Allred Appears To Threaten Defamation Action In Moore Controversy

downloadAfter an appalling performance during the election that handed Roy Moore a desperately needed claim of misrepresentation by an alleged victim, attorney Gloria Allred appeared on CNN for a victory lap — an interview that only briefly touched on the debacle over her press conference with Beverly Young Nelson.  Allred ignored the fact that Jones won despite her blundering during the campaign.  Putting aside the obvious lack of responsibility, Allred did agree with Nelson that this is not over because there is still the matter of defamation to address on behalf of Nelson. That sounds like a threat of a Nelson defamation action, which is precisely what my column today is calling for.  Let’s find out who is lying in Alabama.  Both Moore and Nelson should stop threatening lawsuit and actually sue.

I have been critical of the representation afforded by Gloria Allred and her daughter Lisa Bloom in past cases, including the rapid calling of press conferences at the height of news cycles, including her handling of the Nelson allegations.  Allred’s defense of her client on the charge has been so anemic and uncertain that many have taken it as a concession.  Allred’s eagerness to hold press conferences gave Moore exactly what he hoped to find: a basis for challenging the veracity of his accusers.  After numerous evasive interviews that played into Moore’s hand, Allred called another press event and admitted that Nelson did indeed write some of the words attributed to Moore in the yearbook.  Now Moore can go into the final stretch of the election claiming that the victim’s evidence was not what she had claimed.  It would have been better to have admitted this weeks ago, but Allred waited for the Friday before the election to bury her own gross negligence in the news cycle. This does not alter my view that the allegations against Moore are credible and disqualifying (including another witness who came forward this week), but rather than the blunder played into the hands of those who are struggling to ignore the moral hazard that is Roy Moore.

Beverly Young Nelson admitted that she added “notes” beneath Roy Moore’s signature in her high school yearbook. She says that she wrote “12-22-77 Olde Hickory House.”  However, in the press conference with Allred in November, she knowingly misrepresented the facts about Moore writing all of these words.  She stated: “He wrote in my yearbook as follows: ‘To a sweeter more beautiful girl, I could not say Merry Christmas, Christmas, 1977, Love, Roy Moore, Olde Hickory House. Roy Moore, DA.'”

Allred sat there and did not say a thing.  She also remained silent about any knowledge during interviews in the days to come — without confirming forgery or denying it. The interviews with Allred were eagerly replayed by Moore supporters.

Either Allred never bothered to confirm that facts before taking her client into a national press conference or she played an active role in a misrepresentation to the media. Either way, she has again failed to meet the minimal standard for professional conduct.  This is ultimately a question of due diligence.

Now Allred is threatening defamation.  She is demanding that Nelson be given back her reputation.  That is understandable since Moore called her a liar.  Time to make good on the press threats and actually file against Moore.  We can then have both sides subjected to depositions and discovery in the civil litigation system.

68 thoughts on “Allred Appears To Threaten Defamation Action In Moore Controversy”

  1. Im wondering where all these women have been for the past 40 years. He has been a public official for a long time. Why is it that no one has accused him before? Just seems fishy to me.

  2. Allred tops Turley’s posts for the day. Meanwhile the ABA unanimously rated Trump’s nominee for U.S. District Court “unqualified”. The guy, Brett Talley, reportedly had 3 years in law practice and had never tried a case. That reflects how much respect Trump has for the law. Media reported today that Talley withdrew his name, after overwhelming objection to his appointment.

  3. 1. Moore’s suit is based on a final vote count and the possibility of change
    2. Jones suit is based on a final vote count and defending it as is
    3. All REDs suit is based on greed and personal wealth being increased plus whatever on the side is coming from the Socialist Progressive camp.
    4. The All Red interest was mooted when the voters acting as a jury and judge failed to convict by a 39% margin of the 86 percent required.

  4. Predictions:

    No criminal charges will ever be filed agaisnt Judge Roy Moore.

    No civil suit will ever be filed against Judge Roy Moore.

    1. George,
      ..- I think your predictions are accurate, but incomplete.
      #3 No civil suit will be ever be filed BY Judge Moore.

  5. Maybe she didn’t know at the time. Anyway, Alabama has redeemed itself, saying to Moore: ” ____you and the horse you rode in on.” Literally.

    1. I’m happy to agree with you on this one. Roy Moore and his wife are both lazy, stupid, ignorant, lying, Zionist quasi-Christian evangelical pigs.

