Presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal filed a $30 million defamation suit against Matt Drudge, after the famed online columnist published an August 10, 1997 story in which he alleged Blumenthal "has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up." Blumenthal vehemently denied the charges and Drudge retracted the allegations the following day. Also named in the suit is America Online, the online provider which hosts Drudge's column called the "Drudge Report." But on April 22, 1998 a federal judge dismissed AOL as co-defendant in the case, citing that an Internet service provider was not liable for content provided by them through a third party -- that is, Matt Drudge.

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, )
)
6805 6th Street, N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20012, )
)
and )
)
JACQUELINE JORDAN BLUMENTHAL, )
)
6805 6th Street, N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20012, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action
No. __________
)
MATT DRUDGE, )
)
No. 901 )
1811 North Whitley Avenue )
Hollywood, California 90028, )
)
and )
)
AMERICA ONLINE, INC., )
)
2200 AOL Way )
Dulles, Virginia 20166, )
)
SERVE: Corporation Services )
Company )
10980 Vermont Avenue, N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20005, )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________)

COMPLAINT
(Diversity Jurisdiction; Defamation; False Light Invasion Of Privacy; Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; Compensatory And Punitive Damages; Injunctive Relief)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, by their undersigned lawyers, bring this diversity action for defamation and false light invasion of privacy against Matt Drudge and America Online, Inc., jointly and severally, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal also asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Drudge and defendant America Online, Inc., jointly and severally, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In support of their claims, Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal allege as follows.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal is an adult citizen of the District of Columbia, residing at 6805 6th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012.

2. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal is an adult citizen of the District of Columbia, residing at 6805 6th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012.

3. Defendant Matt Drudge is an adult citizen of the State of California, residing at No. 901, 1811 North Whitley Avenue, Hollywood, California 90028.

4. Defendant America Online, Inc. (hereinafter "AOL") is a for-profit corporation organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its principal place of business at 2200 AOL Way, Dulles, Virginia 20166.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, in that this case presents a controversy between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) & (3).

7. For the reasons alleged particularly below, this Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Drudge and over defendant AOL pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. §13-423.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

Sidney Blumenthal And Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal

8. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal are married.

9. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have been married for over twenty-one (21) years.

10. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has never been married to any person other than Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

11. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have two (2) children, ages nineteen (19) and sixteen (16).

12. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have lived continuously in the District of Columbia since 1985.

13. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal works at The White House in the post of Assistant to the President of the United States, a position to which President William J. Clinton appointed him.

14. For twenty-seven (27) years prior to August 10, 1997, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal worked as a journalist for such publications as The New Yorker, The New Republic, and The Washington Post.

15. During his career as a journalist, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal wrote primarily about national political issues.

16. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal's first day of work as Assistant to President William J. Clinton was Monday, August 11, 1997.

17. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal works for The White House as Director of the President's Commission On White House Fellowships, a position to which President William J. Clinton appointed her in June 1996.

18. Prior to June 1996, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was Senior Vice President at Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co. of Falls Church, Virginia.

The Internet

19. The "Internet" is the international computer network of interoperable packet switched data networks.

20. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons obtained access to the Internet through many different networks linked directly to the Internet, including but not limited to those networks operated by employers, schools, community organizations, libraries, and small commercial establishments.

21. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, over one million (1,000,000) computers in the United States were linked directly to the Internet.

22. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons also accessed the Internet on personal computers through modem telephone access to a computer or computer network linked to the Internet.

23. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, modem telephone access to the Internet was offered through a variety of commercial organizations which charged a fee for such access; through trade and non-profit organizations which offered free or low-cost access; and through any number of major network commercial "online services," such as CompuServe, Prodigy, Microsoft Network, and defendant AOL.

24. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons accessed information on the Internet via newsgroups, bulletin boards, mail exploders, and chat rooms.

25. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, information posted in newsgroups, bulletin boards, mail exploders, and chat rooms was available to persons subscribing to such services as well as to persons accessing such services on an ad hoc basis.

26. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, the "World Wide Web" (hereinafter the "Web") consisted of a vast number of documents stored in different computers all over the United States and the world containing information formatted according to Web publishing standards.

27. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, the information on the Web was located at millions of separate "Web sites" that displayed content provided by particular persons or organizations.

28. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, Web sites often contained a "home page," which displayed basic information about the publisher of the Web site and the information that publisher offered.

29. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons gained access to the Web via the Internet.

30. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, each Web site and its originating computer were connected to the Internet by means of protocols that permitted each Web site to become part of a single body of information accessible by all Web visitors.

31. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons viewed a Web site through "browser" software, which allowed the persons to display, download, and print out information from the Web.

32. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, every Web site had an address by which it was accessed.

33. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons accessed a given Web site directly by typing the Web site address and going directly to that site.

34. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons who did not know the address of a given Web site, or who conducted generalized searches, accessed Web sites by means of a "search engine," which found the Web sites by using a word or strings of words to locate those sites.

35. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons also "surfed" the Web by "linking" from one Web site to another, which they did by clicking on to "links," which were segments of text or images in one Web site that referred to another Web site.

36. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, information accessible on the Internet through the various methods described in this Complaint was taken from the location at which the information originally was accessed and then was "cached," i.e., stored, at one or more other places.

37. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, information accessible on the Internet through the various methods described in this Complaint was downloaded and printed in "hard copy," i.e., on paper.

38. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons communicated via the Internet directly to one or more other persons by transmitting messages to such other persons through electronic mail, also known as "e-mail."

39. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, more than forty million (40,000,000) persons had access to the Internet, and used that access.

Defendant Drudge

40. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge was an "information content provider" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §230(e)(3), in that defendant Drudge was responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or other interactive computer services.

41. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge provided information through the Internet and other interactive computer services through what defendant Drudge called the "Drudge Report."

42. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge made each version of the Drudge Report available on the Internet to persons who had access to the Internet.

43. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge made each version of the Drudge Report available to persons in the District of Columbia who had access to the Internet.

44. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge sent each version of the Drudge Report via electronic mail over the Internet directly to persons who requested that defendant Drudge do so.

45. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge sent each version of the Drudge Report via electronic mail over the Internet directly to persons in the District of Columbia who requested that defendant Drudge do so.

46. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge maintained a list of subscribers to whom defendant Drudge automatically sent each version of the Drudge Report via electronic mail over the Internet each time defendant Drudge issued another version of the Drudge Report.

47. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, the number of subscribers to whom defendant Drudge automatically sent each version of the Drudge Report via electronic mail exceeded eighty-five thousand (85,000).

48. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, each time defendant Drudge issued another version of the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge automatically sent each version of the Drudge Report via electronic mail over the Internet directly to persons on defendant Drudge's list of subscribers who were located in the District of Columbia.

49. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge sent each version of the Drudge Report to various newsgroups, bulletin boards, mail exploders, and chat rooms, at which sites each version of the Drudge Report was viewed by persons located in the District of Columbia.

50. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons located in the District of Columbia accessed each version of the Drudge Report in one or more of the ways alleged in this Complaint and cached each version of the Drudge Report in various locations.

51. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons located in the District of Columbia accessed each version of the Drudge Report in one or more ways alleged in this Complaint and downloaded and printed each version of the Drudge Report in hard copy.

52. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge sent each version of the Drudge Report to various media around the United States, including media located in, or providing information to persons located in, the District of Columbia.

53. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge maintained a Web site on the World Wide Web known as the "Drudge Report," with an electronic address of: "www.Drudgereport.com", where defendant Drudge made each version of the Drudge Report available.

54. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge's Web site was available for review by any person who had access to the Web, including persons located in the District of Columbia.

55. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons accessed defendant Drudge's Web site through the Internet.

56. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, persons located in the District of Columbia accessed defendant Drudge's Web site through the Internet.

57. At all time relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge intended for the Drudge Report to be read by persons located in the District of Columbia, and particularly intended for the Drudge Report to be read by persons located in the District of Columbia who were involved with or interested in politics and the national government.

58. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge conducted a substantial part of his business on the Internet and through electronic mail.

59. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, the Drudge Report and other information about defendant Drudge and the Drudge Report were available to residents of the District of Columbia twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week on the Internet and through defendant AOL (as alleged more particularly below), and this information was accessed repeatedly by persons located in the District of Columbia.

60. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge targeted the Drudge Report to persons located in the District of Columbia.

61. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge purposefully, knowingly, and repeatedly sent information into the District of Columbia to persons located in the District of Columbia via the Internet and through electronic mail.

62. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge made numerous telephone calls to persons located in the District of Columbia to gather information intended for publication in the Drudge Report.

63. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge sent numerous facsimile transmissions to persons located in the District of Columbia for the purpose of gathering information for publication in the Drudge Report.

64. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge made personal visits to the District of Columbia for the purpose of meeting persons located in the District of Columbia to obtain information intended for publication in the Drudge Report, and for the purpose of meeting persons who would supply such information in the future.

65. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge on numerous occasions, for the purpose of gathering information intended for publication in the Drudge Report, sent electronic mail to persons located in the District of Columbia.

66. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, through the Internet, telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, and personal visits to the District of Columbia, defendant Drudge solicited in the District of Columbia, and specifically and intentionally from residents of the District of Columbia, contributions of money to defendant Drudge to support defendant Drudge's activities in researching, writing, and publishing the Drudge Report.

67. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge received money from persons who were located in the District of Columbia in response to defendant Drudge's solicitations for contributions of money to support defendant Drudge's activities in researching, writing, and publishing the Drudge Report.

68. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, through the Internet, telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, and personal visits to the District of Columbia, defendant Drudge solicited information intended for publication in the Drudge Report specifically and intentionally from persons located in the District of Columbia, and has received such information from persons located in the District of Columbia.

69. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, through the Internet, telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, and personal visits to the District of Columbia, defendant Drudge specifically and intentionally solicited persons located in the District of Columbia to become subscribers to the Drudge Report, and signed up persons located in the District of Columbia as subscribers to the Drudge Report.

70. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, through the Internet, telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail, and personal visits to the District of Columbia, defendant Drudge published information from the Drudge Report specifically and intentionally directed to persons located in the District of Columbia.

71. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that, other than defendant Drudge himself, no person edited, checked, verified, or supervised the researching, writing, and publication by defendant Drudge of the Drudge Report.

72. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that the researching, writing, and publishing of the Drudge Report was done by defendant Drudge without assistance, except for the acts and omissions of defendant AOL itself, as alleged in this Complaint.

73. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge knew that at least twenty percent (20%) of the information that defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report was false.

74. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge did not believe himself bound by the standards governing liability for the publication of false and defamatory information by established entities, such as newspapers and television stations.

75. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge published information in the Drudge Report without having done anything to determine whether that information was false.

76. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge had not checked or verified sources before defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report information which those sources had provided to defendant Drudge.

77. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge "instantly" had sent out via electronic mail over the Internet information which defendant Drudge had obtained, without first having verified the information in any way.

78. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge was free to publish anything defendant Drudge wanted to publish.

79. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that "anybody can report anything" over the Internet.

80. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge could "say whatever [he] want[s]" over the Internet.

81. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge had "no editors."

82. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge was in the business of spreading rumors, not documenting facts.

83. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report information which was false.

84. On each occasion prior to August 10, 1997, upon which defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report information which was false, defendant Drudge knew the information was false, or acted with reckless disregard whether it was false.

85. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge published unsubstantiated gossip in the Drudge Report.

86. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, no person, other than defendant Drudge himself, edited, checked, verified, or supervised the researching, writing, or publication of the Drudge Report.

87. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge researched, wrote, and published the Drudge Report without assistance, except for the acts and omissions of defendant AOL itself, as alleged in this Complaint.

88. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge published information in the Drudge Report without having done anything to check or verify the information that defendant Drudge so published.

89. Defendant Drudge has never had any education or training in journalism, in news reporting, in verifying or checking information, or in verifying or checking the reliability of sources of information.

90. Other than in connection with the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge has never had any experience as a reporter, as a journalist, with a newspaper, with a television or radio news bureau, with a publisher, or with any other type of business which published information to the public.

91. Other than in connection with the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge has never worked as a reporter of any type.

92. Defendant Drudge never attended college.

93. Prior to the time when defendant Drudge began to work full-time writing and publishing the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge's full-time job was as the manager of a gift-shop.

Defendant AOL

94. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL was (among other things) an "interactive computer service" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §230(e)(2), in that defendant AOL was an information service, system, or access software provider that provided or enabled computer access by multiple users to a computer server, and specifically was a service or system that provided access to the Internet.

95. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL was a commercial "online service" that offered use of its computer network to persons who paid defendant AOL a fee.

96. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL charged a fee to persons who used its services, which persons defendant AOL referred to as "subscribers."

97. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL had thousands of subscribers in the District of Columbia who paid defendant AOL a fee.

98. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL offered its subscribers access to the Internet in general, and to defendant Drudge in particular, via defendant AOL's links to the Internet.

99. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL, in return for that fee, made the Drudge Report available to all subscribers of defendant AOL, including subscribers of defendant AOL who were located in the District of Columbia.

100. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL sent the Drudge Report to subscribers of defendant AOL.

101. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL sent the Drudge Report to subscribers of AOL who were located in the District of Columbia.

102. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL regularly solicited persons located in the District of Columbia to subscribe to the services provided by defendant AOL, including the Drudge Report.

103. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL sold advertising space on its service to person and entities who or which desired to advertise to subscribers of defendant AOL.

104. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL was in the business of increasing the number of its subscribers so it could earn more revenue from subscriber fees and from advertising.

105. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL derived substantial revenue from services rendered in the District of Columbia.

Defendant Drudge's Contract With Defendant AOL

106. In or about May 1997, defendant Drudge entered into a contract with defendant AOL, pursuant to which defendant AOL agreed to make regular payments to defendant Drudge in return for defendant Drudge preparing the Drudge Report and allowing defendant AOL to make the Drudge Report available to subscribers of defendant AOL as part of defendant AOL's proprietary content.

107. On or about July 15, 1997, defendant AOL held a news conference in which defendant AOL announced (among other things) that defendant AOL had hired defendant Drudge, and that defendant AOL would be offering the Drudge Report to subscribers of defendant AOL as part of defendant AOL's proprietary pages on the Internet.

108. On or about July 15, 1997, defendant AOL issued a press release entitled "AOL Hires Runaway Gossip Success Matt Drudge." A true photocopy of that press release is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1, and incorporated into this Complaint.

109. That press release, Exhibit 1, stated that the press release was copyrighted by defendant AOL in 1997.

110. In that copyrighted press release, Exhibit 1, defendant AOL stated in part as follows:

"Maverick gossip columnist Matt Drudge has teamed up with America Online to reach a potential audience that is 160 times bigger than he has drawn to his web site. At the age of 28, Drudge established himself as the Walter Winchell of the electronic age, a contrarian who lives to break show business and political news stories ahead of all competitors. Now a seasoned 30, Drudge makes his successful Drudge Report available to AOL members.

"The Drudge Report, solely created by Matt Drudge two years ago and still a one-man operation, found success on the World Wide Web with his take-no-prisoners newsbreaks. . . . Giving the Drudge Report a home on America Online (Keyword: Drudge) opens up the floodgates to an audience ripe for Drudge's aggressive brand of reporting. By giving Drudge both a home on AOL and an AOL keyword all his own, AOL has made Matt Drudge instantly accessible to members who crave instant gossip and news breaks.

"`Drudge fits the AOL style and demographic,'" said AOL Networks President and CEO Bob Pittman. "`You can't help but draw a parallel between Drudge and AOL. The Internet has fostered the success of a few players who have established a strong editorial voice. Matt Drudge and AOL share the same ingredients - instant, edgy information - that enable them to be among the very few standouts in cyberspace.'

". . . 'We had an untapped market of news that was eaten up because other news organizations were afraid to touch it,' said Drudge. 'At America Online, an unorthodox service I'm thrilled to join, that won't change -- I may get a new source or two.'"

112. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant AOL recognized when it hired defendant Drudge that defendant Drudge was a "contrarian," that is, a person who rejects accepted norms of behavior.

113. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant AOL recognized when it hired defendant Drudge that defendant Drudge rushed to publish stories.

114. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant AOL recognized when it hired defendant Drudge that defendant Drudge had no editors, fact-checkers, or staff to verify what defendant Drudge had published, and what defendant Drudge was going to publish jointly and severally with defendant AOL.

115. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant Drudge was aggressive in publishing information.

116. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant Drudge published "unsubstantiated gossip."

117. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant Drudge published information over the Internet without verifying that information.

118. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant Drudge published information that news organizations would not publish.

119. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant AOL shared defendant Drudge's style.

120. In its copyrighted press release, defendant AOL stated that defendant AOL intended that defendant Drudge use the facilities of defendant AOL to publish information that reputable news organizations would not publish, to do so instantly, to do so without verifying the information, to do so in a "take-no-prisoners" style, to put a premium on breaking stories immediately, and to pander to those subscribers of defendant AOL who "craved instant gossip."

121. Defendant AOL's copyrighted press release stated that defendant AOL had "teamed up" with defendant Drudge.

122. Defendant AOL's copyrighted press release stated that by "team[ing] up" with defendant AOL, defendant Drudge would reach a potential audience 160 times bigger than defendant Drudge previously had drawn to defendant Drudge's Web site.

123. Defendant AOL's copyrighted press release stated that defendant AOL had given a home to the Drudge Report.

124. Defendant AOL's copyrighted press release stated that by giving such a home to the Drudge Report, defendant AOL was "open[ing] up the floodgates to an audience ripe for Drudge's aggressive brand of reporting."

125. As part of the contractual relationship between defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, defendant Drudge and defendant AOL agreed that defendant Drudge would provide information for publication by defendant AOL similar to the type of information defendant Drudge had published in the Drudge Report prior to defendant Drudge entering into a contract with defendant AOL.

126. As part of the contractual relationship between defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, defendant Drudge and defendant AOL agreed that defendant AOL would not edit the Drudge Report before defendant AOL published it.

127. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge intended that the Drudge Report be read by persons located in the District of Columbia, and particularly that defendant Drudge intended that the Drudge Report be read by persons located in the District of Columbia who were involved with or interested in politics and the national government.

128. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge published unsubstantiated "gossip" in the Drudge Report.

129. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that, other than defendant Drudge himself, no person edited, checked, verified, or supervised the researching, writing, or publication by defendant Drudge of the Drudge Report.

130. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge researched, wrote, and published the Drudge Report without assistance, other than the acts and omissions of defendant AOL itself, as alleged in this Complaint.

131. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge knew that at least twenty percent (20%) of the information that defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report was false.

132. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge did not believe himself bound by the standards governing liability for the publication of false and defamatory information by established entities, such as newspapers and television stations.

133. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge published information in the Drudge Report without doing anything to determine whether that information was false.

134. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge had not checked or verified the reliability of sources before defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report information which those sources had provided to defendant Drudge.

135. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had stated that defendant Drudge "instantly" had sent out via electronic mail over the Internet information which defendant Drudge had obtained, without having first verified the information in any way.

136. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, stated that defendant Drudge was free to publish anything defendant Drudge wanted to publish.

137. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, stated that "anybody can report anything" over the Internet.

138. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, stated that defendant Drudge could "say whatever [he] want[s]" over the Internet.

139. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, stated that defendant Drudge had "no editors."

140. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, stated that defendant Drudge was in the business of spreading rumors, not documenting facts.

141. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had published in the Drudge Report information which was false.

142. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on each occasion prior to August 10, 1997, upon which defendant Drudge had published in the Drudge Report information which was false, defendant Drudge knew the information was false, or acted with reckless disregard whether it was false.

143. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had published unsubstantiated gossip in the Drudge Report.

144. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, no person, other than defendant Drudge himself, edited, checked, verified, or supervised the information that defendant Drudge published in the Drudge Report.

145. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge researched, wrote, and published the Drudge Report without assistance, except for the acts and omissions of defendant AOL itself, as alleged in this Complaint.

146. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had published information in the Drudge Report without having done anything to check or verify the information that defendant Drudge so published.

147. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had never had any education or training in journalism, in news reporting, in verifying or checking information, or in verifying or checking sources of information.

148. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, other than in connection with the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge had never had any experience as a reporter, as a journalist, with a newspaper, with a television or radio news bureau, with a publisher, or with any other type of business which published information to the public.

149. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, other than in connection with the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge had never worked as a reporter of any type.

150. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge had never attended college.

151. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, prior to the time when defendant Drudge began to work full-time writing and publishing the Drudge Report, defendant Drudge's full-time job was as the manager of a gift-shop.

152. After defendant AOL entered into a contract with defendant Drudge, and at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL promoted and advertised defendant Drudge and the Drudge Report in the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

153. After defendant AOL entered into a contract with defendant Drudge, and at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL urged subscribers of defendant AOL and other persons, including subscribers of defendant AOL and other persons located in the District of Columbia, to access the Drudge Report on defendant AOL.

154. Prior to August 10, 1997, and at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, advertised and promoted the fact that defendant AOL carried the Drudge Report in defendant AOL's proprietary pages.

155. Defendant AOL advertised and promoted defendant Drudge and the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint for the purpose of increasing defendant AOL's revenues by attracting more paying subscribers, including paying subscribers located in the District of Columbia.

156. Defendant AOL advertised and promoted defendant Drudge and the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint for the purpose of increasing defendant AOL's revenues by attracting more advertisers to defendant AOL, including advertisers located in the District of Columbia, and specifically including advertisers seeking to reach persons located in the District of Columbia.

157. Other than the payments made by defendant AOL to defendant Drudge, defendant Drudge had, at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, no regular source of income.

158. Defendant AOL knew that, other than the payments made by defendant AOL to defendant Drudge, defendant Drudge had, at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, no regular source of income.

159. By virtue of its contract with defendant Drudge, defendant AOL was, at all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, an "information content provider" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. §230(e)(3), in that defendant AOL was responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the information provided through the Internet in the Drudge Report.

160. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge was the servant of defendant AOL.

161. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant Drudge was the agent of defendant AOL.

162. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, and specifically when defendant Drudge published false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged below, defendant Drudge was acting within the scope of his employment by defendant AOL as the servant of defendant AOL.

163. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, and specifically when defendant Drudge published false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged below, defendant Drudge was acting within the scope of his agency relationship with defendant AOL.

164. At all times relevant to the allegations of this Complaint, defendant AOL had over eight million, six hundred thousand (8,600,000) subscribers, more than any other interactive computer service in the world.

Defendant Drudge's Political Bias

165. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge described himself as a political conservative.

166. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had described himself as a political conservative.

167. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge described himself as a "Clinton crazy," by which it was reasonably to be understood that defendant Drudge meant that defendant Drudge was a person possessed of an unreasoning dislike for President William J. Clinton.

168. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had described himself as a "Clinton crazy," by which it was reasonably to be understood that defendant Drudge meant that defendant Drudge was a person possessed of an unreasoning dislike for President William J. Clinton.

169. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge described himself as a "Clinton hater."

170. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had described himself as a "Clinton hater."

171. On August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge described himself as a person strongly opposed to President William J. Clinton and the policies of the Clinton Administration.

172. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had described himself as a person strongly opposed to President William J. Clinton and the policies of the Clinton Administration.

173. As of August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge was a political conservative.

174. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge was a political conservative.

175. As of August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge harbored strong feelings against President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration.

176. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge harbored strong feelings against President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration.

177. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had, in the District of Columbia, met with other persons who viewed themselves as political opponents of President William J. Clinton.

178. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had, in the District of Columbia, met with other persons who viewed themselves as political opponents of President William J. Clinton.

179. The purpose of such meetings which defendant Drudge had with persons who viewed themselves as political opponents of President William J. Clinton was for defendant Drudge to meet persons who might provide defendant Drudge with information to be published in the Drudge Report.

180. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the purpose of such meetings which defendant Drudge had with persons who viewed themselves as political opponents of President William J. Clinton was for defendant Drudge to meet persons who might provide defendant Drudge with information to be published in the Drudge Report.

181. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge communicated with persons located in the District of Columbia and elsewhere for the purpose of obtaining information harmful to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration for publication in the Drudge Report.

182. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had communicated with persons located in the District of Columbia and elsewhere for the purpose of obtaining information harmful to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration for publication in the Drudge Report.

183. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge published information in the Drudge Report which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration.

184. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had published information in the Drudge Report which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration.

185. On numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge published information in the Drudge Report which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration, which information was false.

186. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on numerous occasions prior to August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge had published information in the Drudge Report which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration, which information was false.

187. On those occasions prior to August 10, 1997, when defendant Drudge published false information which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration, defendant Drudge acted with knowledge that the information defendant Drudge so published was false, or in reckless disregard whether it was false.

188. Prior to August 10, 1997, defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, on those occasions prior to August 10, 1997, when defendant Drudge published false information which had been provided to defendant Drudge by persons opposed to President William J. Clinton and the Clinton Administration, defendant Drudge acted with knowledge that the information defendant Drudge so published was false, or in reckless disregard whether it was false.

189. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as Assistant to the President, occupies one of the highest positions in the White House, and has responsibilities for policy issues and political matters.

190. Defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint would cause plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal to resign from his position as Assistant to President William J. Clinton.

191. Defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint would cause plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal to resign from his position as Assistant to President William J. Clinton.

192. Defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint would hinder plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal in the performance of his duties as Assistant to President William J. Clinton.

193. Defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint would hinder plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal in the performance of his duties as Assistant to President William J. Clinton.

194. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as the Director of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships, occupies an important position within the Administration of President William J. Clinton.

195. In her position, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal must work closely with the members of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships.

196. The members of the President's Commission on White House Fellowships include business, political, and educational leaders from all walks of life and from all political parties.

197. Defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint would cause plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal to resign from her position as Director of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships.

198. Defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint would cause plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal to resign from her position as Director of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships.

199. Defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge as alleged in this Complaint would hinder plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal in the performance of her duties as Director of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships.

200. Defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the allegations published by defendant Drudge as alleged in this Complaint would hinder plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal in the performance of her duties as Director of The President's Commission On White House Fellowships.

201. In publishing false information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Complaint, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, such publication would harm President William J. Clinton and impede the operation of the Clinton Administration.

202. Defendant AOL knew that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, defendant Drudge intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the publication of false information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Complaint, would harm President William J. Clinton and impede the operation of the Clinton Administration.

The First Drudge Report Libel

203. On or about August 10, 1997, and August 11, 1997, defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, caused to be published in the Drudge Report via electronic mail, over the Internet, and through defendant AOL, information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal. A true and correct photocopy of what defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so published, as downloaded from the Internet and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2, and is incorporated herein.

204. The information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, consisted of the following words, written partly in large bold-face type and partly in large bold-face italic type: "CHARGE: NEW WHITE HOUSE RECRUIT SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL HAS SPOUSAL ABUSE PAST DRUDGE REPORT." Exhibit 2.

205. The portion of the Drudge Report quoted in the preceding paragraph was false, in that Sidney Blumenthal had no "spousal abuse past."

206. As a direct and proximate result of such information having been published via electronic mail and on the Internet by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, such information has remained available on the Internet at a number of sites since August 10, 1997, and has been widely published beyond the Internet.

207. As a direct and proximate result of such information having been published via electronic mail and on the Internet by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, such information cannot be removed from the Internet.

208. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein, is a photocopy of a page downloaded from the Web site of defendant Drudge, in which defendant Drudge claimed that 18,354 persons accessed the Drudge Report August 10, 1997, over and above the number of persons to whom defendant Drudge had sent the August 10, 1997, Drudge Report directly via electronic mail.

The Second Drudge Report Libel

209. On or about August 10, 1997, and August 11, 1997, defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, caused to be published in the Drudge Report via electronic mail, over the Internet, and through defendant AOL additional information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal. A true and correct photocopy of the additional information which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so published, as downloaded from the Internet and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4, and is incorporated herein.

210. The information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, appeared under the heading "GOP: The Blumenthal Option?", and included the following statements:

"The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that top GOP operatives who feel there is a double-standard of only reporting republican shame believe they are holding an ace card: New White House recruit Sidney Blumenthal has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up.

"The accusations are explosive.

"`There are court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife,' one influential republican, who demanded anonymity, tells the DRUDGE REPORT.

"`If they begin to use Sipple and his problems against us, against the Republican Party. . . to show hypocrisy, Blumenthal would become fair game. Wasn't it Clinton who signed the Violence Against Women Act?'

"[There goes the budget deal honeymoon.]

"One White House source, also requesting anonymity, says the Blumenthal wife-beating allegation is pure fiction that has been created by Clinton enemies. '[The First Lady] would not have brought him in if he had this in his background,' assures the well-placed staffer. 'This story about Blumenthal has been in circulation for years.'

"Last month President Clinton named Sidney Blumenthal an Assistant to the President as part of the Communications Team. He's been brought in to work on communications strategy, special projects, themeing -- a newly created position.

"Every attempt to reach Blumenthal proved unsuccessful." Exhibit 4.

212. As a direct and proximate result of such information having been published via electronic mail and on the Internet by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, such information has remained available on the Internet at a number of sites since August 10, 1997, and has been widely disseminated beyond the Internet.

213. As a direct and proximate result of such information having been published via electronic mail and on the Internet by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, such information cannot be removed from the Internet.

214. As shown on Exhibit 3 to this Complaint, defendant Drudge claimed that 39,559 persons accessed the Drudge Report August 11, 1997, over and above the number of persons to whom defendant Drudge had sent the August 11, 1997, Drudge Report directly via electronic mail.

The Letter From The Blumenthals' Lawyers

215. On August 11, 1997, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, through their lawyers, sent a letter to defendant Drudge stating, among other things, that the information defendant Drudge had published via electronic mail, over the Internet, and through defendant AOL regarding plaintiffs was false and defamatory. A true photocopy of that letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5, and incorporated herein.

216. On and after August 11, 1997, a number of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and television stations in the District of Columbia and around the United States prepared and published stories concerning the publication by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, of information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

217. These numerous stories that appeared in other publications re-published the false statements first published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint.

Defendant Drudge's Comments To The Washington Post

218. Defendant Drudge, commencing on or about August 11, 1997, spoke on one or more occasions to Mr. Howard Kurtz, a reporter for The Washington Post.

219. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Kurtz, Mr. Kurtz told defendant Drudge that Mr. Kurtz was writing a story for The Washington Post about the Drudge Report's publication of information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

220. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Kurtz, Mr. Kurtz solicited comments from defendant Drudge for publication in The Washington Post.

221. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge made comments to Mr. Kurtz with the understanding and intention that Mr. Kurtz would reduce defendant Drudge's comments to writing and publish those comments in The Washington Post.

222. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge stated:

"It [the story about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal] was based on two sources who clearly were operating from a political motivation."

223. The Washington Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as quoted in the preceding paragraph, in the August 12, 1997, edition of The Washington Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in The Washington Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 7 and is incorporated herein.

224. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge also stated:

"Someone was trying to get me to go after [the story published about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal] and I probably fell for it a little too hard."

