Remember that Teenager standing his ground against the Native American at the Lincoln Memorial?

This teenager is suing the Washington Post for $250,000,000.



http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/

Good. Put that propaganda rag WaPo out of business.

I never saw an apology issued by the Post.

Typical left, just like the top 3 in Richmond: wait the story out until it’s old and buried.

Chief running lie

This is just the first of a couple of dozen suits his lawyer is going to be bringing. And another set of attorneys are representing the other boys and they have about 80 people who they are going to be bringing lawsuits against (a lot of overlap).

These are the organizations/people who have received notice by Sandmann's lawyers of an upcoming potential lawsuit...

 
Attachments:

Alyssa Milano made the list. Good! She has gone completely off the rails.

Who’s the Boss? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alyssa Milano made the list. Good! She has gone
> completely off the rails.


She's got nice titties. I'd vote to acquit her if she let me do a motorboat for 10 minutes.

These lawyers are not legal scholars but headline seeking professional pests. I wonder if any of them was involved in sucking blood from the JonBenet Ramsey case?

Ambulance chasers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These lawyers are not legal scholars but headline
> seeking professional pests. I wonder if any of
> them was involved in sucking blood from the
> JonBenet Ramsey case?


Libeling a child is a BFD. These defendants deserve to be financially wiped off the face of the Earth.

Ambulance chasers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These lawyers are not legal scholars but headline
> seeking professional pests. I wonder if any of
> them was involved in sucking blood from the
> JonBenet Ramsey case?


Only a complete asshole would defend those who attacked the Covington kids out of blind hate for whites, Catholics and our president and leader Donald J. Trump. You are an asshole.

^^^ Hahaha! God is dead, moron, and the kid was not credible. You FOX News dumbos are so easily duped and compromised.

“Native American”
“Vietnam Vet”

Get your shit together and go back to the Rez and drink wood alcohol!

Native Americans are like Puerto Rican’s....proud as hell but historically never accomplished anything....
Name a rican that made contributions to humanity/history that isn’t in entertainment nor baseball.....

Yeah, j lo and AIDS-lookin Marc Anthony
Attachments:

Hahahah! You can always count on the assholes to come out at FFXU!

.
Attachments:

Pc Retardz. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .

Chief Frigid Aire!!!

LMFAO!!!


Anyway, if I get on this jury (and given the chance, I would lie my ass off during voir dire to do so) I will vote to award him $750 million as triple damages.

It's all noise. The kid does not have standing to sue and can't in any case overcome the freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts of a story as they are known at the time.

The kid doesn't want $250,000,000, he wants reporters to sit up and take notice that when they publish nonsense that damages peoples' reputations through sheer laziness or sloppy/careless reporting, they might be held accountable.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all noise. The kid does not have standing to
> sue and can't in any case overcome the
> freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts of
> a story as they are known at the time.

Why does he not have "standing?"

Do you even know what that means?

Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Libel with falsehoods. This has been established in MANY court cases. WaPo knows it, and you're going to learn it soon.

This will settle with an undisclosed cash payment and a prominently published apology by WaPo. Count on it.

The sandmann kids last name sounds suspiciously Jewish. Someone should look in to that

Sounds a little like the case of Richard Jewell, the FBI 'person of interest' whose life was turned upside down after being linked to the Atlanta Olympic bombings in 1996. Jewell sued bunches of people once Eric Rudolph was shown to have been the actual bomber. His case against reporting by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution went on for several years after Jewell's death and reached the Georgia Court of Appeals, but all of his claims were rejected in the end "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published."

Good. Americans are united and crushing hateful, anti American, fascist liberalism.

WaPo falsely accused the teen of ... 'accost[ing]' Phillips by 'suddenly swarm[ing]' him in a 'threaten[ing]' and 'physically intimidat[ing]' manner ... 'block[ing]' Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips 'to retreat,' 'taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,' [and] chanting, 'Build that wall,' 'Trump2020,' or 'Go back to Africa,' and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct.

This is all FALSE, defamatory, and libelous. There is conclusive video evidence that this is false. And there is no defense that would excuse publishing these falsehoods.