    2. Nutchacha,

      Less than 1 per cent of the vote in Alabama was corrupted at the last minute in the final reporting district by the liberal commucrat “swamp” and their global allies, just like when the corrupt liberal commucrats and their global allies installed Obergruppenführer Mueller of the SS (Swamp Society) to create false charges and begin a phantom “investigation of nothing” against a duly elected President as part of its coup d’etat in America. You know, the American Founders as Colonists didn’t know if they were going to win their war against Great Britain. Time will tell if your communist dictatorship will survive in America.

        1. You just got called a socialist fascist in not very polite but very accurate terms. Or more correctly You as a phony name for The Collective pre programmed for and by The Party got exposed. Nothing new there.

    3. Not really they failed to convict by a very wide margin and the big deal win was one per cent.That’s a C Minus grade or considering it wasn’t a majority maybe a D+

  6. Now that Moore has lost, my bet is that Nelson et al will quickly fade away. Their job is done.
    And the Dems now have a sure-fire strategy for the mid-terms.

    1. What strategy is that How many special elections how many did they win by significant margin and what’s the chances of getting a fluke assist again. More likely other States will take notice and correct the situation . and FFA you are dumber than a rock just as you were in the other blog.

      1. The strategy of bringing up accusations of bad behavior WAY in the past right before an election (special or otherwise). Too late to prove or refute.
        What situation will other States correct?
        Who is FFA?
        What other blog?

        This is addressed to the back half of a parenthesis.

    2. They used basically same strategy for Presidential election (old NBC recordings w/ Billy Bush). So now they are 1-1-0 Will voters buy same story, next time? And is the MSM complicit w/ their coverage? (Not defending Moore here. It was different time and very different world 40 yrs. ago in So. That being said, I sure hope to heck he did do some of the things he’s been accused of because I hate to see so many voters so totally snowed by a staged political lie.

  7. A defamation suit isn’t going to solve anything, or prove anything. It is a he said-she said thing from over 40 years ago. Any trial would simply be the result of the opinion of the jury. There is no other evidence of consequence.

    What is this silly fascination with defamation suits???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Because the truth matters, even 40 years later. If she didn’t lie, she shouldn’t be called a liar by Moore.

      1. You aren’t going to know the truth on this, one way or the other. All you will have is people throwing manure at each other. There isn’t much else in the way of evidence.

        In effect, both people are calling each other liars. We should all spend our time on better things than poop flinging.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. How do you know what evidence there is Squeeky? In a court of law, you may be surprised what you’ll find. Let it play out and we’ll all see.

          1. Because, if there was any evidence, we would already have seen it. Plus, I was born in 1984, sooo I can’t be sure, but I don’t think there were VCRs back in 1977. I guess they could have made an 8mm home movie of the alleged encounter. Sans that, there ain’t nothing but 99% he said-she said.

            Perhaps you could enlighten us with what evidence you think could be provided.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Oh, Squeaky. Yes, there were video cameras in 1977. They were large and clunky and expensive and almost no one had one. Here, there is still a lot of circumstantial evidence to prove, at the very least, that Roy Moore and Ms. Nelson were acquainted. If a jury agrees, Moore is lying when he claims he did not know her. And, he already contradicted himself on this very point. But what are her damages? Has she suffered professionally because of his defamation? Emotionally? I doubt that it would be worth her time to sue, and bet Judge Moore would soon declare bankruptcy even if she sued and won. Sadly, some pedophile proponents will claim this proves she lied. Sigh.

              1. Your comment exemplifies the problem w/ a “movement” that has been sucking the air out of the room…at least until some other type of scandal hits the Internet, goes viral and people choose the version and the source of information they choose to believe.

                Calling anyone who doesn’t believe the accusations “a pedophile proponent” does not earn you credibility. Sadly, such knee-jerk response to denounce anyone who has different opinion typifies the times we live in. Absent a thorough investigation and due process, it is a he-said/she-said. You can choose to believe one or the other, but that doesn’t mean you are on the side of truth.

        2. “We should all spend our time on better things than poop flinging”.
          There is a 200+ year history of poop flinging in American politics.
          I thought that you had a bit more respect for American traditions, Squeeky. 😉

      2. She had her day in court and lost by a very wide margin which requires five of six juorors agreeing under the Alabama system. She didn’t even get half the over one million jury of peers. So he shouldn’t be called anything by the likes of an outsider like you.

