1) 'Everything is just beginning.' Here are passages from the New York Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Wall Street Journal, my colleagues, and me. The Court ruled that it is not defamatory to call #GuoWengui a Communist spy or agent of Xi Jinping. iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentD…
2) Court: #GuoWengui said "Waller posted ... that 'Guo is a fraud' ... Waller allegedly stated that [Guo] insisted that SVUS break the law and then sued the company when it would not do so.... Waller allegedly accused [Guo] of witness intimidation in the Xia litigation..." (p 4)
3) Court: Defendant "further alleged that [Guo's] conduct was fraudulent because his true intention in entering into a contract with SVUS was 'to bolster his position within the [CCP] and ingratiate himself with [China's President and leader of the CCP] Xi Jinping."
4) Court: Guo alleged that we defendants "falsely accused him of being a 'spy' for China.... SVUS alleged ... that [Guo] was 'not the dissident he claimed to be' but rather that he was a 'dissident-hunter, propagandist, and agent in the service of [China] and [the CCP]." (p 5)
5) Court: "On July 22, 2019, The Wall Street Journal, a publication owned by Dow [Jones], published an article about the allegations about the counterclaim ... entitled 'Chinese Tycoon Holed Up in Manhattan Hotel Is Accused of Spying for Beijing."
6) Court: "it is undisputed that plaintiff [Guo Wengui] falls into the category of a limited public figure.... Thus, he must establish actual malice, and his amended complaint in this defamation action must be dismissed if he fails to do so." (p 10)
7) Court: "Plaintiff [Guo] also argues that Waller's statements are defamatory since they accuse him of lying about being a victim of the Chinese government and accuse him of acts which, if committed, constitute serious crimes." (p 16)
8) Court: "For the reasons set forth above, the claims against Waller must also be dismissed due to plaintiff's [#GuoWengui's] failure to sufficiently plead that he acted with actual malice." (p 16)
9) Court: Defendant Dow Jones argues that since #GuoWengui "is an outspoken figure on matters involving China, he must plead and prove that the WSJ article was published with actual malice, meaning that they had knowledge of its falsity or had serious doubts about its truth..."
10) Court: "Although [Guo] claims that the WSJ article is not protected by privilege because it referred to him as a 'spy,' whereas the amended counterclaim itself does not use that word, [defendants] respond that plaintiff's own attorney undermined this argument...." (p 17)
11) Court: Guo Wengui asserts that he was libeled "because accusing him of lying about his victim status subjects him to public contempt, ridicule, and/or disgrace ...." (p 20)
12 Court: Guo "asserts that the allegations against him are defamatory per se since they accuse him of committing serious crimes including acting as a spy for China while simultaneously misrepresenting to the US government that he is seeking asylum based on his dissident status."
13) Court: "it is further ORDERED that the motion of defendant J. Michael Waller to dismiss the complaint herein ... is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety against said defendant, with costs and disbursements ... in favor of said defendant..." (p 23)
