From casetext of suit: "Approximately ten minutes after the First Article was published online, SBCC representative Patricia Brooks emailed Mr. Garofoli, offering to connect the San Francisco Chronicle with 'some people who can speak about [Mr. Buttar's] character and other claims [Ms. Croydon] has made in the past that are false-includi…
From casetext of suit: "Approximately ten minutes after the First Article was published online, SBCC representative Patricia Brooks emailed Mr. Garofoli, offering to connect the San Francisco Chronicle with 'some people who can speak about [Mr. Buttar's] character and other claims [Ms. Croydon] has made in the past that are false-including one who alleges that she also made false claims about her husband.'"
"The next morning, on July 22, 2020, Ms. Brooks emailed Mr. Garofoli asserting that 'Ms. Croydon's allegations about Mr. Buttar were false,' and that 'a number of voices had been left out' from the First Article. The email thanked Mr. Garofoli for his coverage and suggested that 'there is a lot more to this story that we think will be illuminating, and we want to make sure Shahid's full thoughts are addressed and his position is heard'."
So you are saying now that the claims were made up from whole cloth and that there was never any unpleasant interaction between Mr. Buttar and Ms. Croydon? If that was the case why did Mr. Buttar wait until 2023 to file his suit? Why didn't he sue her from the get-go when she first published the accusations in an essay?
Yes I am saying they were made up entirely—in fact it was Ryan grim who reported eventually about it being made up. The issue is it took him two months to do so. That interaction never happened at all. The story never changed from me. I was always a volunteer in the campaign who saw this happen. For the sake of the lawsuit I was called a representative but FEC records can verify that I was never paid. I was simply someone who was there and saw it and had experience. I was acting professionally and with my values because I never would smear a sexual assault survivor. Never in my life. Yet, this woman was lying. I watched a group of people fabricate the story. He waited to file the lawsuit because he thought that the paper would correct it before it came to that but they did not. We were hoping people would act ethically, but they did not. And he didn’t sue croydon because she is a professional liar as exposed by many articles out there. Anyone can post anything online. She never filed a police report or anything like that. She was just lying. That is not really something you can sue someone over, unfortunately.
Actually you can sue someone for lying about you if it is false and if it damages you. That is the very definition of libel -- making false statements about someone that the accuser knows will be damaging.
If Grim did wait to correct the record, and indeed was the one who actually broke the story of the claims being false, then I don't see what your complaint is except that he failed to do so in what you consider to be a timely manner.
No, the law is a lot more complicated than that especially if someone is a candidate for office, and it is a private citizen. I kinda have a degree in this subject. It might be wrong, but you won’t win in court—as was proven. And the complaint is that Grim never should have let that story come out in the first place. Again this is ethics. The law…different story.
If this were a white man, they would not have run it at all. That is the point. He did one good thing in admitting it was wrong. But the damage was already out there. It was too little too late. It is not breaking a law but it is racism.
Not to mention Croydon has been doing this for years. It was not really an issue until press picked it up. That was the damaging point. Her lying on line was not doing any real damage. She had no following or platform which also would have affected a lawsuit.
A professional reporter would never have run the story in the first place. That is the racism element. It didn’t meet the ethical standards that I have seen in any other case of this nature I have worked on with a white man.
From casetext of suit: "Approximately ten minutes after the First Article was published online, SBCC representative Patricia Brooks emailed Mr. Garofoli, offering to connect the San Francisco Chronicle with 'some people who can speak about [Mr. Buttar's] character and other claims [Ms. Croydon] has made in the past that are false-including one who alleges that she also made false claims about her husband.'"
"The next morning, on July 22, 2020, Ms. Brooks emailed Mr. Garofoli asserting that 'Ms. Croydon's allegations about Mr. Buttar were false,' and that 'a number of voices had been left out' from the First Article. The email thanked Mr. Garofoli for his coverage and suggested that 'there is a lot more to this story that we think will be illuminating, and we want to make sure Shahid's full thoughts are addressed and his position is heard'."
So you are saying now that the claims were made up from whole cloth and that there was never any unpleasant interaction between Mr. Buttar and Ms. Croydon? If that was the case why did Mr. Buttar wait until 2023 to file his suit? Why didn't he sue her from the get-go when she first published the accusations in an essay?
Yes I am saying they were made up entirely—in fact it was Ryan grim who reported eventually about it being made up. The issue is it took him two months to do so. That interaction never happened at all. The story never changed from me. I was always a volunteer in the campaign who saw this happen. For the sake of the lawsuit I was called a representative but FEC records can verify that I was never paid. I was simply someone who was there and saw it and had experience. I was acting professionally and with my values because I never would smear a sexual assault survivor. Never in my life. Yet, this woman was lying. I watched a group of people fabricate the story. He waited to file the lawsuit because he thought that the paper would correct it before it came to that but they did not. We were hoping people would act ethically, but they did not. And he didn’t sue croydon because she is a professional liar as exposed by many articles out there. Anyone can post anything online. She never filed a police report or anything like that. She was just lying. That is not really something you can sue someone over, unfortunately.
Actually you can sue someone for lying about you if it is false and if it damages you. That is the very definition of libel -- making false statements about someone that the accuser knows will be damaging.
If Grim did wait to correct the record, and indeed was the one who actually broke the story of the claims being false, then I don't see what your complaint is except that he failed to do so in what you consider to be a timely manner.
No, the law is a lot more complicated than that especially if someone is a candidate for office, and it is a private citizen. I kinda have a degree in this subject. It might be wrong, but you won’t win in court—as was proven. And the complaint is that Grim never should have let that story come out in the first place. Again this is ethics. The law…different story.
If this were a white man, they would not have run it at all. That is the point. He did one good thing in admitting it was wrong. But the damage was already out there. It was too little too late. It is not breaking a law but it is racism.
Not to mention Croydon has been doing this for years. It was not really an issue until press picked it up. That was the damaging point. Her lying on line was not doing any real damage. She had no following or platform which also would have affected a lawsuit.
A professional reporter would never have run the story in the first place. That is the racism element. It didn’t meet the ethical standards that I have seen in any other case of this nature I have worked on with a white man.