Virginia Citizens Defense League To Appeal The Katie Couric Lawsuit Dismissal

Katie Couric Laughing
Virginia Citizens Defense League To Appeal The Katie Couric Lawsuit Ruling
Virginia Citizens Defense League
Virginia Citizens Defense League

Virginia – -(Ammoland.com)-  The Virginia Citizens Defense League Board of Directors, after careful consideration, has decided that the recent ruling dismissing the Virginia Citizens Defense League case against Katie Couric, et al, CANNOT STAND!

The lawsuit has far reaching implications for all Americans. If the media can be allowed to change a person's words to suit the media's own needs or beliefs, then a grievous blow will have been struck against the very core of the freedom that the United States stands for!

NO! We are going to fight this because too much is at stake.

Today, I have directed Virginia Citizens Defense League's attorneys to move forward with the appeal to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be heard by a three-judge panel “de novo” (which means the merits of the case will be heard anew with no consideration of the judge's ruling that recently dismissed the case).

Unfortunately fighting this kind of battle in court is not cheap, including the appeals process, for which we now have to budget. But the nature of the ruling is so dangerous to our liberty that Virginia Citizens Defense League must stay in the fight and prevail!

Virginia Citizens Defense League rarely asks for money other than your yearly $25 dues. But when we do, we make sure you understand why we are asking.

If you wish to contribute to help covering VCDL's legal fees, click here: http://vcdl.org/Donate

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!

You will be updated whenever there is breaking news on Virginia Citizens Defense League's lawsuit.

About Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.

  • 23 thoughts on “Virginia Citizens Defense League To Appeal The Katie Couric Lawsuit Dismissal

    1. We all know who Katie is, what she does and what she believes. She has a history. With such a predictable outcome I cannot understand why the VCDL would even consider being participant in this documentary. As expected the entire documentary sends belittling subliminal messages about second amendment advocates. When you knowingly step into harms way why you not expect to get shot at? I appreciate the VCDL and got a whole lot of respect for Phillip, But participation was not a wise decision.

      1. Tin man,

        There is no absolute predicting these things. Similar things were said when I was interviewed for a 60 Minutes segment, which turned out great (posted on the VCDL website). Also, there were concerns when Nightline did a segment on VCDL at one of our picnics in Tidewater, that also turned out very well (also posted on VCDL website).

        Look at it this way – if we didn’t respond to requests from the media, then the other side would never get any push back on their lies and deceptions. We were hoping for the best, but the audio recordings hedged that bet.

    2. It wasn’t just a long pause, it was a long pause that included none of their answers and a general manipulation of the editing, as well as lying to the plaintiffs to get them to agree to be interviewed. Let’s look at the questions first to the assembled group of 7 or 8 members of the group, Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) . Couric and this company have made other very misleading videos including one called “Fed Up” about the food industry. They need to be taught a lesson.

      The film/video is called “Under the Gun” and it was pushing the universal background check agenda. Before the interview, Couric told the group interviewed, members/officers of the Virginia Citizens Defense League:
      “First of all, I want to say thank you all so much for doing this, because we want to get all different points of view, and I know you guys have a specific point of view on this issue and some of the issues that we’re tackling. And so, thank you, thank you for doing this.” Lie Number 1, Couric and company knew what they planned to do.

      Despite being told that the same group would have a chance to view the video before its release, Couric released it at the Sundance Film Festival without telling them.

      As broadcast in the documentary, “Under the Gun.”

      Couric: “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

      As recorded simultaneously on audio:
      Couric: “If there are no background checks, how do you prevent—I know how you all are going to answer this, but I’m asking anyway—if there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into say a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?”

      In the documentary, Couric asked her question, then there there was 8-9 seconds of video with the camera focusing on members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League sitting silently, stumped, and avoiding eye contact, looking stupid, and flustered as if they had never thought about the issue before. This scene, of course wasn’t of their “non-responses” as they responded and some obscure part of the video wasn’t doctored to turn one second into nine, as that would be too obvious. The members we lied to by the cameraman and Katie Couric who told the interviewees that they needed to sit silently for 9-10 seconds so that recording equipment could be calibrated.

      Instead of editing the responses for time considerations, the video was edited to show footage of someone closing the cylinder of a fully-loaded revolver, making the point that the exchange was over and they were a bunch of idiots.

      What actually happened (from the audio) is there was almost an immediate response from one member, and rapid-fire responses ranging from a discussion of no permanent loss of gun rights after a sentence is served to what dis she mean by “terrorist” a person on some secret watch list the method of getting on such a list we know nothing about.”

      After the video was ready for release Couric and her producer Stephanie Soechtig traveled across the country to promote the film. They sat on panels and held themselves out as experts on the gun control debate. Throughout their campaign, they promoted Under the Gun as impartial and unbiased, and pointing to the fictional portrayal of the VCDL interview suggested that there is a wide consensus supporting background checks and that those few people who do oppose universal background checks have no basis for doing so.

      Damages:
      The case was in a U.S. District Court as there was diversity of citizenship between all the parties. However, the substantive law of the State of Virginia is applied by that Court.
      Virginia has a cause of action, as do many states for “defamation per se.” If you are defamed per se, the law presumes that you have suffered monetary damages. Unlike other civil case you don’t need expert testimony attempting to establish that you personally suffered a certain number of lost sales, as with the FFL.
      The standard for defamation per se in Virginia is that certain statements (which includes depictions a silent video depicting you going into what appears to be a VD treatment clinic) are defamation per se. These statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, without further need to prove that harm. A representation that does any of the following is defamation per se:
      1. Attributes to the plaintiff the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished.
      2. Indicates that the plaintiff is infected with a contagious disease.
      3. Attributes to the plaintiff unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or lack of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment.
      4. Hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade.
      Fleming v. Moore, 221 Va. 884, 899 (1981).