The Post will settle this eventually.

Been there done that... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds a little like the case of Richard Jewell,
> the FBI 'person of interest' whose life was turned
> upside down after being linked to the Atlanta
> Olympic bombings in 1996. Jewell sued bunches of
> people once Eric Rudolph was shown to have been
> the actual bomber. His case against reporting by
> the Atlanta Journal-Constitution went on for
> several years after Jewell's death and reached the
> Georgia Court of Appeals, but all of his claims
> were rejected in the end "because the articles in
> their entirety were substantially true at the time
> they were published."

Cox won becuase it was VERY careful in what it actually published, only publishing that the FBI was thinking this, or suspecting that. This was true and not defamatory and Cox properly won.

Other media (e.g., CNN, NY Post, NBC, etc.) were not as careful and went much further, making claims themselves instead of just reporting FBI source info, and they settled out of court for mucho dinero.

Why did you fail to mention that, you POS?

Here, WaPo was not quoting the FBI or any other source - they were making claims themselves. False claims. And that is going to cost them.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all noise. The kid does not have standing to
> sue and can't in any case overcome the
> freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts of
> a story as they are known at the time.


LOL. It’s clear you’re too stupid to understand what standing means. Stick to shoveling shit. It’s all you’re qualified to do.

already posted in off-topic

Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why does he not have "standing?" Do you even know what that means?

Standing limits participation in lawsuits. To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to his or her own legal interests. If
the party cannot show such an injury, the party does not have standing to appear before the court. An "injury in fact" must both be real and result in actual suffering of a sort that the court may by law be able to devise a remedy for.

> Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Libel with falsehoods.

See NY Times v Sullivan.

> This will settle with an undisclosed cash payment
> and a prominently published apology by WaPo.

That will depend entirely on what course the Post chooses to follow. he kid himself has no actual case.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why does he not have "standing?" Do you even
> know what that means?
>
> Standing limits participation in lawsuits. To
> have standing, a party must show an “injury in
> fact” to his or her own legal interests. If
> the party cannot show such an injury, the party
> does not have standing to appear before the court.
> An "injury in fact" must both be real and result
> in actual suffering of a sort that the court may
> by law be able to devise a remedy for.
>
> > Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Libel
> with falsehoods.
>
> See NY Times v Sullivan.
>
> > This will settle with an undisclosed cash
> payment
> > and a prominently published apology by WaPo.
>
> That will depend entirely on what course the Post
> chooses to follow. he kid himself has no actual
> case.

Prominent attorneys, such al Alan Dershowitz, disagree. Then again, you had to look up what standing is and when you did, you proved to the world what a moron you are.

The AJC case was the highest level Jewell case that went to an adjudicated disposition, and it was not at all one that was favorable to the Jewell estate. That other plaintiffs chose to settle rather than join in carrying on through years of litigation is dispositive of exactly nothing.

I'd close with a "See you in Court", but I know the likely ways of that happening would be limited to the event of your appearing as a defendant or that you were somehow not disqualified from serving as a juror.

You’re not a lawyer and you’re horrendous at pretending to be one. You completely whiffed on standing and you’ve done nothing to rehabilitate yourself since.

too dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prominent attorneys, such al Alan Dershowitz, disagree.

Tell him to get his ass in here and speak for himself. You are no one to take that task on at all.

> Then again, you had to look up what standing is and when you did, you
> proved to the world what a moron you are.

Thanks to you, this is all 2nd grade stuff, and copy-and-paste is easier to do than typing it all out from the beginning for the education of some pathetic neophyte know-nothing. The kid does not have standing, There is no stateable injury-in-fact. No actual suffering has been incurred. There is no remedy that the court can now craft. End of story.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why does he not have "standing?" Do you even
> know what that means?
>
> Standing limits participation in lawsuits. To
> have standing, a party must show an “injury in
> fact” to his or her own legal interests. If
> the party cannot show such an injury, the party
> does not have standing to appear before the court.
> An "injury in fact" must both be real and result
> in actual suffering of a sort that the court may
> by law be able to devise a remedy for.
>
> > Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Libel
> with falsehoods.
>
> See NY Times v Sullivan.
>
> > This will settle with an undisclosed cash
> payment
> > and a prominently published apology by WaPo.
>
> That will depend entirely on what course the Post
> chooses to follow. he kid himself has no actual
> case.

