The jury in the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Bouschor Trial found for the defendants.  We’ve covered other parts of this trial here and here and here.

Here is a press release we received (MF: the least helpful press release we’ve ever received). So unhelpful, we received a demand letter to take it down. MF@ 7:12 PM.

Retraction: Earlier this evening I received an email from an attorney for several of the defendants named at one time or another demanding a retraction in accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2911(2)(b), which we gladly and apologetically do. We often receive unsolicited material for posting on Turtle Talk, and post some material. In this case, we received a document from Aaron Payment, the former chairman of the Sault Tribe, in addition to other unsolicited emails from other individuals asserting that the Sault Tribe had lost a jury verdict in the underlying matter of Sault Tribe v. Bouschor. As the local news had not yet published anything on the matter, we chose to publish the news, with an attachment to the Payment document, which we noted was “not very helpful.” We did so not to publish facts about the case, but to note the reaction — a highly opinionated and politicized reaction — from the former chair of the Sault Tribe that had initiated the lawsuit years ago. [references to Paul Shagen removed]

In terms of the retraction, we are instructed to note three facts. First, “There has been no federal crime, nor any charges of any crime.” Second, “Native Americans were not … excluded [from the jury on the basis of race], and one of the jurors selected to serve at the outset of the trial was in fact Native American.” And third, “the jury found that none of the defendants … wrongfully took anything from the Tribe.”

We note the timelines here as well. I received the email at approximately 7:15 PM. I took down the offending document immediately, and began composing this detailed retraction, published in full at 8:52 PM, which should be construed as a “reasonable” time within the statute.

I note lastly that we at Turtle Talk certainly had no intent to defame anyone. I’m not sure how the racial composition of the jury serves to defame the defendants. I’m not sure how the former chairman’s opinion that a “federal crime” occurred defamed them, either. I myself have “taken” money from the Sault Tribe — in 1992 or so when I worked there for a brief period as a summer intern. All three men are gainfully employed in Indian country, as far as I know, and have stellar reputations in the field. The allegations made by the Sault Tribe have been public for much longer than the existence of Turtle Talk. Frankly, it is not Payment’s recent “press release” that could possibly be injurious to these men — it is the allegation of large sums of money changing hands between a tribal leader and his (largely political) employees, as many tribal lawyers are, after losing a hotly-contested election. This is obviously a highly emotional and political case, and we at Turtle Talk have no dog in this fight.

Yet another update: It would appear that the Communication Decency Act affords Turtle Talk immunity from defamation liability (47 USC 230) since we did not author the offending statements.