Ultimate vindication

With all the negative publicity surrounding the garment industry lawsuit, it is easy for many of us to fall into a deep despair, as the CNMI seemingly plunges into an even deeper abyss.

But take heart. Justice might still prevail–and the CNMI could be vindicated yet again. That’s right–yet again.

Some of us might have already forgotten. Many CNMI residents probably never even took notice. But the CNMI has been vindicated before, in substantial and meaningful ways.

Remember the negative Reader’s Digest story that appeared in the Summer of 1997. It was an article entitled “Shame on American Soil.” It caused quite a stir. George Miller, Al Stayman and many other anti-CNMI crusaders circulated it to realize their ultimate quest of CNMI federalization. It caused us much grief at the time.

The article, penned by Henry Hurt, who presumably is now hurting, falsely claimed that appalling human rights abuses “flourished” on CNMI “soil.” In so doing, the Reader’s Digest, through its agent Mr. Hurt, falsely and maliciously–and with total wanton disregard–defamed Mr. Rafael L. Quitugua, a Rota businessman who subsequently filed a successful libel action against the irresponsible publication.

The Reader’s Digest falsely accused Mr. Rafael L. Quitugua of sexually assaulting his female employee and then impudently flaunting his alleged political connections to obstruct justice and completely absolve himself of any wrongdoing. The Reader’s Digest, in other words, wrongly accused Mr. Quitugua of conduct perhaps more becoming of the current President of the United States.

Shame on the Reader’s Digest, and shame “on the White House,” which, through the US Department of Interior, backs such anti-CNMI propaganda in the first place–and which, ironically enough, through the person of President Clinton himself (e.g., Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broadrick), condones the very action it condemns against the CNMI: namely, sexual assault.

Shame on American soil indeed. Shame on Washington, D.C., not the CNMI. Shame on all of our hardened detractors, because Mr. Quitugua and the CNMI were ultimately vindicated–exonerated of all yellow journalism charges.

The Reader,s Digest ultimately quit, capitulated, gave up, surrendered and settled out of court. They couldn’t prove their case in a court of law; they could only fabricate lies in the court of public opinion.

In his libel lawsuit against the Reader’s Digest, Mr. Quitugua asked the court for a total of $4 million: $1 million in general damages and $3 million in punitive awards. Even with the employment of Mr. Floyd Abrams, a well renowned First Amendment attorney and Columbia Journalism School visiting professor, the Reader’s Digest apparently still felt that it could not prove its case in court. So they opted to settle instead–a clear victory on the CNMI’s much maligned behalf.

And with truth and the rule of law firmly on our side, we should all look forward to an equally satisfying legal triumph in the garment lawsuit brought on by the New York law firm. Fortunately, the Millberg Weiss New York law firm already lost a similar frivolous lawsuit it filed against Nike.

According to CNN.com, the New York law firm had no legal basis to sue Nike for “unfair business practices.” Nike did not willfully mislead California consumers about working conditions in Vietnamese, Chinese and Indonesian shoe factories abroad. Neither did CNMI garment factories.