MAGA is fighting the mob and so are we…but we need your help. Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or simply give the gift of Revolver select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. meIf you want to give more during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation donation — Whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes into the battle to save our great nation.
Last week Ray Epps presented one defamation claim against Fox News for its coverage of Epps’ involvement in the January 6. The allegedly defamatory content in question relates to reports by Tucker Carlson and Darren Beattie of Revolver News that appeared on Fox News suggesting that Ray Epps may have been directly or indirectly a US government asset, colloquially, that Ray Epps may be a “fed”.
As it turns out, a little-known song by the late rap legend Tupac Shakur holds the key to why Epps’ legal theory doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Warning: explicit lyrics:
What, you may ask, is the connection between the blasphemous ’90s rap song and Ray Epps’ legal scare tactics against Fox News, Tucker Carlson and yours truly, Revolver News? All will be revealed, but first, we ask the reader to indulge us with a little table to provide proper context.
The US government has a long and storied history of using agent provocateurs in similar contexts. Epps’ behavior on January 5 and 6 was considered so egregious that he was one of the first twenty people the FBI placed on its January 6 Most Wanted list. Epps had previously served as head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, the most demonized and heavily prosecuted militia group associated with January 6 (whose vice president was announced as an FBI informant). Epps is the only person caught on camera, as early as the 5th, wearing a Trump hat and camo, repeatedly exhorting the crowd around him to go “INTRO” to the Capitol, and prefacing each exhortation with the expectation that they probably “I would go to jail.” ” and “being arrested” for this incitement.
But Epps was not arrested. The DOJ was foaming at the mouth so people could make an example, and for whatever reason refused to charge Epps with trespassing or conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, both easy charges given his conduct and standards under the which the DOJ processed other, less prominent cases. Even stranger, former Oath Keeper Epps became the only Jan. 6 participant that the New York Times wrote an article about, 60 Minutes did a sympathetic segment, and Adam Kinzinger would defend. Weird, really.
Readers are invited to read the following compilation of videos and ponder whether it is any wonder that both the media and the DOJ have bent over backwards to defend this individual, of all people.
The Ray Epps defamation claimt names Darren Beattie of Revolver News as “the main person who ran the bogus story that Epps was a federal agent planted as a provocateur to trigger the Capitol violence on January 6.” Additionally, the suit cites an appearance by Darren Beattie on Tucker Carlson Tonight as an example of its primary defamation claim, stating that “the substance and thrust of the broadcast, taken as a whole, communicated as a fact that Epps was a federal agent. planted to encourage Donald Trump supporters to enter the Capitol building.”
The reason the legal complaint must resort to invoking the “substantial” issue is that Beattie’s position was quite nuanced and did not claim that Epps was necessarily in the direct employment of the federal government. We encourage readers to watch the Tucker Carlson segment in question here.
All of this raises a fascinating and important question. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that someone had directly accused Ray Epps of being a federal agent. Or could that legally count as defamation? After all, the basic principle of defamation is the notion of damage to reputation. It is important to remember that the protests of January 6, including the so-called “storming of the Capitol”, have been demonized by the Department of Justice and the media as one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks in the history of the country. From a general reputation point of view, given this context, is it better for someone to be considered an organic participant in a domestic insurgency or to have acted as an agent or asset of the federal government? Just to motivate our hunches about the Epps case, it’s hard to imagine Epps getting such generous treatment from the New York Times, 60 Minutes and other media without informed speculation that he might have some connection to the government.
Abstaining further from the Epps case, one wonders whether it can be considered legal libel to suggest that someone might be in the service of the federal government. This, oh patient reader, is where Tupac’s song comes into play. In the song in question linked above, Tupac accuses another individual “Haitian Jack” of being a federal informant – a “snitch” in slang terminology. Based on these lyrics, “Haitian Jack”, also known as Jacques Agnant, sued the estate of Tupac Shakur (Tupac had by then lost his life in a high-profile shooting in Las Vegas) for defamation. The defamation complaint hinged directly on damages associated with Tupac’s lyrics calling Jacques a “fed.”
