Mark Andrews v. Dinesh D’Souza et al.

November 3, 2022
Share

Protect Democracy and its partners filed suit against the makers and promoters of the election lie-hyping film 2000 Mules and its accompanying book on behalf of a private citizen in Georgia who was falsely accused of breaking the law in the movie, book, and related promotional efforts. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in both defamation and voter intimidation.

Without evidence, Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips (along with D’Souza Media, True the Vote, Salem Media, Regnery Publishing, and others) manufactured a reputation-injuring lie about our client Mark Andrews, who legally placed his own ballot and those of his family into a ballot dropbox ahead of the 2020 election. Their lies portrayed Andrews, recorded on surveillance footage depositing the ballots, as a so-called “ballot mule” working to illegally cast votes in an effort to steal the election away from then-President Donald Trump.

In addition to the defendants featuring Mr. Andrews’ image and lies about Mr. Andrews in their so-called documentary and book that falsely claim fraud in the 2020 presidential election (and in advertisements), defendants repeated these lies many times over in media appearances and posts on social media. These lies are textbook defamation, false light, and appropriation of likeness. They also violate the Klan Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed by Congress in the wake of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement to prohibit the kind of intimidation that Defendants are now engaged in.

This suit seeks to impose consequences on those who profit from election lies that harm private individuals and our democracy writ large.

Law for Truth, a project of Protect Democracy, represents Mr. Andrews in partnership with the law firm DuBose Miller LLC and other pro bono counsel.

Featured Press

‘2000 Mules’ voter fraud movie lands in court in defamation suit

Aug. 24, 2023

One of Dinesh D’Souza’s 2,000 alleged ‘mules’ sues, claiming defamation The Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2022 One of Dinesh D’Souza’s 2,000 alleged ‘mules’ sues, claiming defamation

Related Resources

The Actual Malice Standard, Explained The Actual Malice Standard, Explained

Dominion v. Fox Is Just the Beginning Lawfare Dominion v. Fox Is Just the Beginning

Case Documents

Plaintiff's Response to True The Vote Defendants’ Supplemental Brief on First Amendment Issues Aug. 22, 2023 Plaintiff's Response to True The Vote Defendants’ Supplemental Brief on First Amendment Issues

Complaint Oct. 26, 2022 Complaint

Amended Complaint Dec. 1, 2022 Amended Complaint

Opposition to True the Vote, Catherine Engelbrecht, and Gregg Phillips' Motion to Dismiss March 24, 2023 Opposition to True the Vote, Catherine Engelbrecht, and Gregg Phillips' Motion to Dismiss

Opposition to Defedants' Motion for a More Definitive Statement March 24, 2023 Opposition to Defedants' Motion for a More Definitive Statement

Opposition to Salem Media Group and Regenery Publishing Group's Motion to Dismiss and Dinesh D'Souza and D'Souza Media LLC's Motion to Dismiss March 24, 2023 Opposition to Salem Media Group and Regenery Publishing Group's Motion to Dismiss and Dinesh D'Souza and D'Souza Media LLC's Motion to Dismiss

Brief of Amicus Curiae Campaign Legal Center in Support of Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and supporting exhibits June 5, 2023 Brief of Amicus Curiae Campaign Legal Center in Support of Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and supporting exhibits

Plaintiff's Response to Supplemental Authority, Counterman v. Colorado July 11, 2023 Plaintiff's Response to Supplemental Authority, Counterman v. Colorado

Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Pleading & Supplemental Pleading August 7, 2023 Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Pleading & Supplemental Pleading