Kari Lake should change her name to Kari Puddles, says drag queen's lawyer in response to cease and desist

Originally published at: Kari Lake should change her name to Kari Puddles, says drag queen's lawyer in response to cease and desist | Boing Boing


Lake called Seville’s claims “defamatory”

Given that the claims came with pictures backing them up, I guess Lake doesn’t understand what “defamatory” actually means. And LOL at the “cease and desist” letter. Lady, legal threats don’t have a lot of weight when you desperately don’t want a lawsuit, as it’ll just prove the thing you’re trying to pretend didn’t happen.


Kari, you defamed yourself when you turned your back on your friends.

You have now entered the period of your life where you experience “consequences”. A responsible judge won’t take those away from you.


Oooh! Is this the same Kari Lake whose street-corner signs in Tucson featuring Trump’s face have had him cut out of the signs?


C’mon, SHADE!


Would her full name be Kari Puddles Pity Party?


I wonder what happened to her. From the texts and photos we have seen she seemed to be a fairly cool person before. And suddenly…this bundle of hate appears. Makes me scared something like that could happen to me, or anybody at any time.


Something can be true and defamatory, at least in the jurisdiction I’m most familiar with (England & Wales): all that’s necessary is that the statement “tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally” (Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237). Critically, though, a claim is “substantially true” is a defence here to any subsequent action in libel or slander.

Given the common common-law roots I’d expect the definition of defamation in Arizona to be similar. Mind you, given NY Times v. Sullivan then Lake would probably need to show actual malice as well as falsity in addition to the defamation to win a suit. So ‘go pound sand’ does seem like a correct response.

Apologies for the pedantry. I remain, &c.


I read the Qanon Casualties subreddit occasionally, and a depressingly common theme is people who used to be liberal, well-adjusted people getting swallowed up by Qanon and conspiracy theories and transformed into paranoid, hateful bigots.

Clarence Thomas recently called out Time v Sullivan as something he’d like to repeal. Trump and the gang really, really want to be able to sue people for criticizing or making fun of them.


US and UK defamation and libel/slander laws are very different. Both in what constitutes defamation and which party has the burden of proof in a lawsuit. There is a reason so many defamation suits involving libel published globally are brought in the UK and not other countries.
In the US it goes by state, but generally the defamation must be a false statement. This is the case in Arizona. Saying something true is not defamation.

On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways : Parallels : NPR.


England is overwhelmingly more plaintiff-friendly, that’s absolutely true. Even with recent changes to require a showing of ‘serious harm’ and bump up the affirmative defences it’s much harder to defend a claim here than it is in the US.

And now I learn that you’re quite right! To be defamatory in Arizona it seems a publication needs to be false - whereas in England it’s defamatory even if true, but only actionable if false. Which is an intriguing difference in language. Thank you!

1 Like

Not in the US, where the truth is considered an “absolute defense” to defamation claims. (I’m aware that’s not true in all countries.) The statements seem pretty well supported by evidence, so the facts aren’t really at issue here, but Lake is separating her claims of “defamation” in public statements from her legal action (the cease and desist letter) where she has no argument for defamation and any lawyer would have told her that.

That seems to be definitionally true for the US.

1 Like

I’m a lawyer. I don’t talk about the law in absolutes. I don’t actually know all states and territories require the statement to be false and defamation claims are a matter of state level statutes and common-law. So I won’t say that is the case.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.