      1. Squeeky’s right. The courts have better things to do than judge a poop-flinging contest. The election is over. Nothing more to see, folks. There will be another poop-flinger in a few years. Until then, try to do something useful with your time.

  8. Moore should sue Allred. Not for defamation but for having the ugliest photo on the planet. We are all offended so it should be a class action suit.

    1. Liberty Second – since there is the element of forgery involved, I do think Allred would be at risk for a defamation suit even in CA, but he should sue in AL, in federal court since she used national TV to announce his supposed crime. Or maybe a neutral state, like AZ. Still in the Ninth District, but we have a few conservative judges.

      1. What did Allred know, and when did she know it. How do you prove that? She is only required to do a reasonable investigation of her client’s claims, and if the client told her the entire inscription including place and date were in Roy Moore’s handwriting, you’ve got nothing. Nothing except misogyny, anyway.

        1. Laura Stark – once Allred repeated the entire script from the yearbook, she was part of the forgery. She said it was all Moore’s work. Done and dusted.

  9. This is a good thing for Ms. Nelson to do. She and another accuser have said they would testify under oath. before the election.

    Yes, this should happen. (I think Ms. Nelson should get rid of Allred and get a competent attorney who is not a grandstander. She needs someone who is on her side and whose sole aim is her representation, not self gloriafication.)

    1. Nice but not one law enforcement officer local to federal, not one DA, AG or judicial circuit judge found enough merit in the allegation to take it that far. NOT ONE! The voters acting as an impromptu jury agreed and went on to important issues.

      1. That isn’t unusual at all. Think pedophile priests. There was tons of evidence in the hands of police but the perps were protected by law enforcement.

        Let things proceed. You and Squeeky seem to think evidence of sexual abuse of children comes out right away. That just isn’t true. That’s not opinion. You can look at myriad cases of pedophiles getting away with what they did for 20, 30 or 40+ years. Look it up! Statues of limitations have been changed in recognition of this.

  10. The truth IS a defense. Moore should file his defamation lawsuit. Cross examination of these women is well overdue.

  11. I’m not a lawyer. But Turley is. And Turley seems to be suggesting that misrepresentation at a press conference carries some sort of legal jeopardy. Well . . . Does it, Professor?

    Suppose that Beverly Young Nelson added the date, 12-22-’77, and the place name, Olde Hickory House, underneath Moore’s signed inscription in her yearbook shortly after Moore’s alleged sexual assault of Nelson; which, according to Nelson, took place several days after Moore inscribed and signed her yearbook. The misrepresentation at the press conference, then, would be the implication that Moore had added the date, 12-22-’77, and the place name, Olde Hickory House, rather than Nelson having added those notes.

    Surely Turley is not suggesting that the misrepresentation occurred when Nelson added those notes to her own yearbook. Is he? How exactly would the date and the place name considered separately from the signed yearbook inscription constitute defamation of Roy Moore’s character? Either Roy Moore wrote and signed the yearbook inscription or he didn’t. Adding the date and the place name doesn’t change the outcome from that disjunction. So how would Nelson’s statement at the press conference change the outcome from that same disjunction? Either Moore wrote and signed the yearbook inscription or he didn’t.

    Implying at a press conference that Moore added the date and the place name at the same time that he wrote and signed the yearbook inscription does not change the nature and extent of the purported defamation of Moore’s character.

    1. Please, ask yourself a very simple set of questions. If you did so, the answers to such questions–or, should I say, the HONEST AND TRUTHFUL responses to such questions–would convince you that Ms. Nelson is, in fact, a liar. She is an admitted liar regarding the actual penned words in the yearbook, and she is, most probably, not being truthful about her alleged attack and/or assault by Moore. It’s quite simple–why would anyone, claiming to have been victimized or assaulted, by Moore, find it necessary, after such an attack and/or assault, to write descriptive words about this purported monster? Does that make any sort of sense to you? Be honest, for once. Would you, personally, need to write additional information after your abuser/molester, in a yearbook, in order to fondly remember him? That’s not the normal behavior of some traumatized teen. Would you require supplemental information, in a yearbook, so that you could recall the identity of said abuser/molester, including the time and place of his purported signature? The whole story makes no sense. Unfortunately, attacks and abuse–legitimate attacks and abuse–are often seared into the minds of the traumatized victims, where there is no need to describe the assailant’s job title or the place where the assailant signed the yearbook. Those memories are, often, haunting. Nelson has never claimed to have blocked her encounter/encounters from her mind. While you will, most probably, drum up some sort of fantastical response, which makes it plausible for the purported victim to have added such words after her abuser’s inscription, the bottom line is that such behavior is inconsistent with the actions of a true victim. I think that you know that, but you have managed to dig your heels in, so deep, believing Nelson, that any attempt, to view the facts logically, has, long-ago, ceased to exist.

