Kash Patel, the former Deputy National Security Advisor, and the Kash Foundation won a significant legal victory against blogger Jim Stewartson in a defamation lawsuit. On Aug. 5, 2023, U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon of the District of Nevada in Las Vegas took an important step. He issued a default judgment against Patel and his foundation after Stewartson did not answer the court filings.
The lawsuit stemmed from a series of social media posts and comments posted by Stewartson. These pronouncements were ruled defamatory against Patel. Consequently, compensatory and punitive damages total $250,000, which the court awarded. The Court’s ruling emphasized that Stewartson’s comments amounted to a personal, premeditated assault on Patel. These comments were damaging to Patel’s reputation and business interest as well.
Judge Gordon also acknowledged that Patel’s legal team had very strong evidence. This evidence was more than enough to prove that Stewartson acted with malice in making the defamatory statements. The judge found sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. This decision followed the realization that Stewartson had never responded to the lawsuit.
Stewartson asserted that he just found out about the suit a short time ago. “Be advised that I was never served with this lawsuit. I only learned about the judgment from Twitter trolls last week. However, Patel’s attorneys argued that service was completed in late October 2023 when a person at Stewartson’s home accepted a copy of the complaint.
The lawsuit claimed $10 million in damages for defamation, injurious falsehood and business disparagement. Judge Gordon concluded that punitive damages were warranted. This ruling will help discourage Stewartson and others from pursuing similar defamatory behavior in the future.
As you can see, Judge Gordon issued his ruling in plain English. He pointed out that criticism and opinion based in fact of public figures are protected, but false defamatory statements made with actual malice are not. He stated, “Falsely stating as fact that a public figure ‘attempted to overthrow the government,’ planned the January 6 insurrection, was a ‘Kremlin asset,’ and paid people to ‘lie to Congress’… inflicts real injuries, personally and professionally.”
The judge further remarked on the impact of Stewartson’s comments, saying they clearly had a damaging effect on Patel’s reputation. He knew that there was a humongous absence of hard, tangible proof. Without establishment of actual injury or damages other than that which can be presumed from the defamation per se, neither plaintiff meets either requirement.
Stewartston responded to the ruling by labeling the lawsuit “absurd” and “ridiculous.” He’s going to sue Patel and the Kash Foundation, claiming that they led a years-long campaign of harassment against him.
“It is a preposterous, frivolous lawsuit and neither of them will receive a dime,” – Jim Stewartson.
Judge Gordon granted financial damages. He further complained that at least seven donors withdrew their support for the Kash Foundation in response to Stewartson’s false and defamatory remarks. This withdrawal of fiduciary support was found to be a credible measure of damage in the lawsuit.
With each step of the legal process, new information is emerging, painting a clearer picture. This ruling underscores the intricacies of defamation laws, particularly when it comes to public figures. The interplay between unfettered free speech and a more civil discourse remains foundational to today’s legal conversations.