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant’s state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that Defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Veritas alleged actual malice by providing facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants’ alleged disregard for the truthfulness of its statements. Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, Veritas’ submissions were sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions, and further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues raised.

Turley noted that this is the latest hit against the Times that was followed by a win for Alaskan Republican Gov. Sarah Palin against the same outlet. “Having two such losses for the New York Times in the defamation area is ironic given its role in establishing the precedent under New York Times v. Sullivan,” he noted.

As the suit progressed, Project Veritas continued reporting stories. On Monday, the group released shocking photos at the Southern border as the Biden administration has reportedly put a “gag order” on Border Patrol agents speaking to the media.

O’Keefe’s outlet released photos taken inside a border detention facility in Donna, Texas, that reveals hundreds of migrants sleeping on the floor with little space between them despite the ongoing pandemic.

“These photos were taken within the last few days,” a source told Project Veritas, according to the Daily Wire. “There are eight pods with eight cells each in the facility. At any given moment there are an average of 3,000 people in custody here.”

“[Migrants] are separated by age or physical size depending on room,” the source said. “Fifty were COVID positive in these cells over the last few days.” O’Keefe also claims he has received reports of “multiple sexual assaults, normal assaults, and daily medical emergencies” from inside the migrant camps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *