Donald Trump, the president-elect of the Central Park Fivesay, is attempting to have their defamation case against him dismissed because of remarks he made during the presidential debate earlier this year, which is illegal.
Attorneys for the infamously falsely-accused quintet stated in a letter move filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania on Friday that they plan to fully fight the defendant’s upcoming move to Dismiss.
In preparation for filing a move to dismiss on the grounds of failure to establish a claim under federal guidelines and the Keystone establish’s anti-SLAPP Act, a state law that forbids actions meant to stifle free expression, Trump asked for a conference on November 20. Many jurisdictions have established a simple process to dismiss such lawsuits at the outset and call them strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).
But according to the Central Park Five’s lawyers, Trump’s lawyer misapplied the anti-SLAPP statute.
The motion states that the defendant uses Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP Act. District courts in the Third Circuit have determined that state anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, even though the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet made a decision on the matter.
The case’s merits are also discussed by the plaintiffs.
According to the initial lawsuit filed in late October by Antron Brown, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise, and Yusef Salaam, Trump falsely claimed that Plaintiffs killed a person and pled guilty to the crime during his one debate with Kamala Harris.
Trump claimed in the pre-motion to dismiss that his remarks are essentially factual, do not represent actionable opinion, and do not carry any defamatory sting. He also asked for a conference.
The Trump motion goes on to say that Trump’s comments during the debate, which referred to Plaintiffs’ prior admissions in the Central Park case, are protected expressions of opinion since they reflect his perception of publicly available information. Furthermore, when considered in their complete context—which they must be—the claims are essentially true. According to Pennsylvania law, the truth is a complete defense against defamation.
The defense motion provides the following explanation of the situation:
In one of the first lawsuits against the 45th and 47th presidents following the 2024 election triumph, the Central Park Five vehemently disagree with the defense’s interpretation of what reality is, exposing a significant gap between the sides’ stances.
To refute the defense, the plaintiffs offer the following helpful laundry list:
According to the defendant, the plaintiffs modified their plea after entering a guilty plea to the Central Park attack, as stated in the Friday motion. In actuality, the plaintiffs, who were unrepresented and between the ages of 14 and 16, made false confessions that they promptly denied after being released from police custody. Following their initial not guilty pleas in their criminal trials, they were later found not guilty of any crime, including by the confession of the real offender and conclusive DNA evidence.
Additional Law & Crime coverage: After raising doubts about the court’s impartiality, Trump had a judge in the Central Park Five defamation case recuse themselves.
By using a criterion that permits the distinction between truth and opinion to be objectively ascertained under Pennsylvania law, the response also dismisses Trump’s interpretation defense as ineffective. They claim the standard only indicates one orientation.
The Friday motion continues by stating that the defendants’ claims that the plaintiffs pled guilty to a crime and that someone was slain are both untrue. Moreover, even where a statement can plausibly be interpreted as opinion, dismissal is still unwarranted if the statement could also be interpreted as a statement of fact.
In sum, the heart of the plaintiffs response is that there are simply too many arguments between the parties for anything to be determined by way of motions practice in the lawsuit.
In light of this, they contend that a jury ought to have the last word on at least three matters: (1) whether Trump was attempting to convey an opinion or a fact; (2) whether or not his remarks regarding the Central Park Five were largely accurate; and (3) the impact on the audience at the time of Trump’s remarks.
One particular claim during the debate could prove potentially relevant as the case goes forward, the Friday motion notes, almost off-handedly, in a potential preview of future arguments.
Defendant s letter completely fails to address the fact that Plaintiffs were never accused of killing anyone, the Central Park Five explain. During the dispute, the defendant made up the claim that the plaintiffs had killed someone.
Do you have a tip we ought to know?[email protected]
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!