      1. I am guessing that you are not a psychologist. As such, your opinion of what a traumatized teen would or would not do is irrelevant. Nelson may well have been enthralled by Roy Moore, and may not have felt traumatized at all as a teenager garnering attention from a District Attorney. In fact, it now makes no difference whether or not she was traumatized. If her allegations are true, as most believe they are, Moore was an adult in a position of authority who abused his power. The basis of the legal claim now is defamation, not sexual assault.

          1. Something ;you never bother to supply as I recall. You can’t cite something that doesn’t and never existed and the requirement under law is five out of six. “Most” does not qualify. You were not a good objectivist either come to think of it.

        1. My areas of expertise are unknown to you. As such, it is irresponsible for you to guess and claim what I know or don’t know. You are clueless, as many of your comments on this thread indicate.

    2. To constitute forgery, the forged writing must be “material.” Was adding a date and place material, when the veracity of the signature could be proved by comparing it to his other signatures? I don’t see that the place adds much, perhaps the date, though. But my problem with her added writings constituting a legally actionable forgery is that she didn’t make any effort, at the time of the writing, to make it appear as part of Moore’s inscription. It is quite obvious to even a casual observer, that the handwriting and ink is different. There was no intent, at the time of the writing, to copy Moore’s handwriting or use the same ink. Thus there was no intent, at the time of the writing, to pass off her writing as his. What she claimed the writing represented, 40 years after the fact, doesn’t matter in establishing the elements of forgery. Plus there is the statute of limitations – usually five years on forgery.

      1. TIN – since Nelson and Allred both attested that all the writing in the yearbook was by Moore, and actually read it out, they are liable for forgery. Had Nelson not said anything, so would be okay, but she claimed that all the writing, including that she did herself was Moore’s.. That is a forgery for both Nelson and Allred according to the statutes of CA.

        One of the problems with ink on slick paper is that it doesn’t dry fast, it doesn’t soak in. We don’t know when Nelson added the additional notations. As far as we know it could have been a couple of months ago, which is why I was pushing for an independent document examiner to look at the yearbook. They needed to examine the ink.

      2. TIN said, “To constitute forgery, the forged writing must be “material.” Was adding a date and place material, when the veracity of the signature could be proved by comparing it to his other signatures? I don’t see that the place adds much, perhaps the date, though. But my problem with her added writings constituting a legally actionable forgery is that she didn’t make any effort, at the time of the writing, to make it appear as part of Moore’s inscription.”

        Thanks TIN. I appreciate it. IMO, the veracity of the inscription and the signature is the main issue with respect to legal jeopardy for Beverly Young Nelson. Either Moore wrote and signed Nelson’s yearbook inscription or he didn’t. There may be a question as to exactly when Nelson added the date and the place name to her own yearbook. One may reasonably presume that “something” must have motivated Nelson to add those notes. Since I already believe Nelson’s allegation that Moore sexually assaulted her several days after she says that he wrote and signed her yearbook, I’m already inclined to take Nelson’s word for what motivated her to add those notes. However, unless I’m mistaken, Nelson didn’t say exactly when she added those notes. It could be a minor detail. Or not. But the dilemma for Moore remains the same: Either Moore knows that he wrote and signed Nelson’s yearbook inscription or he knows that he didn’t.

  12. Why would the California bar take any action against her? They’re probably left wing opportunist just like her. Remember this is California we’re tlkig about here.

  13. Allred knows she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She is a public figure, she has made herself a public figure and she aided and abetted a forger and actually could be considered a forger herself. The State Bar of CA should be looking into her activities as we speak. And Nelson should get a refund on her money, she was poorly represented.

    How can you defame someone who is the laughing stock of half the nation? Does she actually have people who look up to her? I wouldn’t think so. No good attorney would hire Allred to defend them.

    1. Perhaps you should read the Rules of Professional Conduct before you make such bold statements.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks