Lawyer Willing to Represent Families of Covington HS Students Pro Bono

January 23, 2019 / As seen on Fox & Friends

One lawyer said Wednesday on Fox & Friends that he's willing to represent the families of some Covington High School students pro bono.

Many online were quick to criticize the students from the Kentucky high school following the viral confrontation involving them and a Native American protester over the weekend.

The students were initially believed to be harassing the protester, Nathan Phillips, following the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C.

Subsequent video footage, however, revealed that the students were accosted and yelled at before Phillips and other Native American activists approached them. Another group -- the so-called Black Hebrew Israelites -- were heard shouting abuse at the students for wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.

Many people called for the students to have their private information revealed on social media, and a freelance journalist even wished death on the students.

Kurtz: Covington Incident Shows What a 'Toxic Stew' Social Media Has Become

Attorney Robert Barnes said that he represents families of students who were libeled, families of some children featured in photos of the encounter and alumni who want to seek legal remedy as well.

"A lot of these journalists that have been saying false statements about these kids ... all you have to prove is that they were negligent in doing so, and by this standpoint, by this point in time, it is clear that anyone who continues to lie and lie about these kids has done so illegally and can be sued for it," he said.

Barnes said that legal fees in libel lawsuits can amount to nearly $1 million in some cases, so he wanted to "equalize the playing field" in the case of some students.

He announced Wednesday that potential defendants are being given a 48-hour notice to retract and correct any false statements about these Covington students.

"If you have said anything false about these kids, they are willing to extend you a 48-hour time period -- a period of grace, consistent with their Christian faith -- for you to, through confessions, get redemption and retract and correct and apologize," Barnes said.

He also explained that plaintiffs are allowed to seek "per se damages" in libel lawsuits, meaning that individual damages do not have to be proven.

"Those damages can range from $50,000 to $300,000 to, in the Gawker case, millions and millions of dollars," he said. "So all these people that have lied and libeled better be checking their bank accounts if they're going to continue to lie and libel of these kids."

Barnes added that he was especially disappointed that New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman has yet to retract her statements made about the confrontation.

"Despite knowing from her own newspaper how false those original statements are, she has yet to retract, yet to correct, yet to apologize, and she'll be one of the people sued if she doesn't do it in the next 48 hours."

Catholic Leaders Refuse to Retract Slander of School Boys at March for Life

By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. / 22 Jan 2019

A number of Catholic leaders and institutions who slandered a group of Catholic school boys after the annual March for Life remain silent after the boys were shown to be innocent.

A short video released on social media made it appear that a group of students from Covington Catholic High School could have accosted Native American activist Nathan Phillips, whereas more extensive footage from different angles made it clear that it was Mr. Phillips who approached the boys and began playing his drum directly in the face of one of them.

Videos show that the students were not propagating racist abuse, they were being victimized by it. One of the activists who confronted the group told them: “You white people go back to Europe where you came from! This is not your land!”

Without bothering to ascertain what actually happened, numerous media outlets rushed to condemn the boys, who were white and some of whom were wearing MAGA hats, as “racists” who were mocking or taunting the Native American man.

The boys’ school and the Diocese of Covington joined in the feeding frenzy, hastily issuing a statement of condemnation of the boys as well as a public apology without hearing the boys’ version of the story.

“This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person,” Covington Catholic High School and the Diocese of Covington said in a joint statement. “The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.”

“We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips,” the statement reads.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore issued a separate condemnation of the students, tweeting that they had shown “disrespect” toward a Native American elder.

Without apologizing to the boys for its rash accusation, the Baltimore Archdiocese released a statement to “clarify” its earlier declaration, acknowledging that “the circumstances of this confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial are now being reported as more complex and it will be the responsibility of school authorities, parents and others involved to determine the actual circumstances, responsibility and consequences.”

For his part, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Saint Louis said he joined “in condemning the actions of the Covington Catholic students towards Mr. Nathan Phillips and the Native American Community yesterday in Washington.”

Despite the abundant new evidence exonerating the students from wrongdoing, as of this writing Archbishop Kurtz has not apologized for slandering the boys and his original statement is still on his website.

Nick Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School who identified himself as “the student in the video” wearing the MAGA hat and smiling at Phillips, has released a statement explaining his side of the story and forcefully denying charges that he and his companions had accosted Phillips or taunted him.

“The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face,” Sandmann said.

I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.

I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whoever “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” is guilty of rash judgment, and whoever, “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” is guilty of calumny, or slander.

Despite the evident slander on the part of Church officials, which gravely damaged the good name of Nick Sandmann and his companions, no efforts have been made at reparation for this evil, something also called for by the Catholic Catechism.

Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.