225. The Washington Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as quoted in the preceding paragraph, in the August 12, 1997, edition of The Washington Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in The Washington Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 7 and is incorporated herein.

226. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge also stated:

"This is a case of using me to broadcast dirty laundry. I think I've been had."

228. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge also stated that court records existed documenting acts of spousal abuse by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, but that defendant Drudge did not have such records in his possession.

229. The Washington Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as paraphrased in the preceding paragraph, in the August 15, 1997, edition of The Washington Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in The Washington Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9 and is incorporated herein.

230. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge also stated that defendant Drudge believed that the information defendant Drudge published about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal being a spouse abuser had surfaced during an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") into the background of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal.

231. The Washington Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as paraphrased in the preceding paragraph, in the August 15, 1997, edition of The Washington Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in The Washington Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9 and is incorporated herein.

232. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Kurtz, defendant Drudge also stated that he tried to speak to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before publishing information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal in the Drudge Report, but was unable to do so.

233. The Washington Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as paraphrased in the preceding paragraph, in the August 15, 1997, edition of The Washington Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in The Washington Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 9 and is incorporated herein.

234. The statements of defendant Drudge quoted or paraphrased in The Washington Post were false, in that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have no "dirty laundry" for defendant Drudge to "broadcast;" no court records documenting plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal's "spousal abuse past" exist; no FBI files containing any such allegations about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal exist; no information such as that published by defendant Drudge as alleged in this Complaint surfaced during an FBI investigation; no background check of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal had been conducted as of August 10, 1997; and defendant Drudge made no attempt to speak with plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before publishing the Drudge Report which contained false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

Defendant Drudge's Comments To The New York Post

235. On or about August 11, 1997, defendant Drudge spoke on one or more occasions to Mr. Braden Keil, a reporter for the New York Post.

236. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Keil, Mr. Keil told defendant Drudge that Mr. Keil was working on a story for the New York Post about the Drudge Report's publication of information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

237. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Keil, Mr. Keil solicited comments from defendant Drudge for publication in the New York Post.

238. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Kiel, defendant Drudge made comments to Mr. Keil with the understanding and intention that Mr. Keil would reduce defendant Drudge's comments to writing and publish those comments in the New York Post.

239. In defendant Drudge's conversations with Mr. Keil, defendant Drudge stated that defendant Drudge had removed the information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal from the Drudge Report because "I just wanted to make [the story] as solid as possible, plus, I have a major addition that just came to my attention."

240. The statement of defendant Drudge quoted in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint reasonably is understood to mean that defendant Drudge had removed the information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal from the Drudge Report because defendant Drudge had additional information supporting the original information defendant Drudge had published; and to mean that defendant Drudge did not have information that showed or tended to show that defendant Drudge's original story was false or probably false.

241. In those conversations between defendant Drudge and Mr. Keil, defendant Drudge also told Mr. Keil that no one had called defendant Drudge to complain about the information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal which defendant Drudge had published in the Drudge Report as alleged in this Complaint; and that "[w]hen they don't call, that's when you got something."

242. The statements of defendant Drudge referred to in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint are reasonably understood to mean that, because defendant Drudge had received no complaints about the original story, that original story was true.

243. The New York Post published defendant Drudge's comments, as quoted in the preceding paragraphs, in the August 12, 1997, edition of the New York Post and over the Internet. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared in the New York Post is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 10 and is incorporated herein. A true photocopy of this story as it appeared on the Internet, as downloaded and printed out, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 11 and is incorporated herein.

244. The statements of defendant Drudge published in the New York Post were false, in that: defendant Drudge did not remove the information regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal from the Drudge Report because defendant Drudge wanted to make the story as solid as possible; no major addition to the story had been brought to defendant Drudge's attention; defendant Drudge had no information that supported or tended to support defendant Drudge's original story; defendant Drudge had received complaints from lawyers for plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal telling defendant Drudge that the story was false; no court records documenting plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal's "spousal abuse past" exist; and defendant Drudge made no attempts to speak with plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before publishing the Drudge Report which contained false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

Defendant Drudge's Comments To Mark Miller

245. On or about August 10, 1997, defendant Drudge spoke on one or more occasions to Mr. Mark Miller, a producer employed by ABC News in New York, New York, who was working on a story about defendant Drudge.

246. In defendant Drudge's conversation with Mr. Miller, defendant Drudge voluntarily stated that defendant Drudge was "working on a story that will blow the roof off the White House, and force a staffer to resign."

247. At the time defendant Drudge made this comment to Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller was unaware of the information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, had published regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

248. After Mr. Miller learned of the information published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, Mr. Miller understood that the comment by defendant Drudge quoted in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint was intended by defendant Drudge to refer to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal.

249. Mr. Miller was reasonable in understanding that the comment by defendant Drudge quoted in the preceding paragraph of this Complaint was intended to refer to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal.

250. The comment made by defendant Drudge to Mr. Miller was false, in that defendant Drudge's comment implied that defendant Drudge had information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal that would force plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal to resign from the position of Assistant to President William J. Clinton, when defendant Drudge had no such information.

251. When viewed in the context of the information published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, regarding plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Complaint, the comment published by defendant Drudge to Mr. Miller reasonably was to be understood as alleging that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed crimes of violence punishable as felonies; that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal was the subject of court proceedings relating to such violent acts; that the accusations of violence against plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal are explosive; that stories of such violence by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have circulated for years; that the truth about these stories has been covered-up; and that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal refused to take the opportunity to refute these allegations, implying that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal recognized the truth of such allegations.

252. When viewed in this context, the comments published by defendant Drudge to Mr. Miller were false in that: (1) Sidney Blumenthal has no "spousal abuse past;" (2) that "past" has never "been effectively covered up;" (3) the "accusations" are not "explosive;" (4) there were no such "accusations;" (5) no "court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife" exist; (6) no such "story about Blumenthal has been in circulation for years;" and (7) defendant Drudge made no "attempt to reach [plaintiff Sidney] Blumenthal" about this story.

Repetition

253. The false information concerning plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint, was repeated on numerous occasions by third persons who republished that information orally, over the Internet, via hard copy downloaded from the Internet, and in stories that appeared in newspapers, magazines, and electronic media around the world.

254. Defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, intended that, or acted with reckless disregard whether, the false information concerning plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL published, jointly and severally, would be repeated by third persons as alleged above.

