Shirley Teter Sued Project Veritas, Lost, and is Ordered to Pay Veritas’ Expenses
• Shirley Teter, who sued Project Veritas for defamation stemming from a 2016 investigation into political organization, Democracy Partners, has been ordered by a federal judge to pay for the non-profit journalist organization’s legal expenses.
• Teter, who was represented by a cadre of experienced lawyers from around the country, claimed that she was “indigent” and therefore should not have to cover Project Veritas’ legal expenses.
• But last week, U.S. District Judge Martin Reidinger ordered Teter pay for Project Veritas’ expenses calling her claim “so weak that it did not survive a motion to dismiss.”
• Judge Reidinger also noted that Teter “was represented by six attorneys in this matter, all of whom were from outside of this district, and one of whom was from out of state.” That was inconsistent with the claim that Teter was “indigent and therefore cannot pay the costs of litigation herself.”
[ASHVILLE, NC – Apr. 5, 2022] Shirley Teter, a woman who sued Project Veritas for defamation because of a bombshell investigation into the political action group, Democracy Partners, has been ordered by a federal judge to pay Project Veritas’ legal expenses.
The order is a reversal of a previous decision by a court clerk who accepted Teter’s claim that she was “indigent” and therefore incapable of covering the legal costs Project Veritas incurred for defending itself against her defamation suit.
Democracy Partners was exposed by Project Veritas Action Fund for promoting violence at Trump rallies in 2016 and has been seeking revenge through litigation ever since.
U.S. District Judge, Martin Reidinger, overruled that decision saying Teter’s claim was “so weak that it did not survive a motion to dismiss.” Judge Reidinger also noted that Teter “was represented by six attorneys in this matter, all of whom were from outside of this district, and one of whom was from out of state.” That was inconsistent with the claim that Teter was “indigent and therefore cannot pay the costs of litigation herself.”
The Judge also expressed bewilderment over why a baseless lawsuit was brought by several “pro bono” attorneys from around the country, one of whom was quick to protest, without being asked, “we’re not paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign or by the Democratic party or anything like that.”
“Mr. Sasser only raised more questions by his unsolicited statement specifically disclaiming that the lawsuit was being funded by the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party,” said Judge Reidinger.
“Mr. Sasser’s rush to assure the Court that certain political organizations are not involved begs the question of whether some other organization was involved,” he added.
Teter will have to pay just under sixteen thousand dollars.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.