Yeah, I can use Google, too.

You didn't answer the question. Why does he not have standing?

Let's do this. Connect up via temporarily e-mail addresses shared here, contact each other, and each put $10000 in a neutral third party's hands and I will bet you that $10000 that no court dismisses this suit for lack of standing, and that it either settles or goes to trial. OK, big mouth?

What does Sullivan say? Does it say that newspapers are immune from libel suits?

Please - I BEG you - come back here and claim it says that.

Go back to your Holiday Inn and leave the law to actual lawyers.

nobody’s buying it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’re not a lawyer and you’re horrendous at
> pretending to be one. You completely whiffed on
> standing and you’ve done nothing to rehabilitate
> yourself since.

I'm retired in wealth and luxury, and am further the only one here who was able to supply by any means at all any sort of actual representation as to what standing in the real world requires. As you ought to have known, your favorite little boy does not pass muster on any part of it. Hence, he lacks standing.

You meanwhile have not made a single credible point anywhere within your stammering junior school harangues. I'm not expecting to see any meaningful improvement on that front going forward.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too dumb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Prominent attorneys, such al Alan Dershowitz,
> disagree.
>
> Tell him to get his ass in here and speak for
> himself. You are no one to take that task on at
> all.
>
> > Then again, you had to look up what standing is
> and when you did, you
> > proved to the world what a moron you are.
>
> Thanks to you, this is all 2nd grade stuff, and
> copy-and-paste is easier to do than typing it all
> out from the beginning for the education of some
> pathetic neophyte know-nothing. The kid does not
> have standing, There is no stateable
> injury-in-fact. No actual suffering has been
> incurred. There is no remedy that the court can
> now craft. End of story.

Bullshit. His reputation has been damaged. That is an injury in fact. He and his family received death threats and had to flee their home as a result of these false allegations. That is an injury in fact.

I've made my offer. Put up or shut up, you no-nothing blabbermouth.

In fact, why don't you provide even ONE link here from an actual lawyer who has any experience in libel law who claims that the kid has no standing.

Anyway . . . what a joke. There is not a soul alive who thinks a pathetic twerp like you knows more about libel law than L. Lin Wood.

Nobody will miss your rag.

Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't answer the question. Why does he not
> have standing?

See the above. An indictment on three counts of failure to have standing is presented there.

> Let's do this. Connect up via temporarily e-mail
> addresses shared here, contact each other, and
> each put $10000 in a neutral third party's hands
> and I will bet you that $10000 that no court
> dismisses this suit for lack of standing, and that
> it either settles or goes to trial. OK, big mouth?

As I said. You function at a 2nd-grade level.

> What does Sullivan say? Does it say that
> newspapers are immune from libel suits?

It speaks among other things of 'active malice'. Why don't you go read the decision for once? You've made a powerful case for never having done so before.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too dumb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Prominent attorneys, such al Alan Dershowitz,
> disagree.
>
> Tell him to get his ass in here and speak for
> himself. You are no one to take that task on at
> all.


No need to. I can simply watch or read about his interview on the matter. Apparently, you're too dumb to find it on gu our own.

> > Then again, you had to look up what standing is
> and when you did, you
> > proved to the world what a moron you are.
>
> Thanks to you, this is all 2nd grade stuff, and
> copy-and-paste is easier to do than typing it all
> out from the beginning for the education of some
> pathetic neophyte know-nothing. The kid does not
> have standing, There is no stateable
> injury-in-fact. No actual suffering has been
> incurred. There is no remedy that the court can
> now craft. End of story.


He does have standing. In fact, your copy paste definition confirms that. Its because you didn't understand the legal concept of standing when you first threw it out there, that you find yourself behind the eight ball in this discussion. No less than two people appear to be pummeling you on this point.

Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway . . . what a joke. There is not a soul alive who thinks a
> pathetic twerp like you knows more about libel law than L. Lin Wood.

