Tah v. Global Witness Publishing 991 F.3d 231 (2021)

Posted: March 23rd, 2023

The cases is:
Tah v. Global Witness Publishing 991 F.3d 231 (2021)

I’m arguing *in favor* of Tah

If you are a Litigant, I need a 7-page, double spaced paper that makes the best argument for your side in terms of both precedent and policy. You will need to cite at least four cases as precedent and make at least one policy arguments for your position.

This is a research paper so I expect to see evidence that you read the full text of the decision that is being appealed and the precedent cases, and used appropriate secondary sources. As in all research papers, you can use direct quotes from either the cases or secondary sources, as long as you put direct quotes in quotation marks and indicate the source. Failure to do this is plagiarism and is an automatic ‘F’. On the other hand, your paper cannot simply be a string of quotations. You need to make the arguments in your own words, and they should reflect your judgments about the merits of the case. Decisions should be cited using standard legal citation in the text, not as a footnote or endnote. (For example: Only grave concerns, often involving national security issues, can justify a restraint on speech. U.S. v. Progressive 467 F. Supp. 990 (1979).) If you want to use a direct quote from the opinion, please include the page number on which the quote is found, following the page number on which the opinion starts and a comma. (For example: “It is clear that few things, save grave national security concerns, are sufficient to override First Amendment interests.
U.S. v. Progressive 467 F. Supp. 990, 992 (1979).) See “How to Find and Cite a Legal Opinion” in the Canvas Files Folder for an explanation of how to find the page number in an opinion in a digital format. Secondary sources should be footnoted at the bottom of the page. A Web address can be used as long as the url goes directly to the source material and not to a broader site. You will be marked down for failing to indicate who produced the information, not just where you happened to find it. You don’t need to include a bibliography or list of cases cited.

The research paper should begin with a statement of the facts (what happened to give rise to the legal case), followed by the procedural histo (what happened in the lower courts before it arrived in the court that is hearing the appeal. This is not that different than what you do for the bri of Supreme Court opinions, just discussed more fully and in complete sentences in the paper. The bulk of the paper should be a discussion of legal reasons, precedents and policies, that should decide the case. The litigants should explain why precedents and policies favor your side.
Judges should explain the side they believe should win based on policy and precedent.

I also expect this to be a polished, final product. That means you must edit your work. Sloppy papers with misspellings, typographical mistakes, and poor writing, will be marked down a full grade, no matter what the content.
If the paper’s presentation is so poor that I can’t understand what you’re trying to say, you will receive an ‘F’

====
Facts:

The case of Tah v. Global Witness Publishing 991 F.3d 231 (2021) revolves around a book titled “The Deceiver” authored by Global Witness Publishing, which accused Charles Sirleaf and Andrew Groves of being involved in a corrupt mining deal in Liberia. The plaintiff, Christiana Tah, was named in the book as the “fixer” who facilitated the deal. Tah sued the publisher for defamation in a federal court in Massachusetts. However, the district court dismissed her complaint on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction. Tah then appealed to the First Circuit, challenging the district court’s decision.

Procedural History:

The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court dismissed Tah’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, stating that the publisher did not have sufficient contacts with Massachusetts to establish jurisdiction. Tah then appealed to the First Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint.

Legal Reasons, Precedents and Policies:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press. However, this freedom is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances. In the context of defamation law, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine whether a statement is defamatory. First, the statement must be false. Second, it must harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

In this case, the book “The Deceiver” accused Tah of being a “fixer” who facilitated a corrupt mining deal in Liberia. Tah argues that the statement is false and has harmed her reputation. Therefore, she has a valid claim for defamation. However, the publisher argues that the district court correctly dismissed the case on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Research Paper Writing Service: Professional Help in Research Projects for Students – One precedent that supports Tah’s argument is the case of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. 465 U.S. 770 (1984). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a writer or publisher could be sued for defamation in any state where the defamatory material is distributed, regardless of whether the defendant has contacts with that state. The Court reasoned that a defendant who voluntarily distributes a magazine or book in a particular state should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.

Do My Assignment For Me UK: Class Assignment Help Services Best Essay Writing Experts – Another precedent that supports Tah’s argument is the case of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant who wrote and edited a defamatory article about the plaintiff, even though the defendant did not have any contacts with the forum state. The Court reasoned that the defendant’s intentional act of publishing the article, which was aimed at California readers, caused harm to