On December 2nd, Hal Neilson has filed suit against Tom Dawson, Alan Lange, and their publisher, Pediment Publishing in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County here in Oxford. Patsy Brumfield reported this first. She had just reported in today’s paper that the federal prosecutors in Neilson’s case had decided to dismiss the remaining three counts with the lead prosecutor stating that “a re-examination of the case, in preparation for a retrial, showed the U.S. ‘that it now cannot meet its burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
The suit Neilson filed alleges that that, when Neilson was Supervising Agent for the FBI in Oxford,
after September 11, 2001, [Neilson] began to recieve complaints from agents under his supervision concerning the actions of the United States Attoreney’s offfice, and particularly, Assistant United States Attorney Tom Dawson. These complaints centered around the practices of Mr. Dawson and his office with regard to grand jury subpoenas. Particlarly agents with the FBI felt that Mr. Dawson was misusing the power of the grand jury to obtain private and priveleged information about citizens of the Northern District of Mississippi who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent.
The complaint alleges Neilson invesigated this and cnoferred with agents, “which led him to file a complaint against Mr. Dawson and his office for their misuse of the Grand Jury process as well as their abuse of power. ” Neilson was told the complaint was “deemed unsubstantiated by the Depoartment of Justice.” The complaint alleges he was acting in good faith, but, despite this, “Dawson became outraged and personally offended by the actions of” Neilson and, with Jim Greenlee and others “set out to destroy Neilon through whatever means available. These means include the falsehoods contained in” Dawson and Lange’s book, Kings of Tort.
The complaint alleges that the book contains statements none to be false by at least one defendant, specifically by claiming “Neilson was untrustworthy” and that Dawson, “with two co-conspirators, Jim Greenlee and John Hailman, conspired to have Neilson removed from an important case due to his trustworthiness.”
Apparently, this civil complaint has unindicted, I mean unsued coconspirators.
It then alleges that when the book was published, Dawson “was well aware… his complaints, as well as those of his co-conspirators Greenlee and Hailman, had been deemed unfounded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after a thorough investigation.” (Surely this isn’t a reference to the just-dismissed indictment?)
It alleges that Dawson knew that Greenlee had “authorized government employees to research the personal life of Plaintiff Neilson in order to find ‘something’ with which to attack Plaintiff Neilson. Defendant Dawson also knew that at least one prosecution … had been undertaken with the purpose of gathering information on Plaintiff Neilson.” It alleges Lange knew or should have known becasue he was in cose contact with Dawson “during Dawson’s tenure as an employee” in the US Attorney’s office “(regular and contract employee) at a time when the two of them were discussing the book.”
It alleges claims for defamation and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Here’s a copy of the complaint
Notwithstanding the facts of the case, there are two sides to every story but, I was wondering, does this complaint have a legal basis in Mississippi, meaning, does he have a chance to win this thing and actually receive some monetary damages?
Whatever, that’s my question as well. What damage could he possibly recover? How would that be calculated.
If someones opinion is that a person is not trustworthy and passes that on to others are they liable?
Does anyone have any quotes from the book that bad mouth Neilson?
Reminds me of the Duke lacrosse debacle. Extremely poor judgment by prosecutor, who must be one big dumb rat (in my opinion). State’s case in chief had no merit. Dismissal of criminal charges against defendants. Proceedings lodged against dumb rat prosecutor (IMO). Prosecutor subsequently removed from office and disbarred. Civil action filed against prosecutor for abuse of prosecutorial discretion or abuse of process … something like that.
This thing might gain a little traction before its over.
ON A RELATED note, in Thursday’s (Dec. 9) USA Today there is an interesting article about the failure of DOJ to discipline DOJ attorneys who are guilty of misconduct. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-12-08-prosecutor_N.htm
The article focuses on the ones who got caught and aren’t punished. What the article doesn’t discus is the legal thuggery employed daily by DOJ attorneys that never gets caught, or the regular abuses engaged in by DOJ attorneys (such as misrepresenting evidence, presenting outright lies in appellate briefs, etc., etc., ad nauseam).
I know most (all?) of the people who read this blog will disagree with this, but I long ago understood the value and wisdom of ELECTING judges and prosecutors. Yes, there are obvious problems and abuses in electing such officials, but the ballot box also provides a remedy. Civil service protected bureaucrats have almost no accountability whatsoever. However, if their boss was up for re-election every four years, they might be a little more sensitive and conscientious – and certainly could be fired if they served at the will and pleasure of an elected official.
a bit off topic, but have any of you heard any details about a retired FBI agent that testified against Neilson and in such testimony allegedly admitted that he forged signatures of the SAC of the Jackson FBI office? If this is true, did the government immunize him or what may happen to him? the whole federal crew seemingly was a cesspool.
the whole federal crew seemingly was a cesspool.
No … I know two or three exceptions … but as for the rest, your cesspool metaphor works perfectly.
Yes, there are obvious problems and abuses in electing such officials, but the ballot box also provides a remedy.
The vote provides no real remedy, unless the official has the imprudence to annoy someone famous or wealthy. The public doesn’t care that the official tramples the rights of the poor or obscure; hell, they may cheer him on.
DOJ’s failure to police itself suggests the need for some sort of independent watchdog who can bring charges vs. agents, but that will take an act of Congress, and even then may not work.
I mean, hell: torture is as illegal as anything, and we can’t get the feds to prosecute their own for torturing people. So why would we expect the rule of law to kick in just because some prosecutors withheld evidence or lied to the court?
When the rule of law goes down, it goes down. When one law can be ignored, all the laws can be ignored.
That’s a nice counterpunch.
I wonder Lange and Dawson’s homeowner’s policies cover libel.
I would assume that Mr. Dawson and/or his publisher have adequate insurance coverage.
After the lawyers for both sides have billed enough hours to pay for their kids’ braces or their wife’s boob job, the case will most likely settle and go away.
Nothing to see here-move along.
http://www.writersdigest.com/article/Do_You_Need_Liability_Insurance/
WS
Saying you believe someone is untrustworthy is a statement of opinion which generally is not actionable in my opinion. If Lange lived in Hinds County should have filed there verdicts are easier to come by and larger than Lafayette County with a Juror pool far less trusting of government in my “opinion” so I won’t get sued.
Yes indeedy, all of that is true, but won’t the depositions be fun.
I think Neilson’s presence here in Oxford and his support network here may be part of why-here, Tim, although I’m not sure how much that will matter, and will be slightly surprised if this survives summary judgment.
And rogerwilco: Yep. The discovery will be interesting.