I guaranty that I could have gotten as much out of the AJC as he did!

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too dumb Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Prominent attorneys, such al Alan Dershowitz,
> disagree.
>
> Tell him to get his ass in here and speak for
> himself. You are no one to take that task on at
> all.
>
> > Then again, you had to look up what standing is
> and when you did, you
> > proved to the world what a moron you are.
>
> Thanks to you, this is all 2nd grade stuff, and
> copy-and-paste is easier to do than typing it all
> out from the beginning for the education of some
> pathetic neophyte know-nothing. The kid does not
> have standing, There is no stateable
> injury-in-fact. No actual suffering has been
> incurred. There is no remedy that the court can
> now craft. End of story.

Tell that to his attorneys. :)

YouTell'emPerryMason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell that to his attorneys. :)

The courts will pass the message on for me.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> See the above. An indictment on three counts of
> failure to have standing is presented there.


> > What does Sullivan say? Does it say that
> > newspapers are immune from libel suits?
>
> It speaks among other things of 'active malice'.
> Why don't you go read the decision for once?
> You've made a powerful case for never having done
> so before.
>
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/25
> 4/

"An indictment on three counts of failure to have standing is presented there."

ROTFLMFAO!! So not only do ypu not understand what standing is, you apparently also do not understand what an indictment is, or a count . . . . And you just baldfaced LIE about things that people can verify simply by reading the same thread on which you lied. You are special, dude.

I read Sullican. More than once. first time at GULC. Also read commentary on it from folks like Laurence Tribe (look him up).

We can discuss actual malice, and how someone qualifies as a public figure . . . but only after you answer my question. Does Sullivan say that newspapers are immune from libel suits, as your posts above suggested? It's a simple question. TIA!

You are evidently a simple person. I told you to read NYT v Sullivan, as it was apparent from your posted misconceptions that you were in need of doing so. There are no 2nd grade tantrums that can redeem you now. All of the credible points made in this conversation have been made by me. You’re sitting on one big oh-fer.

Dumbass, you stumbled on standing and have been floundering around in failure ever since.

The fool thinks he's relevant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbass, you stumbled on standing and have been
> floundering around in failure ever since.

He is not just a dumbass - he is in denial and actually thinks he is smart and making sense.

He's a Dunning-Kruger poster child.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are evidently a simple person. I told you to
> read NYT v Sullivan, as it was apparent from your
> posted misconceptions that you were in need of
> doing so. There are no 2nd grade tantrums that can
> redeem you now. All of the credible points made
> in this conversation have been made by me.
> You’re sitting on one big oh-fer.


You are not even a good internet lawyer.

The plaintiff's injury is defamation. Look it up.

NYT v. Sullivan has to do with "public officials", it is not on point.

Better reading would be Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts and even more so Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

Interestingly with Gertz the court found that actual malice is not necessary for defamation of a private person, if negligence is present. Failure to do due diligence is defined as negligence. What's your counter counselor?

So counselor, I sure hope you represent the Post, the kid would get the full $250M if you did.

Good for him...hope he wins all the cases..especially the Wash ComPost and the
Catholic church...you go Nick!

Himmler’s cousin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sandmann kids last name sounds suspiciously
> Jewish. Someone should look in to that

How stupid can you get? He's going to a Catholic school.

Sleep with one eye open.

Keeping your pillow tight.
.
Attachments:

.
Attachments:

Stick to your day job Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are not even a good internet lawyer.

I'm retired (as was noted earlier), but still quite capable of dancing circles around incompetent boobs (as has been demonstrated from the outset.)`

The kid meanwhile goes 0-for-3 on standing. He can waste his time and money by bringing one, but he doesn't actually have either a case or a prayer. Truth after all is an imposing defense, and that involves truth as it was actually known at the time.

Sandmann's attorneys have meanwhile already made court jesters of themselves by claiming that The Post, CNN, NBC, and others are engaged in mortal combat to claim leadership of a McCarthy-like mainstream and social media mob of bullies that seeks to vilify innocent white Catholic MAGA hat wearing high school children from Kentucky.

