Jackson Free Press

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee, of Jackson, has dismissed The Clarion-Ledger from a defamation lawsuit filed against it by retired Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics pilot Robert Earl Pierce. The federal judge said that the portion of the lawsuit dealing with emotional distress, invasion of privacy and libel should be dismissed because the suit was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations regarding such suits.

Pierce filed his lawsuit in 2005, long after the newspaper's publication of an April 18, 2003, article reporting on information contained in a memo faxed to Clarion-Ledger reporter Ana Radelat. He filed the suit after State Auditor Phil Bryant debunked the part accusing Pierce of illegally transferring MBN property.

Lee also dismissed the defamation suit against Gannett Co., Gannett River States Publishing Corp., Radelat, and metro editor Grace Simmons Fisher.

The paper is not completely released from the suit, however, according to Pierce's attorney Mike Farrell.

"They dismissed the libel and emotional distress claim, but we still have the breach-of-contract claim, which is still pending a court ruling," Farrell said. "There was a one-year statute of limitations on the other claim, but there's a three-year time frame on the one that's still pending, so that's not a problem." The same potential damages are still on the table, he said.

Pierce has also filed a lawsuit against former MBN head Frank Melton, who leaked the memo to Radelat on April 17, 2003. Melton initially lied to Lauderdale County Circuit Court about leaking the memo, but later recanted his story after being elected mayor of Jackson. Judge Robert Bailey responded to the untruth by ruling to strike Melton's defense in that lawsuit, handing him a loss. That case is now in the damages stage. Clarion-Ledger attorneys were unavailable for comment.

Previous Comments

ID

65125

Comment

"The federal judge said that the portion of the lawsuit dealing with emotional distress, invasion of privacy and libel should be dismissed because the suit was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations regarding such suits. Doesn't take over a year before you are reeling from accusations like that?

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-01-26T19:12:19-06:00

ID

65126

Comment

What's interesting is that the lawsuit was filed against the Ledger after the state auditor ruled it false. That makes a bit of common sense to me, although it seems it doesn't fly under the law. Note that the other interesting thing here is that the Clarion-Ledger is NOT off the hook. Just part of their suit is dismissed; they apparently are still involved in litigation on it. So that does present the question of why suddenly it was OK to tell their readers about it when they couldn't before. Methinks they are feeling the heat from everyone asking why the hell they're hiding such an important point -- and did during the campaign, and when they endorsed Mr. Melton. I still can't get over them endorsing a candidate without ever mentioning that their paper, their reporter and their city editor were giving depositions in the lawsuits against him and them. Really remarkable.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-26T19:19:35-06:00

ID

65127

Comment

The CL is acting like an individual instead of a company. Normally you see individual people dancing around real facts when thay are involved. This is a company. They should have continued to act as such. They have broken the rule that says "no one is exempt". They have taken themselves off the radar. But mayby they thought that the mayor would win and then they would have opened up. OOPS, let me wake up.

Author

lance

Date

2006-01-27T18:00:39-06:00

ID

65128

Comment

The funny thing is that I don't necessarily believe the Ledger should get dinged for publishing what a public official gave them. And it sounded like it was a pretty official memo. Perhaps they should have done more to look into its veracity. That's up to a judge to decide. But what I am damned certain on is that they should have revealed their conflict of interest with Mr. Melton during the campaign and when they endorsed him. And any editor involved in that case should not have touched campaign coverage. I can't believe Gannett is letting the editors there get away with what they've done. Of course, maybe Gannett considers them the stepchild with the high profit margins and doesn't give a damn what happens in Jackson, Miss., because we are the hellhole, after all. That may sound hyperbolic, but that's about the only reasoning that explains this journalistic disaster to me. I just want our public apology about the Ledger not doing a better job of revealing more about Mr. Melton during the campaign and before it endorsed him. Boo, hiss.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-01-27T18:12:13-06:00

ID

65129

Comment

Seconded. I don't want the Ledge's metaphorical head on a platter, but it'd be nice if they apologized for not revealing an obvious conflict of interest during the mayoral race. Is there really a one-year statute of limitations on libel and invasion of privacy suits in Mississippi, or am I missing something? It seems to me that if it were an across the board one-year statute, Melton would also be immune on the same grounds. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-01-28T05:44:10-06:00