On July 7, 2025, Peter Ticktin and American Rights Alliance filed a dismissal motion on behalf of James O’Keefe, O’Keefe Media Group (OMG), and Heidi Doe. The motion concerns the defamation case brought against the three by Jamie Mannina after he was recorded by one of O’Keefe’s undercover reporters.
In one of OMG’s undercover reports, Mannina was recorded saying statements that included helping to ensure that President Trump would not be elected. He also made statements about working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and attending meetings at the Pentagon in the “Tank.”
Mannina’s claims to have been lured by the defendant, “Heidi Doe,” for the purpose of entrapping him into making inflammatory and damaging remarks.
In the original claim, there are five counts against the defendants, which Ticktin refutes in this motion of dismissal.
He starts the motion immediately stating, that “When assessing every allegation in Mr. Maninna’s complaint and taking them as true, the facts are legally insufficient to establish each of the claims in Mr. Maninna’s complaint.”
Ticktin breaks down the allegations, starting with Count I, which disputes the plaintiff’s claims. After the extensive rebuttal for claims I and II, Ticktin writes:
“Count I and Count II have many of the same issues because Count I and Count II are based off the same statements and allegations. This was likely done to avoid the problems associated with a defamation claim.
To Help American Rights Alliance Continue to Help the Politically Persecuted CLICK HERE
This is not uncommon, as this was addressed by the courts before; “a plaintiff may not avoid the strictures of the burdens of proof associated with defamation by resorting to a claim of false light invasion.” Armstrong v. Thompson, 80 A.3d 177, 180 (D.C. 2013). “Where the plaintiff rests both his defamation and false light claims on the same allegations the claims will be analyzed in the same manner.” Morgan Banks v. Hoffman, 301 A.3d 685, 690 (D.C. 2023). Additionally, Mr. Mannina’s false light claim conspicuously omits the “invasion of privacy” aspect of a false light claim, because Mr. Mannina made every public statement, in plain view of others.”
Count III of Mannina’s claim is Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
Mannina alleges that “At the behest of Defendants OMG and O’Keefe, Defendant Heidi Doe knowingly and deliberately misrepresented herself to Mr. Mannina for the purpose of targeting and entrapping him into making remarks that could be distorted for political and harmful purposes.”
Ticktin fired back at this allegation with case law and facts.
“In order to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove “(1) a false representation, (2) in reference to a material fact, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity, (4) with the intent to deceive, and (5) action taken . . . in reliance upon the representation, (6) which consequently resulted in provable damages. Kumar v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 25 A.3d 9, 15 n.9 (D.C. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
To maintain a claim for fraud, one must indicate exactly what the false statement is, where it was made, and when. Averments of fraud require that the Complaint provides particularity. See Rule 9(b) of the F.R.Civ.P. The Complaint fails to provide this information.”
The fourth and fifth counts being alleged by Mr Mannina are count IV – Conspiracy to Commit Fraudulent Misrepresentation and count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 2511 and D.C. Code § 23-542.
In Count IV of the Complaint, Tickton states, “there was no claim that Mr. Mannina suffered injury because of fraudulent misrepresentation. Every claim in the complaint must allege that there was damage, and because count IV does not, it must be dismissed. Additionally, should this Court dismiss Count III of the Complaint, Count IV should also be dismissed, as it is not an independent claim. See Robertson v. District of Columbia, 269 A.3d 1022, 1034 (D.C. 2022).”
Moving on to Count V Ticktin continues to site case law in defense of his client.
“As plead, the facts do not allege that any of the Defendants intercepted the specific types of communications covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2511 or D.C. Code § 23-542. It was always understood that D.C. Code § 23-542, which broadly mirrors the 18 U.S.C. § 2511, specifically refers to oral communications originating from electronic sources, as described in United States v. Sullivan, 116 F. Supp. 480 (1953):
It is obvious from the phraseology of the statute that it was aimed at actions of two types: first, it sought to prohibit a telephone switchboard operator from divulging any conversation that may be overheard, or telegraph or radio operator from disclosing the contents of a telegram or radiogram; and second, it sought to preclude any unauthorized person from surreptitiously attaching some mechanical apparatus to a telephone or telegraph wire and thereby listening to or otherwise intercepting communications passing over the wire, without the knowledge of the parties to the conversation or message as the case may be. United States v. Sullivan, 116 F. Supp. 480, 481 (1953) Additionally, and similar to this case, Stewart v. City of Okla. City, 47 F.4th 1125 (10th Cir. 2022) states that 18 U.S.C. § 2511 did not apply, as the statements at issue occurred in full public view and were plainly visible—and audible—to any passersby.”
To wrap the motion up, Ticktin makes one last statement to the court.
“With this context, Count V fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, O’KEEFE MEDIA GROUP (hereinafter referred to as “OMG”), JAMES O’KEEFE, and HEIDI DOE, ask this honorable Court to grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff, JAMIE MANNINA’s Complaint with prejudice, and further award such further and other relief as this honorable Court may deem just and proper.”
American Rights Alliance saw the injustice of the claim against O’Keefe, OMG and “Heidi Doe”. Peter Ticktin and the team at ARA are standing up and working tirelessly for all Americans and for their Civil and God given rights.
Read the entire motion HERE…
If you would like to Donate to American Rights Alliance and make sure they can continue to fight for those who are being politically persecuted, visit AmericanRightsAlliance.org and become a one-time or monthly donor or visit their GiveSendGo HERE.
The post James O’Keefe Fighting For First Amendment Rights and Bringing Truth To Light. Dismissal Filed in Defamation Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.