Dan Scott libel case ‘Dismissed’ becuz it was ‘Settled’

Of course the Argus Endorser’s headline is backwards;

Scott suit against Argus settled, dismissed

Good stuff, and it gets better;

Dan Scott, the former director of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, had claimed that a satirical column in 2007 by then-Executive Editor Randell Beck had damaged his reputation.

Last week, Circuit Judge Bradley Zell signed an order dismissing the case. Lawyers for both sides signed a stipulation stating that the case had been settled “without costs to any party.”

Yeah, sure, you betcha! As I understand it, there can be all kinds of settlements outside the courtroom. My guess is that Gannett wrote Mr. Scott a big fat check and said, STFU. And that was passed to the judge who said, “They kissed and made up.”

Sources tell me that Scott got more then a parting gift. But, like licking to the center of a Tootsie-Pop “The World may never know.”


#1 Pathloss on 01.25.11 at 7:04 am

The city should settle some of their dozen or so lawsuits this way. It’ll never happen because they’re spending OUR money and the dictator mayor only spends into his or developer buddy pockets. Seems like COMMON SENSE and there you have it. City administration is not known for making practical decisions.

#2 l3wis on 01.25.11 at 7:12 am

I think it is funny how this story got posted on the Argus Endorser’s website at 9:50 PM on a Monday Night.

What’s under that rug?

#3 Costner on 01.25.11 at 7:38 am

Actually the Argus has been very forthcoming about the case and has printed numerous stories and updates about it.

I tend to believe them about the financial aspect, because we all know Scott’s lawsuit didn’t have any merit, and now that he is no longer in the limelight, he doesn’t even have much of a reputation. The longer the case drug on and more times it was reported, the dumber he looked. It was the Steisand Effect being played out in front of our very eyes.

Besides – Beck wouldn’t dare publish a direct lie in the paper because it could easily be used against him down the road. The bottom line here is freedom of the press is upheld, and Dan Scott has to go back to having his butt hurt for someone mocking him.

#4 Johnny Roastbeef on 01.25.11 at 7:44 am

It wouldn’t surprise me if it was settled without costs to any party. Dan Scott had no case.

#5 thc on 01.25.11 at 9:08 am

Scott was always a shoot-from-the-lip guy with a gargantuan ego. His attorney had a personal ax to grind and a penchant for public vengeance. As time went by, it became apparent there was no reputation to damage and nothing to be gained from pursuing the case. I’m betting no money changed hands – Gannett is spending what money it has on executive compensation and little else.

#6 John on 01.25.11 at 10:07 am

Resd it again! Scott got $0 and maybe a wispered I am soory from Beck. Scott got what he deserved and the 1st Ammendment won again.

#7 l3wis on 01.25.11 at 3:56 pm

I’m speculating you are all wrong. Janks and Sanford don’t work for FREE and I have a feeling a settlement was paid to Scott, as long as he kept his lip zipped. I guess we will never know.

You don’t think Janks would be hoopin’ and howlin’ about Scott not getting anyting even if it did not go to court? That’s Janks’ style. Suing people and cashing in where he can. I’m guessing money was exchanged.

You are right, Janks knew a jury would throw this shit out, Beck had every 1st Amendment right to throw Scott under the bus, but Janks is a smart lawyer, he drug it out long enough to get a cash settlement.

Maybe someone should call Janks or Scott and ask them what they got.