A provocative case — Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter et al. — is under way against former president Carter for his analysis (if that is the right word) of the Israel-Palestine crisis, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The Washington Post reports that five dissatisfied customers, to put it mildly, have filed a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against Carter and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, alleging that the 2006 book ought to have been classified as a work of fiction. So long as it enjoys status as nonfiction, however, its “numerous false and knowingly misleading statements” can only be pressed into the service of “the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda.” The plaintiffs hold that this effort constitutes willful deception of “the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.” As a result of this alleged violation of New York consumer-protection laws, they are seeking at least $5 million in restitution. No response has been forthcoming from the former president.
Correction: This post originally carried the title “President Carter Officially Charged with Fraud.” The mistake has since been changed. The fault is my own.
Having someone file a lawsuit against you is very different from being charged with fraud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI ain't a lawyer, but satisfying as this may be, it sounds asinine to me. The principal alleged--that it's "fraud" to publish a mistaken book and call it "non-fiction"--would be very dangerous to freedom of expression, and could be used against lots of more worthy books. (How many lawyers would be eager to produce a row of scholars who would testify, say, that fascism is inherently conservative, and thus that "Liberal Fascism" is a fraudulent book?)
When someone cites Carter's "P:PnA", it tells the reader exactly what he needs to know: that in Jimmy Carter's opinion, the situation is X and the best approach is Y. The reader can make of it what he will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrian Stewart is presenting this without comment for a reason. If he noted how silly this is, there would be no point in posting this at all. But he can't defend it so he did not try. This is one of the slimier blogger moves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd like him to remunerate me for the irreparable harm four years of his administration did to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with 'shoutingboy but s t i l l...I can dream
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis lawsuit appears to fall into the accurate, but frivolous category.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet the First Peanut answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it too late to sue him for impersonating a President? Even if we can't collect damages, it might make a nice precendent to use against Obama when he leaves office. ;-)
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone's having a good laugh at this story, but look at the headline of the post: "President Carter Officially Sued for Fraud." Brian Stewart never suggests he supports this or gives it any credibility, but he doesn't seem to mind if you do.
This is the Glenn Beck method of posting. Introduce crazy nonsense that only an idiot might take seriously, and don't let on that you know it's B.S.
Just because only an idiot would buy this doesn't make it ok, there are plenty of idiots out there. Tomorrow at work someone is going to say "did you hear Jimmy Carter is getting sued for fraud?"
This is really indefensible for any magazine or blog that expects to be taken seriously. And spare me the "lighten up" remarks, some people will believe this garbage, and that apparently, is the point of it. That's not comedy, it's lying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an abuse of the court system. Their complaint will be dismissed. The lawyers will be lucky not to be sanctioned; if I were the judge, they would be.
So say I as a staunch conservative who voted twice against Jimmy Carter and who's practiced commercial law, including the law of fraud, for 30+ years.
Critics of liberal judicial activism lose credibility if they fail to acknowledge this sort of misuse of the judicial system from the conservative side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but the statute of limitations on poor taste in cardigans and utter fecklessness has long since run out. Not even the Iran hostages have standing anymore.
Sorry, that should have been @JD.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Stewart, your description of this litigation as merely "provocative" frankly does National Review no glory either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason: "'President Carter Officially Sued for Fraud.' Brian Stewart never suggests he supports this or gives it any credibility, but he doesn't seem to mind if you do... ... That's not comedy, it's lying." Stewart sumarizes an article *which he links to* so that readers can get the full version. He bases his headline on a statement made by the plaintiffs and *quoted in the article*. (Which you appear not to have read.) "The lawsuit will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter's book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this *FRAUD* on the public. He is entitled to his opinions but deceptions and lies have no place in works of history." (Emphasis added) Where, exactly, is the "lie"? Where is the "BS"? (I mean in *Stewart's* post. I have no trouble finding it in yours.) Regards, Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeave it Jason, the dumbest liberal commenter around here, to get lathered up like a baboon over such an innocuous post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Jason, lighten up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Restitution," by the way, is a legal term of art, but it basically involves RESTORING something. Unless Carter TOOK $5 million from the plaintiffs, he can hardly "restore" $5 million to them.
Every single crank lawsuit that has ever been filed is just as "official" as this one. The headline is misleading. There, now Brian Steward has been "officially charged" [by me] with disception. Can I get $5 million, please?
There's no legal duty to tell the truth in books, just like there's no generalized legal duty to be good or to refrain from lying.
Carter's lawyers probably won't plead the most appropriate defense -- that anyone who's stupid enough to believe Jimmy Carter is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Yes, that's a joke, but only sorta. There may be legitimate grounds to question the legal competency of anyone who wants a society where judges -- including those appointed by, yes, Jimmy Carter -- get to police the truthfulness of every public statement by every author or speaker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason has a hair trigger on taking offense. Relax. The lawsuit was filed and Brian posted that it was filed and gave a brief summary. Yes the lawsuit is silly. But there is more than a little irony and humor in JC being sued for his slanderous book. Jason's criticism of Mr. Stewart is without merit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would have to see NRO become like dKos, where stuff is "disappeared down the memory hole" on a routine basis whenever it becomes embarrassing.
Own your mistakes. Correct them publicly. Learn from them -- not because you'll be sued if you don't, but because it's the ethical thing to do and the standard of honesty we expect from National Review and those it privileges to write for it, even online.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(Excuse the typo -- meant "hate to see NRO become like dKos.")
(There, see how I owned that?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse