Par4QC Say what you feel like saying, but you better back it up with true, proven facts in court.
Except in this case Brandel is the defendant. Reed has to be able to prove damages first, and then has to prove that Brandel is a significant contributor to those damages, and only then does Brandel need to back up his statements. The first two hurdles are very difficult, and the third, like it or not, is often simply a defense that the information repeated was a matter of public record and as long as Brandel repeated it without emphasizing that he knows it to be true he will not be held liable for reporting it. It is unfortunate, but you can legally report intentional lies as long as they are a matter of public record - just look at recent politics for that. All you need is a statement that an anonymous source revealed it to get it reported in the press. Then you can reference the publication ad nauseum as though it is fact. If Patrick has a chance, he'll need his wife and kids to be very credible victims that can elicit empathy in the press and on the stand - if it gets that far.
Edit to add - Patrick probably has more money than Brandel to drag out the legal process for a long time, and so maybe he'll get a settlement through an agreement to have Brandel quit talking about him and cover the legal fees.