The Best Defense Against Prosecution for Libel...

...is the truth:

In a decision released late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow declared unconstitutional rules requiring lawyers to treat everyone involved in the legal process with "courtesy and respect." The rules were "overly broad and vague," he said.

The Michigan Supreme Court used the rules last summer to reprimand Geoffrey Fieger for appearing on radio shows in 1999 and calling state Court of Appeals judges "jackasses." Fieger, who was angry at the judges for overturning a $15 million medical malpractice judgment he had won, also likened them to Adolf Hitler and other Nazis.

Tarnow's ruling "strengthens our democracy and allows us to speak out against the oppressive forces of corrupt state officials," Fieger said Wednesday in a statement.

Judicial Diva "Easy Ernie" Accused of Misconduct

"Easy Ernie" Murphy who recently won a libel suit against the Boston Herald has been accused of "willful misconduct" by a Massachusetts state commission. According to the charge he sent several letters and used his position intimidate the publisher.

In the first handwritten note, dated just two days after the jury awarded him $2 million, Murphy asked for a private meeting with the Herald's publisher, Patrick J. Purcell.

"You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000," the letter said. "No check, no meeting."

A separate, single-page post script warned Purcell that telling anyone about the letter would be "a big mistake." The word "big" was written in all capital letters.

Judges accounted for 10% of libel suits nationwide in 2005. Do judges conduct themselves with impartiality and fairness during libel trails against other judges? There can be no fair trial in a situation like this:

Six current and former state Supreme Court justices testified on his behalf, many addressing Thomas as "Your Honor," even though he was the plaintiff, not the judge in the case. But when lawyers for the newspapers sought to cross-examine the justices about the disciplinary case that was the subject of the newspaper's columns, they refused, invoking what was later upheld on appeal as a "judicial deliberation privilege."

The newspaper's brief alleges that "the Illinois judiciary barricaded itself behind a wall of privilege that made it impossible for the Chronicle defendants to defend themselves."