      One Plaintiff, an attorney who practices litigation involving firearms and
      personal defense—sitting silently and shifting his gaze toward the floor. I sure wouldn’t hire him if he had no answer to that question.

      Another Plaintiff is a Federal Firearms Licensee. A viewer would think, “She doesn’t have an answer, maybe it’s because she has no idea what the gun laws even are.”

      In addition to the attorney and the FFL, it holds the other Plaintiffs up as objects of ridicule by falsely representing that, as experts in their respective pro-Second Amendment trades, they had no basis for their opposition to universal background checks.

      The video exchange defames the Virginia Citizens Defense League in its trade as a pro-Second Amendment advocacy organization. It conveys that the organization is unfit to—and failed to—perform its mission: to defend people’s right to defend themselves. Why would anyone join a group run by this group of idiots?

      I looked a few of the pleadings but considering that the complaint was 60 pages long, I don’t know if the dismissal was justified or whether there was any merit to their lawsuit. What I do know is that “our side” always plays by the “Marquess of Queensberry Rules” and the Leftists only rule is to win. If we keep letting this and hundreds of other attacks on our way of life succeed instead of fighting like we are in a brawl, it’s only a matter of time before they win.

    3. Would love to see katie Couric personally held liable and be forced to pay monetary compensation for her bs stunt. Actually i would like to see all trash reporters/ tv show hosts personally held monetarily responsible for the lies they broadcast. Maybe if they had to pay out of their own pockets we would actually get tv worth watching again.

    4. Activist judges are in lock-step with the liberal media. Liberals for too long have been active in our schools indoctrinating our children into the liberal mindset. A parent’s primary job is to educate their children. Remember, it will take a generation of conservative parentage to slow and hopefully reverse the liberal influences on our children hence, our society.

    5. The time has come for a law that if a judge does something contrary to standing law, they are removed from office and stripped of their law license. And other judges are not in charge of the removal!

      1. Take a hard look at SCOTUS judge Ginsburg, who during the elections stated matter of factly “if Trump wins, I will resign” and now the POTUS’ Travel Ban is going in front of the SCOTUS??? How do you think that’s gonna go?
        How do we not hold people, especially a judge, accountable for their words and actions?
        Katie, and all of the rest of the liberal controlled media need to be taught the lesson of speak truthfully or don’t speak at all! We cannot allow the inflammatory fake or “Convenient” news media outlets to continue to pollute the airwaves with this absolute trash that passes for news these days.
        I do not advocate censorship, just a reality check before they should be allowed to broadcast. WTH ever happened to ethics?

    6. I didn’t follow the case, but my understanding is that the editing didn’t change anybody’s words, it just added a long pause to make the spokesman look stumped for an answer.
      In order to prove libel, you have to prove actual damages, i.e., monetary damages or tangible damage to one’s reputation. Where are the damages here? This isn’t the same as, say, the NBC fake truck fire case. That one caused actual, tangible damage to the automaker.
      I think what she did was despicable, but I don’t see any actionable libel here.

      1. In this case the reputations of several people were not only badly damaged by this hack but their lively hoods were also damaged, now if you don’t think any damage was done then think again

        1. How were their reputations or livelihoods damaged? Did the organization the spokesman represented lose members? Did the spokesman himself suffer any harm?
          I’m not saying CBS was right. As I said, what they did was unethical and despicable, and is one of the reasons I no longer own a television. But in order to prove libel, you have to meet certain standards and prove certain facts, and the plaintiffs here didn’t do that.

          1. Some of them are firearms instructors and firearm rights lawyers, making them look too stupid to answer a simple, commonly asked question is damaging to their reputations.

          1. Oh, “Libel Per Se”! What threw me off was that he expressed it so poorly. They fllled “per se” I think that NY vs Sullivan will control.

            1. No, that case established that “Public Figures” have a higher burden to recover, that being actual malice. None of these people was a Public Figure,

              The law of the State of Virginia applies (this as a diversity case). So, these general definitions mean nothing.

              Here is the law in Virginia. (which includes depictions such as silent video depicting you going into what appears to be a VD treatment clinic) are defamation per se. These statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, without further need to prove that harm. A representation that does any of the following is defamation per se:
              1. Attributes to the plaintiff the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished.
              2. Indicates that the plaintiff is infected with a contagious disease.
              3. Attributes to the plaintiff unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or lack of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment.
              4. Hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade.
              Fleming v. Moore, 221 Va. 884, 899 (1981).

          2. @Heed, not four classes of Libel on its face, but four classic examples. Thank you for the link to Cornell Law School. I would print it here, but I would hate to hand a weapon to my enemies.

      2. She edited out their immediate responses and put in the long silence and earlier video from when they were waiting to START the interview and were just looking around. Note they recorded the interview and that shows they immediately gave several minutes of replies the the question. Silence and looking around like they didn’t have an answer to her question vs several minutes of answers. The judge that dismissed the lawsuit should be censured if not impeached.

    Leave a Reply

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