LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - Congresswoman Maxine Waters must face trial over a political opponent’s claim she said he had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy even after he produced documents showing the statement was false, a California appeals court ruled.
The decision by California’s Second Appellate District Court revives a defamation lawsuit by Joe Collins III, who lost to Waters in the 2020 election. Collins sued Waters in September 2020, accusing her of repeatedly stating he had been dishonorably discharged even though he posted an official discharge statement on his Facebook page the month before to refute the claim.
A trial judge granted Waters’ motion to dismiss the case under California’s anti-SLAPP law (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), ruling that Waters had enough evidence – including Navy documents suggesting Collins had been disciplined for supplying alcohol to an underage sailor and had sex with a subordinate – to conclude he had left the Navy under a cloud.
The appeals court reversed in a May 10 decision, saying Collins had presented enough evidence to survive an anti-SLAPP motion.
“Free speech is vital in America, but truth has a place in the public square as well,” the court said. “When you face powerful documentary evidence your accusation is false, when checking is easy, and when you skip the checking but keep accusing, a jury could conclude you have crossed the line.”
Before the Nov. 3, 2020, election, Collins heard rumors Waters would say his discharge was dishonorable. So on Aug. 18, 2020, he posted a document on his website stating his discharge had been “under honorable conditions (general).” From August to November 2020, however, Waters and her campaign said in campaign appearances and ads that Collins had a dishonorable discharge.
Collins sued Waters and her campaign manager on Sept. 30, 2020, including an image of the discharge document. It included the line: “Narrative reason for separation. Misconduct (Serious Offense).”
“If Collins fabricated a document to make himself look good, this entry is puzzling,” the appeals court observed.
In her defense, Waters said her staff had compiled substantial evidence that Collins had a troubled history with the Navy. Her staff traveled to San Diego, where he was stationed, and found a lawsuit disputing his obligation to pay child support, in which Colins stated he had created a “Royal Family of Collins Trust” with $700 billion in assets, $100 billion of which was represented by his birth certificate.
Collins also sued the Navy in 2017, seeking to change the change his discharge to honorable. A federal court granted his request in 2018, but Waters argued the fact remains that his discharge originally was classified as dishonorable.
In May 2021, after Collins sued Waters and the court granted her anti-SLAPP motion to quash the case, the federal court deleted the word “dishonorable” from its opinion, saying it would be an inaccurate description.
Waters also said she called Collins’ attorney and after looking in his records he said “‘it says right here, he was dishonorably discharged!” She cited Navy documents she said showed Collins had been disciplined for serving alcohol to an underage sailor and having sex with a subordinate. Finally, Waters said she found a court document in which Collins said he wasn’t receiving government benefits, from which she inferred he had been dishonorably discharged and stripped of benefits.
In light of all this evidence, Waters argued she had no reason to believe Collins or that the document on his Facebook page was authentic. But as the lawsuit proceeded, Collins provided Waters with five more documents including an authenticated version of the DD-214 document he had attached to the original complaint. He also cited a radio ad in which Waters said Collins “had his health care paid for by the Navy,” which she knew wouldn’t be the case if he’d been dishonorably discharged.
The appeals court said Waters never took the additional step of verifying Collins’ discharge documents.
“It could only have been to Waters’ electoral advantage to expose Collins’s fabrication, if fabrication it truly was,” the court said. “After they are told that potentially devastating information is easily available, decisionmakers who opt for ignorance instead of ready truth can be willfully blind.”