Agnant v. Shakur, 30 F. Supp. 2d 420 (SDNY 1998):
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the above lyrics refer to him and, as understood by the general public, claims that he was “working as an undercover federal informant” against Shakur in connection with the artist’s trial of rap from 1994. (Id. ¶ 16) As a result of the letter, Plaintiff alleges, he “has been unable to find employment commensurate with his education and experience, and his reputation in the community has been destroyed.” (Id. ¶ 19) Seeks $200 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
The attorney for Tupac’s estate argued that the allegedly defamatory statements in question were not capable of defamatory meaning. In other words, they argued that accusing someone of working for the federal government may damage that person’s reputation with some, but nevertheless cannot be considered defamation as a matter of law. Interestingly, the judge in the case, Michael Mukasey, agreed:
Here, the plaintiff alleges that Shakur’s song “Against All Odds” falsely accuses him of “working as an undercover federal informant” and that, as a result of that accusation, he has suffered damage to his reputation and s ‘has put in danger. (Compl.¶¶ 18-19) Even accepting that the statements at issue are false and caused plaintiff harm, however, plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed. In order to be defamatory under New York law, a false statement must cause the plaintiff to be ridiculed or held in contempt in the minds of “right-thinking persons”; those who would think badly of one who legitimately cooperates with law enforcement officials are not those people. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Damages § 559, cmt. e (1977) (“The fact that a communication tends to injure another in the eyes of even a substantial group is not sufficient if the group is one whose standards are so antisocial that it is not proper for the courts to recognize them. “)
Undoubtedly, government agents acting in their official capacity have done atrocious things. You don’t need to look at the history of the FBI, CIA and other agencies; just look at how the national security community and even the Pentagon have completely humiliated themselves institutionally by embracing far-left politics and recklessly deploying their power domestically to target political opponents. However, the judge in the case in question held that, from the perspective of the legal system, working for the government as an agent, asset or informer cannot, in itself, be considered defamatory. After all, at least in theory, working as a government agent is supposed to be a reputable thing to do, and in any case, it’s in theory more reputable than performing organically and genuinely reprehensible actions.
In the case of Ray Epps, it cannot be defamatory to say that Epps was encouraging people to illegally enter the capitol as part of some government operation, rather than to say that Epps acted organically as a genuine insurrectionist. And as mentioned above, the widespread public speculation that Epps might be a “fed” in some way has ironically helped his reputation, at least in the sense that it undoubtedly contributed to the fact that Epps in the only participant on Jan. 6 that legacy media like the New York Times and 60 Minutes will bend over backwards to defend.
Moreover, Judge Mukasey’s decision in the Tupac case is not new or out of the ordinary, but is based on a rich history of legal precedent for similar cases. Take, for example, the following cases mentioned in the judge’s summary judgment that support similar conclusions. Note that several of these cases were heard in Delaware, the jurisdiction where Epps’ lawsuit was filed:
This court is not the first to grapple with the question of whether falsely accusing someone of acting as an informant can be defamatory. As far as I can tell, all but one of the other courts that have considered the issue have held, as a matter of law, that such a statement cannot be defamatory, with the sole exception being the Scottish court in the case of the century XIX of Graham v. Ray, 13 ses. case 634, 636 (1851). see Burrascano v. Levi, 452 F. Supp. 1066, 1072-73 (D.Md.1978), aff’d sub nom Burrascano v. US Attorney General, 612 F.2d 1306 (4th Cir.1979); Saunders v. Board of Directors, WHYY-TV, 382 A.2d 257, 259 (Del.Super.Ct.1978); Heimerle v. Charter Books, 11 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1278, 1279 (Sup.Ct. NY County 1984); Connelly v. McKay, 176 Various. 685, 28 NYS2d 327, 329-30 (N.Y. County Sup.Ct. 1941); Rose v. Borenstein, 119 NYS2d 288, 289-90 (N.Y.City Ct.1953); See also Danias v. Fakis, 261 A.2d 529, 531 (Del.Super.Ct.1969); Hallock v. Miller, 2 Barb. 630 (1848); cf. Daniel More, Whistleblowers Defamation and public policy, 19 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 503, 504-09, 524-26 (1989) (discussing cases from the United States and other jurisdictions).[4]
This result is interesting as far as defamation law is concerned, but it represents only one of the endless ways in which Epps’ claim fails the smell test. Worse than simply being ridiculous, the lawsuit is a crime not only against free speech, but against common sense itself. The events of January 6th have been used by our corrupt regime to help justify the political weaponization of the DOJ and other national security institutions against patriotic Americans for political purposes. The circumstances surrounding Ray Epps’ behavior raise serious questions to put it more generously and, to put it more realistically, seem to defy any innocent explanation. The idea that journalists should be silenced and punished for doing their jobs and asking the most basic and incisive questions about these matters of national importance is utterly absurd.
While Epps has only sued Fox for now and a good settlement is likely expected, we fully expect him to set his sights on Revolver News. If that happens, we’ll be ready. Bring.
SUPPORT REVOLVER — TO GIVE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWS SERVICE — GAB — GETTR — SOCIAL TRUTH — TWITTER
English 
Español de Venezuela