By admin 
The attorneys for three young men who were with Nolan Xavier Wells before he went missing have given the Rev. Al Sharpton a 10-day deadline to publicly apologize, retract and delete alleged defamatory statements about their clients, or face a defamation lawsuit the attorneys described as imminent.
Read more Moscow vows to avoid airspace disruption despite Zelenskiy’s aviation warning
On Tuesday, Sharpton’s attorneys issued a statement calling the claims in the threatened lawsuit “meritless,” and said he will “neither be silenced nor retract statements he did not make.”
The attorneys representing Warren Hudson, Jax Pitalo and Morgan Seymour are Mississippi attorney Tyler Cox and Edward Andrew Paltzik, a high-profile defamation and media law attorney.
Hudson, Pitalo and Seymour were among the friends who were with Wells before he went missing during a July 4 trip to Horn Island, about 10 miles off the Mississippi coast.
Wells, an 18-year-old student-athlete, was found dead two days later.
In a letter to Sharpton’s attorneys, Cox and Paltzik alleged that Sharpton defamed the three men during a July 14 interview with TMZ and in other remarks he made in the aftermath of Wells’ death.
The allegations include remarks Sharpton made during the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention on Aug. 13 and during a virtual National Action Network prayer vigil on Aug. 19, the day Wells would have turned 19.
Cox and Paltzik outlined their demands in an effort to reach a settlement before filing a lawsuit.
Sharpton’s attorneys have maintained that he did not make defamatory statements about the three young men, whom he has not identified by name.
His legal team, led by Daniel P. Watkins of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch LLP and Wylie Stecklow, longtime counsel for the National Action Network, said Sharpton never accused the three men of murder or other crimes.
“Reverend Sharpton did not insert himself into this family’s grief. He was asked,” Sharpton’s attorneys wrote. “He is an ordained Baptist minister, and he stands with (Wells’ parents) Christine Wells-Wonsley and Elmore Wonsley in that capacity, as he has stood with families in that capacity for nearly fifty years.”
Sharpton was with the Wonsley family on July 10 when they spoke publicly for the first time and later attended their son’s memorial service. He also appeared with the family in Atlanta on Aug. 19, what would have been Wells’ 19th birthday.
Offers to Sharpton
In their latest letter, Cox and Paltzik said they are looking forward to a “pre-suit resolution of our forthcoming meritorious lawsuit” against Sharpton.
The attorneys offered Sharpton and his legal team three opportunities to speak directly with Hudson, Pitalo and Seymour:
- Interview all three men live and unscripted.
- Meet with the attorneys and the three men live and unscripted, or both
Cox and Paltzik maintain that their three clients were clearly identifiable based on Sharpton’s comments in the aftermath of Wells’ death, though Sharpton did not identify them by name.
The attorneys say Sharpton’s references to the “three friends,” “three young men” and “three guys,” along with references to their race, made it clear to his audience that he was referring to Hudson, Pitalo and Seymour.
Sharpton’s attorneys have argued that he never defamed anyone.
Cox and Paltzik counter that Mississippi law does not require a person accused of defamation to name the people allegedly defamed.
Instead, they argue, the question is whether listeners could reasonably understand whom the speaker was referring to.
The attorneys cite Mississippi case law stating that “it is not necessary that the plaintiff be designated by name” if the description or reference allows those who hear or read the statement to reasonably understand who was intended.
Cox and Paltzik also laid out a series of alleged factual assertions about their clients’ actions on July 4.
Read more Wall St set to snap three-day losing streak as stocks reclaim some shine
They said the three men had “no knowledge whatsoever” of Wells’ death (before his body was found) and “did not have anything whatsoever to do with the death of Nolan Wells.”
The attorneys also said the young men made contact with Wells’ family and the Coast Guard as soon as they realized he was missing, and that they also went to Horn Island to search for him after he went missing.
Cox and Paltzik argue that Sharpton’s comments, at minimum, suggested the men were “colluding to hide evidence” or obstruct the search for Wells and, at worst, suggested they murdered him.
They characterize those implications as “grossly disproved by the truth” and contend Sharpton’s statements were negligent at minimum and potentially made with malice because, in their view, he refused to accept publicly available facts.
Cox and Paltzik also rejected Sharpton’s “opinion” defense. His attorneys have argued that his comments were protected opinions rather than actionable factual claims.
The attorneys contend Sharpton cannot rely on truth as a defense because they say the statements were false. They cite Mississippi defamation law and argue that false statements that damage a person’s reputation can be actionable when the required elements of defamation are met.
The letter also rejects Sharpton’s attorneys’ characterization of the threatened lawsuit as primarily concerning comments he made during the Aug. 19 National Action Network prayer vigil.
Cox and Paltzik called that argument “pure intellectual dishonesty” and a “red herring.” They said their Aug. 21 demand letter addressed statements Sharpton made on multiple occasions, including his July 14 TMZ interview and his Aug. 13 remarks at the National Association of Black Journalists convention.
Lawyers issue demands
The attorneys outlined a list of demands for Sharpton on a number of fronts, including calls him to do the following;
- Publicly apologize, both verbally and in writing
- Stop publishing or republishing the statements
- State clearly that allegations of murder, hindering prosecution and tampering with physical evidence are not based on actual evidence
- Retract or delete any statements, headlines, caption, thumbnail, descriptions, videos, posts, post or other publications that states or implies Hudson, Pitalo and Seymour committed a crime
- Publish the apologies and retractions for at least seven days
- Add the apology and retractions directly to any original publication
- Provide written confirmation identifying the corrective actions taken
The attorneys also demanded that Sharpton and his legal team preserve documents and electronic communications related to the three men, Wells’ death and Sharpton’s statements.
That includes drafts, deleted or edited posts, recordings, emails, text messages, communications with sources and journalists, research materials and social media records.
The letter instructs Sharpton to immediately suspend any automatic deletion policies that could destroy potentially relevant evidence.
The attorneys also laid out a series of what they call factual assertions about what they say their clients did or did not do on July 4, providing the following:
- Did not touch Nolan’s cellphone or keys
- Did not lie about the phone or keys
- Did not admit to possessing the phone or keys
- Did not access Nolan’s phone
- Did not breach the phone
- Did not erase anything from the phone
- Did not tamper with the phone.
The attorneys say Sharpton’s comments effectively accused Hudson, Pitalo and Seymour of felony crimes, including:
- Murder
- Hindering prosecution in the first-degree
- Tampering with physical evidence.
- Conspiracy to commit the offenses
The lawyers say Sharpton’s comments at minimum suggested that the men were “colluding to hide evidence” or obstruct the search for Nolan and, at worst, suggested that they murdered him.
They characterize the allegations as “grossly disproved by the truth” and say Sharpton’s statements were negligent at minimum and potentially were made with malice because, in their views, he refused to accept publicly available facts.
Cox and Paltzik also rejected Sharpton’s “opinion” defense, which his attorneys raised in arguing that his statements were protected opinions rather than actionable factual claims
In addition, the attorneys say there is no “Reverend Shield Doctrine” that would protect Sharpton from liability because he made any of the statements during a prayer vigil.
Read more What temperatures can you expect in Myrtle Beach area for Labor Day weekend?