Sounds serious! Saints preserve us!

"0-for-3 on standing"

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Since you're just making up meaningless numbers that have ZERO relationship to the actual law, why not "0-for-7?" Hey , how about "negative-1-for-783."

You are such a nincompoop. There are actual lawyers out here who actually know the law and occasionally visit this place. You could ONLY post that nonsense anonymously where you can change your screen name on the next thread, because otherwise your credibility for every post you make here henceforth would be "0-for-everything."

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stick to your day job Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are not even a good internet lawyer.
>
> I'm retired (as was noted earlier), but still
> quite capable of dancing circles around
> incompetent boobs (as has been demonstrated from
> the outset.)`
>
> The kid meanwhile goes 0-for-3 on standing. He
> can waste his time and money by bringing one, but
> he doesn't actually have either a case or a
> prayer. Truth after all is an imposing defense,
> and that involves truth as it was actually known
> at the time.
>
> Sandmann's attorneys have meanwhile already made
> court jesters of themselves by claiming that The
> Post, CNN, NBC, and others are engaged in mortal
> combat to claim leadership of a McCarthy-like
> mainstream and social media mob of bullies that
> seeks to vilify innocent white Catholic MAGA hat
> wearing high school children from Kentucky.
>
> Sounds serious! Saints preserve us!

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you know near nothing about tort law. The more you speak on the subject the more you demonstrate your total lack of knowledge on the subject.

Still waiting counselor for your counter to Gertz.

Whenever media outlets interject commentary they have moved beyond just reporting the information known at the time as the Jewell case found. Which is why Jewell prevailed in nearly all of his other lawsuits.

So here’s your homework little man to maybe show you know at least something on the subject. What is your counter to Gertz? Hint: The Post has one chance to avoid Gertz, what is it? And it’s a long shot, but possible.

What a Nincompoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are such a nincompoop. There are actual
> lawyers out here who actually know the law and
> occasionally visit this place.

I see no evidence of these 'actual lawyers'. I see evidence of half-baked wannabes who struggle to do so while being unable to make any valid points or actual contributions to the thread at all.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a Nincompoop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are such a nincompoop. There are actual
> > lawyers out here who actually know the law and
> > occasionally visit this place.
>
> I see no evidence of these 'actual lawyers'. I
> see evidence of half-baked wannabes who struggle
> to do so while being unable to make any valid
> points or actual contributions to the thread at
> all.

Are you delusional? Off your meds? Or what? We’ve been pwnd constantly. Either you’re mentally ill or too stupid to see it. Seek help immediately.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I see no evidence of these 'actual lawyers'. I
> see evidence of half-baked wannabes who struggle
> to do so while being unable to make any valid
> points or actual contributions to the thread at
> all.

You see what your low IQ and blinding political biases allow you to see. What a pity to have such a closed and narrow mind.

Hcjchc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you delusional? Off your meds? Or what? We’ve been pwnd
> constantly. Either you’re mentally ill or too stupid to see
> it. Seek help immediately.

More of that high-grade lawyerly commentary, I presume.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hcjchc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are you delusional? Off your meds? Or what?
> We’ve been pwnd
> > constantly. Either you’re mentally ill or too
> stupid to see
> > it. Seek help immediately.
>
> More of that high-grade lawyerly commentary, I
> presume.

Yet it is a 1,000 fold better than anything you presented. Why can’t you answer the lawyer’s questions above????? Too stupid to have a clue?????? Keep showing the world what a stupid old fool you have to be to be a Dem.

^^^ He’s s hoax-bunny who gets trampled one place and simply hops off to the next as if nothing happened. His so far expressed understanding of Gertz is a mush-mash of disconnected babble. Why would any serious person bother taking it up?

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ He’s s hoax-bunny who gets trampled one
> place and simply hops off to the next as if
> nothing happened. His so far expressed
> understanding of Gertz is a mush-mash of
> disconnected babble. Why would any serious person
> bother taking it up?

FYI, ypu're not fooling anyone, clown.

Not intending to fool snyone. Simply stating what are the facts of the matter.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not intending to fool snyone. Simply stating what
> are the facts of the matter.