255. At the time defendant Drudge and defendant AOL published, jointly and severally, false information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Complaint, it was reasonably to be expected that third persons would repeat that information orally, via the Internet, in hard copy downloaded from the Internet, and in stories appearing in newspapers, magazines, and electronic media around the world.

256. Many of the persons who repeated the false information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint, had a privilege to do so.

Common Law Malice

257. In publishing false information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Complaint, defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, acted with common law malice, that is, with hatred, ill-will, and spite toward plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

258. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the common law malice of defendant Drudge.

259. Defendant AOL, as the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the common law malice of its agent, defendant Drudge.

CLAIM ONE
(The First Drudge Report Libel; Sidney Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

260. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

261. The information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as contained in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint, was false, in that Sidney Blumenthal has no "spousal abuse past."

262. The false information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, published as alleged in this Claim One is defamatory, in that, as reasonably understood, the information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal so as to lower him in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with him, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent crimes punishable as felonies; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed the crime of spouse abuse; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; and plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal concealed and covered up his violent acts of spousal abuse.

263. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim One with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

264. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim One with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

265. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim One, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

266. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim One.

267. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim One.

268. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim One was within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

269. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim One.

270. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim One.

271. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim One, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

272. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim One, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

273. WHEREFORE plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal of his costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM TWO
(The First Drudge Report Libel; Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

274. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

275. The information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as contained in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint, was false, in that Sidney Blumenthal has no "spousal abuse past."

276. The false information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, published as alleged in this Claim Two is defamatory, in that, as reasonably understood, such information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal so as to lower her in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with her, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent crimes punishable as felonies; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed the crime of spouse abuse; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal has been the victim of violent abuse; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was and remains married to a man who had violently abused her during that marriage; and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal helped conceal and cover up violent acts of spousal abuse directed toward her.

277. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Two with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

278. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Two with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the information was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

279. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Two, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

280. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Two.

281. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Two.

282. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Two was within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

283. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Two.

284. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Two.

285. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Two, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

286. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Two, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to her reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

287. WHEREFORE plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal of her costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM THREE
(False Light Invasion Of Privacy; Based On The First Drudge Report Libel; Sidney Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

288. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

289. Defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, unreasonably publicized or caused to be unreasonably publicized the information concerning plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal contained in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint.

290. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized was false and defamatory.

291. The false and defamatory information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized placed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before the public in a false or objectionable light, in that defendants publicly portrayed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as a spouse abuser and man of violence, and as a person who had concealed this violence from others.

292. The false or objectionable light in which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so placed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal was highly offensive to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

293. Defendant Drudge acted with actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three, in that defendant Drudge did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal would be placed.

294. Defendant AOL acted with actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three, in that defendant AOL did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal would be placed.

295. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three, were within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

296. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three.

297. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Three.

298. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three, were within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

299. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three.

300. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Three.

301. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal publicized or caused to be publicized by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Three, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

302. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Three, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

303. WHEREFORE plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal of his costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM FOUR
(False Light Invasion Of Privacy; Based On The First Drudge Report Libel; Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

304. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

305. Defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, unreasonably publicized or caused to be unreasonably publicized the information concerning plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal contained in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint.

306. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized was false and defamatory.

307. The false and defamatory information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized placed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal before the public in a false or objectionable light, in that defendants publicly portrayed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as a victim of spouse abuse, as a person who was and remains married to a man who had violently abused her during that marriage, and as a person who had concealed and covered up such violent abuse.

308. The false or objectionable light in which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so placed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was highly offensive to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

309. Defendant Drudge acted out of actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four, in that defendant Drudge did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal would be placed.

310. Defendant AOL acted out of actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four, in that defendant AOL did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal would be placed.

311. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four, were within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

312. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four.

313. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Four.

314. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four, were within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

315. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four.

316. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Four.

317. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal publicized or caused to be publicized by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Four, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

318. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Four, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to her reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

319. WHEREFORE plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal of her costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM FIVE
(The Second Drudge Report Libel; Sidney Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

320. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

321. The information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as contained in Exhibit 4 to this Complaint was false, in that: (1) Sidney Blumenthal has no "spousal abuse past;" (2) that "past" has never "been effectively covered up;" (3) the "accusations" are not "explosive;" (4) there were no such "accusations;" (5) no "court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife" exist; (6) no such "story about Blumenthal has been in circulation for years;" and (7) defendant Drudge made no "attempt to reach [plaintiff Sidney] Blumenthal" before publishing this information.

322. The false information defendant Drudge published as alleged in this Claim Five was defamatory, in that, as reasonably understood, this information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal so as to lower him in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with him, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed crimes of violence punishable as felonies; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal was the subject of court proceedings relating to such violent acts; the accusations of violence against plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal are explosive; stories of such violence by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have circulated for years; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has covered up the truth about these stories; and plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal refused to take the opportunity to refute these allegations, implying that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal recognized the truth of such allegations.

323. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Five with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

324. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Five with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the information was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

325. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Five, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

326. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Five.

327. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Five.

328. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Five was within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

329. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Five.

330. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Five.

331. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Five, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

332. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Five, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

333. WHEREFORE plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal of his costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM SIX
(The Second Drudge Report Libel; Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

334. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

335. The information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as contained in Exhibit 4 to this Complaint, was false, in that: (1) Sidney Blumenthal has no "spousal abuse past;" (2) that "past" has never "been effectively covered up;" (3) the "accusations" are not "explosive;" (4) there were no such "accusations;" (5) no "court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife" exist; (6) no such "story about Blumenthal has been in circulation for years;" and (7) defendant Drudge made no "attempts to reach [plaintiff Sidney] Blumenthal" before publishing this information. 336. The false information defendant Drudge published as alleged in this Claim Six was defamatory, in that, as reasonably understood, this information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal so as to lower her in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with her, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed crimes of violence punishable as felonies; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal were the subject of court proceedings relating to such violent acts; the accusations of violence against plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal are explosive; stories of such violence by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have circulated for years; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal covered up the truth about these stories; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal refused to take the opportunity to refute these allegations, implying that plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal recognized the truth of such allegations; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal had been the victim of violent abuse; and that plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was and remains married to a man who had violently abused her during that marriage.

337. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Six with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

338. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Six with actual malice, that is, with knowledge the information was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

339. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Six, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

340. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Six.

341. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Six.

342. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Six was within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

343. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Six.

344. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Six.

345. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Six, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

346. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Six, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to her reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

347. WHEREFORE plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal of her costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM SEVEN
(False Light Invasion Of Privacy; Based On The Second Drudge Report Libel; Sidney Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

348. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

349. Defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, unreasonably publicized or caused to be unreasonably publicized the information concerning plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal set out in Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.

350. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized was false and defamatory.

351. The false and defamatory information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized placed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before the public in a false or objectionable light, in that defendants publicly portrayed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as a spouse abuser and man of violence, and as a person who had concealed this violence from others.

352. The false or objectionable light in which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so placed plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal was highly offensive to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

353. Defendant Drudge acted with actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven, in that defendant Drudge did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal would be placed.

354. Defendant AOL acted with actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven, in that defendant AOL did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal would be placed.

355. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven, were within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

356. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven.

357. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Seven.

358. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven, were within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

359. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven.

360. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Seven.

361. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal publicized or caused to be publicized by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Seven, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

362. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Seven, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

363. WHEREFORE plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal of his costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM EIGHT
(False Light Invasion Of Privacy; Based On The Second Drudge Report Libel; Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

364. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

365. Defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, unreasonably publicized or caused to be unreasonably publicized the information concerning plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal contained in Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.

366. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized was false and defamatory.

367. The false and defamatory information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so publicized or caused to be publicized placed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal before the public in a false or objectionable light, in that defendants publicly portrayed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as a victim of spouse abuse, as a person who was and remains married to a man who violently abused her during that marriage, and as a person who covered up such violent abuse.

368. The false or objectionable light in which defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, so placed plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was highly offensive to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

369. Defendant Drudge acted out of actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight, in that defendant Drudge did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal would be placed.

370. Defendant AOL acted out of actual malice in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight, in that defendant AOL did so with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard as to, the falsity of the information and the false light in which plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal would be placed.

371. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight, were within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

372. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight.

373. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge as alleged in this Claim Eight.

374. The acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight, were within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

375. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight.

376. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publicizing or causing to be publicized false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Eight.

377. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal publicized or caused to be publicized by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Eight, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

378. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Eight, plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to her reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

379. WHEREFORE plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal of her costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM NINE
(Libel; defendant Drudge's Comments To The Washington Post; Sidney Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

380. Plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

381. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, published as stated in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 to this Complaint was false, in that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal had no "dirty laundry" for defendant Drudge to "broadcast;" no court records documenting plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal's "spousal abuse past" exist; no FBI files containing any such allegations about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal exist; no information such as that published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Complaint, ever surfaced during an FBI investigation; no background check of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal had been conducted as of August 10, 1997; and defendant Drudge made no attempts to speak with plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before publishing the Drudge Report which contained false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal.

382. The false information defendant Drudge published as alleged in this Claim Nine was defamatory in that, as reasonably understood, this information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal so as to lower him in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with him, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed crimes of violence punishable as felonies; that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal was the subject of court proceedings relating to such violent acts; that the accusations of violence committed by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal were uncovered by investigators of the FBI; that FBI investigative files contain evidence of such conduct by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal; that stories of such violence by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal against Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have circulated for years; that these stories contain explosive allegations about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal; that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have "dirty laundry" they do not wish to see revealed in public; that plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal covered up the truth about these stories; and that plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal refused to respond to attempts by defendant Drudge to speak to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before defendant Drudge published this information.

383. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Nine with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

384. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Nine with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

385. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Nine, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

386. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Nine.

387. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge, as alleged in this Claim Nine.

388. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Nine, was within the scope of defendant Drudge's agency relationship with defendant AOL.

389. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Nine.

390. As the principal of its agent, defendant Drudge, defendant AOL is vicariously liable for the actual malice of defendant Drudge in publishing false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Nine.

391. The false and defamatory information about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Nine, has been seen or heard by thousands of persons.

392. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, as alleged in this Claim Nine, plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and has suffered injury to his reputation, personal humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

393. WHEREFORE plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal demands judgment against defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, in the form of an injunction requiring defendant Drudge and defendant AOL to take all steps necessary to remove the information so published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL from the Internet to the extent practicable; in the form of damages in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) in nominal damages, Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, and Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) in punitive damages; and in the form of an award to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal of his costs in this action and such further relief as justice requires.

CLAIM TEN
(Libel; defendant Drudge's Comments To The Washington Post; Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; defendant Drudge and defendant AOL)

394. Plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal restates the allegations of all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and incorporates them herein.

395. The information defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, jointly and severally, published as stated in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9, to this Complaint was false, in that: plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal had no "dirty laundry" for defendant Drudge to publish; no court records documenting plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal's "spousal abuse past" exist; no FBI files containing any such allegations about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal exist; no information such as that published by defendant Drudge and defendant AOL, as alleged in this Complaint, ever surfaced during an FBI investigation; no background check of plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal had been conducted as of August 10, 1997; and defendant Drudge made no attempts to speak with plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before publishing the Drudge Report which contained false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal.

396. The false information defendant Drudge published as alleged in this Claim Ten was defamatory in that, as reasonably understood, this information tended to harm the character and reputation of plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal so as to lower her in the estimation of the community and to deter other persons from associating or dealing with her, by stating or implying that: plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed crimes of violence punishable as felonies; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal committed violent acts against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal were the subjects of court proceedings relating to such violent acts; the accusations of violence committed by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal were uncovered by investigators of the FBI; FBI investigative files contain evidence of such conduct by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal; stories of such violence by plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal against plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have circulated for years; these stories contain explosive allegations about plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal have "dirty laundry" they do not wish to see revealed in public; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal covered up the truth about these stories; plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal refused to respond to attempts by defendant Drudge to speak to plaintiff Sidney Blumenthal before defendant Drudge published this information; plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was the victim of violent abuse by her husband; and plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal was and remains married to a man who had violently abused her during that marriage.

397. Defendant Drudge published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Ten with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that this information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

398. Defendant AOL published the false and defamatory information about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal as alleged in this Claim Ten with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the information was false, or in reckless disregard for whether it was false.

399. The publication by defendant Drudge of false and defamatory statements about plaintiff Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, as alleged in this Claim Ten, was within the scope of the employment of defendant Drudge by defendant AOL as a servant of defendant AOL.

400. Defendant AOL, as the master of its servant, defendant Drudge, is