U.S. Navy veteran wins key legal victories before high-stakes defamation trial against CNN.

On Friday, a Florida judge ruled in favor of U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young in several key aspects of his defamation lawsuit against CNN, which is set to commence next month.

CNN is accused by Young of smearing him by implying he profited illegally through a "black market" while assisting people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's withdrawal in 2021. Young claims that CNN damaged his reputation and business during a segment on Jake Tapper's program "The Lead," which was shared on social media and repackaged for CNN's website.

Judge William Henry granted Young permission to pursue punitive damages and ruled that he did not steal money from Afghans.

Although Defendant's representatives stated that they conducted three weeks of newsgathering and spoke with over a dozen sources, they admitted they had no evidence that Young committed any criminal or illegal acts. However, the use of the Black Market Chyron by Defendant is sufficient evidence to prove that they acted with actual malice, allowing a reasonable jury to convict them of summary judgment on this issue, as ruled by Judge Henry in court documents obtained by Planet Chronicle Digital.

"Despite the lack of evidence of illegality and the assertion that he was not contracting with or taking money from individuals, Defendant published his name and photograph as a poster child bad actor preying on Afghans. As a result, the record evidence could support a conclusion that Defendant knowingly or recklessly published false or misleading information."

Judge Henry rejected CNN's legal team's argument that Young's actions violated the Taliban's Sharia law.

Judge Henry wrote that framing the current circumstances as a "debate" between the Taliban rulers and the rest of the free world would be similar to saying it was debatable whether the Nazi extermination of the Jews at Auschwitz was wrong.

Henry accused CNN's legal team of not being able to determine how Young operated in an unregulated "black market."

Judge Henry stated that the issue with Defendant's arguments is that they rely on their own definition of "black market," which has changed during the litigation, and fail to consider the possibility that the term "black market" implies illegality or criminality.

Judge Henry ruled that Young's company, Nemex Enterprises, Inc., would not be held liable for damages.

CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt reported that Afghans attempting to flee the country are confronted with a black market that offers false promises, excessive fees, and no assurance of safety or achievement.

CNN's legal team contended that Young "purposely inserted himself into the controversy by contacting" CNN reporter Katie Bo Lillis first. Nevertheless, Judge Henry stated that "a cursory examination of this correspondence does not suggest, at least on its surface, that Young was attempting to draw attention to himself regarding Afghanistan. Instead, his initial communication was a "business call." He reached out to inquire if Lillis required assistance with evacuations.

Judge Henry stated that Marquardt had a narrative he wanted to convey, which was "bad people preying on Afghans." However, during his initial pitches for the story between October 26-28, 2021, Marquardt used phrases such as "price gouging," "extortion of desperate Afghans," and "shadowy black market." He concluded that he wanted to examine the extent to which this was extortion or fraud. Fortunately, a door was opened to obtain information for the piece when Young reached out to Lillis. Lillis cultivated this relationship, but did so in an underhanded manner by not disclosing Defendant's reporters' motivations or that they were going to use his identity.

"After Young stopped cooperating with investigative reporters, Marquardt found his 'fall guy' in Young, despite the fact that he did not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless, Marquardt had the 'face' of the bad guys to put on screen. The defendant had no evidence that Young did anything illegal, but they chose to highlight him in the segment. They had information that Young was not working directly with or taking money from individual Afghans, but he could be the bad guy preying on them. Collectively, they put together a narrative that, although it had holes, painted Young in the worst light, knowingly using false information or in a reckless manner."

Henry concluded that Young did not take money from Afghans and found sufficient evidence of actual malice.

The defendant's reporters made several statements that could be inferred as actual or express malice while constructing the pieces of evidence, according to the writer.

The Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida, will host the commencement of a civil trial on January 6th, presided over by Judge Henry.

Judge Henry ruled that Plaintiffs were not found guilty of taking money from Afghans in their Second Motion for Summary Judgment.

The court previously ruled that Young was not guilty of any criminal or illegal actions.