You have already conclusively demonstrated that you are too ignorant to know the "facts of the matter" and too stupid and stubborn to understand them when they are clearly explained to you by your betters.

Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^ He’s s hoax-bunny who gets trampled one
> > place and simply hops off to the next as if
> > nothing happened. His so far expressed
> > understanding of Gertz is a mush-mash of
> > disconnected babble. Why would any serious
> person
> > bother taking it up?
>
> FYI, ypu're not fooling anyone, clown.


He sure the hell is fooling himself. He actually thinks he knows something. He's been played for a fool so many times, being a fool is all he knows.

.
Attachments:

Not a Fake Perry Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have already conclusively demonstrated that you are too
> ignorant to know the "facts of the matter" and too stupid and
> stubborn to understand them when they are clearly explained
> to you by your betters.

^^^ Noted, and filed under "Folly".

I'm a parent. I'm interested in this case because I didn't know it was soo easy to sue businesses people with money. And his Lawyers said They intend to sue 50+ more new Companies & celebrities?! Any case Like this out of within Fairfax County?

Smith79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a parent. I'm interested in this case because
> I didn't know it was soo easy to sue businesses
> people with money. And his Lawyers said They
> intend to sue 50+ more new Companies &
> celebrities?! Any case Like this out of within
> Fairfax County?


It isn't easy. The 1st Amendment has always been judged under the "strict scrutiny" test (like all rights in the Bill of Rights should). Therefore any exception to the freedom of the press has to be narrowly defined.

SCOTUS has carved out 3 categories of people and defined different requirements for each. The categories are: 1) Public Official; 2) Public Figure; and 3) Private Person.

Public Officials have few protections against liable, short of actual malice. A Public Figure is someone who has voluntarily put themselves in the public light. A Private Person has the most protections.

In any case, the plaintiffs have to prove a mens rea (a guilty mind). In regards to mens rea, there are different "levels" of a persons "guilt" known as modes of culpability. Strict Liability is the lowest, but SCOTS has ruled that unconstitutional in regards to freedom of the press. (NOTE: Federal Law has different levels, but are comparable)

The next is 'negligence" which should be easy in this case since it is obvious the Post did not do due diligence. In that they knew or should have known that a broader video exist. Under Gertz, if they can prove negligence, they can get "actual damages". Which includes punitive damages.

If it can be proved that the Post, knowingly, recklessly, or purposely published false information, the level of culpability is increased (and the damages).

The Post's best shot is to prove that by the minor's attendance at a public rally, he voluntarily put himself in a public light and is no longer a private person. In my opinion, that would be difficult as the event in question did not take place at the rally, but as school kids were waiting for their bus miles away from the public event. Also remember, minors are offered some latitude here.

If they can prove he is not a private person, but a public figure it removes it from Gertz and moves it into Curtis Publishing or NYT. However, even NYT lets them still be liable to public figures if the information that they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.

In any case, it should be interesting and long over due.

Fuck Cleveland spam guy

Cheif running lie

HKUEY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kid doesn't want $250,000,000, he wants
> reporters to sit up and take notice that when they
> publish nonsense that damages peoples' reputations
> through sheer laziness or sloppy/careless
> reporting, they might be held accountable.

Hope he wins. Bozos is going to lose 1/2 to his soon to be ex-wife, this lawsuit will drain a lot. Then that Latin whore will take what's left. He'll be all alone with that one bugling eye.

hunnybooboobies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope he wins. Bozos is going to lose 1/2 to his
> soon to be ex-wife, this lawsuit will drain a lot.
> Then that Latin whore will take what's left.
> He'll be all alone with that one bugling eye.

For the record, a federal judge on Friday dismissed this $250 million lawsuit against The Washington Post from the attorneys of Nick Sandmann, the MAGA hat-wearing teen captured in a viral video with Native American activist Nathan Phillips in January.

Judge Bertelsman was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979. He is not a precedent setter, so this ruling was expected. This is only step one.

“As the Court explained at oral argument on this motion, in modern libel law there are many affirmative defenses, even for blames based on defamatory statements. These defenses are calculated to protect defendants, especially the press, from strict liability.

