Judge Dismisses Robert Malone Vs. Washington Post Defamation Lawsuit

ER Editor: A Twitter/X search for Malone’s (now former) attorney, Steven Biss, is most interesting. He’s represented a lot of high profile people, and does seem to be very ill, likely having had a stroke in August:

Dr. Jane Ruby, whom Malone is going after in addition to Dr. Peter Breggin and his wife, had this to say within the last few hours:

Malone’s been given one month to find a new lawyer.


Judge Dismisses Robert Malone Vs. Washington Post Defamation Lawsuit

Criticizes and Warns Malone About Further Defamation Suits


Judge Norman K. Moon—who is also presiding over Malone’s case against Dr. Peter and Ginger Breggin and Dr. Jane Ruby—ordered the dismissal of Dr. Robert Malone’s defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post on September 28, 2023.

Specifically, Judge Moon directed the clerk of the court to “STRIKE this case from the docket.”  He invoked Virgina’s Anti-SLAPP law which allows a judge to dismiss a case deemed without merit, essentially throwing it out of the court. At his discretion in an Anti-SLAPP suit, the judge can also require the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal fees.  But Judge Moon decided not to require this of Malone, in part because the newspaper’s resources are so much larger than Malone’s.

In dismissing Malone’s lawsuit against the newspaper, Judge Moon pointed out that Malone’s lawsuit was dealing with COVID-19 and the vaccines, matters of serious public interest, which were protected by the First Amendment and should not be stifled. He also found that Malone failed to document malice on the part of The Washington Post.

However, the judge was critical of Malone and issued a strong warning to Malone about continuing to bring defamation actions:

Nonetheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff [Dr. Malone] has filed repeated defamation cases14 and is represented by a lawyer [Steven Biss] who has sued Defendant [The Washington Post] three times in the past three years.15 And if Plaintiff [Dr. Malone] continues to bring defamation actions like those that have been dismissed, there will come a time when his lawsuits might fairly be deemed frivolous and awarding attorney fees is appropriate.

Footnote 14 above specifically cites the case against the Breggins and Dr. Jane Ruby:14 See, e.g., Malone v. Twitter, Inc., 2022 WL 14835110 (Cal. Super. Sept. 28, 2022); Malone v. Breggin, No. 3:22-cv-63 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2022).” [Emphases added.] Footnote 15 is related to cases by attorney Biss that do not involve Dr. Malone.

See the documents below.

On a related topic, Malone’s attorney, Steven Biss, was hospitalized some time ago and is reportedly in a coma or very ill. On Monday, September 25, 2023, Malone requested three months’ time to find a new lawyer but did so long after the lawyer’s condition was leaked to the public. Judge Moon granted Malone only one month to find a new lawyer.

At present, Robert Malone’s case against Dr. Peter and Ginger Breggin and Dr. Jane Ruby is still alive, waiting for Malone to get a new lawyer. The appearance of a new attorney will considerably prolong the case and generate new costs and require more time and energy, while continuing to threaten and suppress freedom of speech, especially in the health freedom movement.

Robert Malone V Washington Post– Judge Moon Memorandum Opinion
242KB ∙ PDF file



Judge Order To Dismiss Malone Suit Against Wp 9 29 23
129KB ∙ PDF file




Featured image, screencapture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0-COeWrLY&t


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.