“The defense that a statement of opinion is not actionable protects freedom of speech and the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“The Court accepts Sandmann’s statement that, when he was standing motionless in the confrontation with Phillips, his intent was to calm the situation and not to impede or block anyone.

“However Phillips did not see it that way. He concluded that he was being “blocked” and “not allowed to “retreat.” He passed those conclusions on to The Post. They may have been erroneous, but, as discussed above, they are option protected by the First Amendment. And The Post is not liable for publishing those opinions . . “

It was a gray case. I hope it makes it to SCOTUS to provide clarity on the subject.

Excellent. Bankrupt the leftists.

Cut him some slack, he was a Navajo code-talker during Vietnam.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all noise. The kid does not have standing to
> sue and can't in any case overcome the
> freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts of
> a story as they are known at the time.


Noise in his pocket, dipshit. How many defendants have settled thus far? CNN paid more for the kid not to disclose the settlement amount.

Enter Sandman

Looks like this LOL... asswipe needs to eat his shorts.

Bartholomew J. Simpson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like this LOL... asswipe needs to eat his
> shorts.


Happens to him all the time.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's all noise. The kid does not have standing to
> sue and can't in any case overcome the
> freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts of
> a story as they are known at the time.

I've heard large corporations with the support of white-shoe firms are in the habit of settling with plaintiffs who lack standing. LOL!

LOL! He's too afraid to check in here to face the music. Always a coward.

George Kern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've heard large corporations with the support of
> white-shoe firms are in the habit of settling with
> plaintiffs who lack standing. LOL!


I've heard there's an old Asshole... here who's always fucking wrong.

CNN settled, WaPo settled. Who's next? This LOL... clown has got his head up his ass. Here's some free advice for him - better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Lawyers who know what they're talking about, who know about libel suits and about the parties involved, guess that Sandmann might have gotten around $50k. Certainly not much more than that.

Nuisance value for the WaPo

Bezos owns the compost so i hope he looses his ass.

Lawyers don't know shit. Which is odd because they all eat shit.

Total dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's all noise. The kid does not have standing
> to
> > sue and can't in any case overcome the
> > freedom-of-the-press right to report the facts
> of
> > a story as they are known at the time.
>
>
> LOL. It’s clear you’re too stupid to
> understand what standing means. Stick to shoveling
> shit. It’s all you’re qualified to do.

So now this dope's a lawyer, huh? You shoudld see the BS he posts on the Dollar Tree thread. According to him, he's an expert on English, an expert on the restaurant industry, an expert on econ. , an ex[ert CPA, an expert investment counselor, an expert on banking, a genius w/his money, an expert on baseball, & has 58 degrees and 42 honors & awards.

He's really a terrible liar and an expert moron.

He gets PWND over there, too. He makes a total ass of himself at least 10X a day & he acts like a potty mouth 3rd grader, too.

LOL... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nobody’s buying it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You’re not a lawyer and you’re horrendous
> at
> > pretending to be one. You completely whiffed on
> > standing and you’ve done nothing to
> rehabilitate
> > yourself since.
>
> I'm retired in wealth and luxury, and am further
> the only one here who was able to supply by any
> means at all any sort of actual representation as
> to what standing in the real world requires. As
> you ought to have known, your favorite little boy
> does not pass muster on any part of it. Hence, he
> lacks standing.
>
> You meanwhile have not made a single credible
> point anywhere within your stammering junior
> school harangues. I'm not expecting to see any
> meaningful improvement on that front going
> forward.


Nobody believes you, asshole just like nobody believes your BS on the Dollar Tree thread. So I see now you;'re over here pretending to be a lawyer ut you still got that "wealthy retiree at the sweet spot" BS going. You're at your usual BS, you get shown you're wrong and stupid but you keep going at it.

I thought Gerry from the other side was dumb, but you're the most moronic asshole on FFXU. What happened? Got tired of getting PWND by that guy from FC so you thought you could come here? You're too stupid to get away w/that. Everybody can see what an ass you are.

WHAT a fucking dolt.