Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All media, left & right are watching this, but not reporting on it.
This will be taught in law schools for centuries to come.
A persons Good Reputation, is a natural right protected by the 9th Amendment. One that in the past was justifiably protected by the 2nd Amendment on the spot. Today, it must be adjudicated by due process.
Article 4 Sec. 4 of the USCON....
Without consent, no majority can rule nor govern, only secure endowed rights.
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
Americans are endowed with natural rights and liberties (natural and personal) that are not subject to infringement by individuals, much less our servant government, instituted to secure those rights.
It seems to me that they are overstating what a win this is, but it is a win. Overcoming a motion to dismiss simply means the court has determined there is a question of fact in the case. It does mean both parties get to spend more money on litigation costs as they go into discovery. For that reason I would expect settlemenet discussions if not an actual settlement.
James O'Keefe, the rat-faced boy, hasn't won just yet.
His case just wasn't dismissed without a hearing. Cases can be dismissed without a hearing, Bent.
A judge has the power to hand down a ruling without holding a hearing. A judge may also refuse to hear a case in certain circumstances.
That 'big win' only means there will be a hearing before a judge and possibly a jury.
Given a dispute between O'Keefe, a known scoundrel, and the New York Times, home of a hundred known scoundrels, my bet is on the Times willing O'lKeefe's scalp to hang as a trophy in their board room.
Other pieces of him may be scattered about in other places.
NYT has the money, the organization and the discipline. Project Veritas has only O'Keefe's ego and vanity propping it up. He has no money to speak of.
But if there is enough of him left to prosecute, I'm absolutely sure O'Keefe will find a way to talk himself into a prison sentence before he quits. Losing to the Times will only make him double down on his nonsense.
James O'Keefe, the rat-faced boy, hasn't won just yet.
His case just wasn't dismissed without a hearing. Cases can be dismissed without a hearing, Bent.
A judge has the power to hand down a ruling without holding a hearing. A judge may also refuse to hear a case in certain circumstances.
That 'big win' only means there will be a hearing before a judge and possibly a jury.
Given a dispute between O'Keefe, a known scoundrel, and the New York Times, home of a hundred known scoundrels, my bet is on the Times willing O'lKeefe's scalp to hang as a trophy in their board room.
Other pieces of him may be scattered about in other places.
NYT has the money, the organization and the discipline. Project Veritas has only O'Keefe's ego and vanity propping it up. He has no money to speak of.
But if there is enough of him left to prosecute, I'm absolutely sure O'Keefe will find a way to talk himself into a prison sentence before he quits. Losing to the Times will only make him double down on his nonsense.
So, the NY Times high powered attorney's could not prove(using Wikipedia as their source - LOL!) to the judge in their filing briefs to dismiss, that there was anything deceptive in Veritas's lawsuit.
The shield NY Times v. Sullivan gave, will be proven it is now used as a sword in a battle to remove dissenting thought, through libel and slander. The license to lie, is being challenged. ALL Media is on the edge of their seats on this.
So, the NY Times high powered attorney's could not prove(using Wikipedia as their source - LOL!) to the judge in their filing briefs to dismiss, that there was anything deceptive in Veritas's lawsuit.
The shield NY Times v. Sullivan gave, will be proven it is now used as a sword in a battle to remove dissenting thought, through libel and slander. The license to lie, is being challenged. ALL Media is on the edge of their seats on this.
Passing the preliminary review of the complaint is no big win at all. Any list of supposed evidence is enough for the case to be heard in many districts.
It's during the hearing that the evidence is weighed, not in the preliminary; the prelim is only to determine if there's enough in the complaint to require a judges hearing.
There usually is. Almost always.
High powered attorneys do not become high-powered by making stupid mistakes. So don't be laughing up your sleeve too quickly, Bent. The rat-faced boy is quite notorious, and his antipathy to our justice system is well known.
He is far less sympathetic than anyone else who came before the court with the same complaint. He'll get his day in court, but he will not find the proceedings welcoming.
NY Supreme Court Says NY Times Promoted "Deceptive, Disinformation"
Project Veritas has totally owned the NY Times by taking them to court in a Defamation Suit, and winning the right to Discovery. This means they will (for the first time?), be able to access information regarding the Times' "reporting process" and how they come to their disingenuous conclusions.
This brief video of a PV employee totally owning the Executive Editor of the Times is absolute gold:
Are you suggesting it's not true? Do you have an internet enabled device?
I mean, as your Commander In Thief says, "C'mon Man!"
Documenting things beyond Youtube in this forum is generally considered part of reasoned discussion because so many posters here from the right and left post incredibly biased garbage that is at best inaccurate if not entirely dishonest.
If you're interested in getting people to pay attention to what you want to say, you'd put in a little effort instead of telling us to go find out for ourselves.
Documenting things beyond Youtube in this forum is generally considered part of reasoned discussion because so many posters here from the right and left post incredibly biased garbage that is at best inaccurate if not entirely dishonest.
If you're interested in getting people to pay attention to what you want to say, you'd put in a little effort instead of telling us to go find out for ourselves.
I don't know if you read me frequently, but I normally provide ample links. (Check out how many I have posted related to "Woke Education" in the Rhode Island forum today. Trying to get "normies" to realize we cannot let Critical Race Theory be taught in our schools.)
I took the poster's inquiry as the typical lefty's questioning of the source in order to avoid the substance of the topic.
I apparently made a mistake, however, in posting a redundant thread.
For this I say three hail-marys, and will retire to the bar a bit early
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NY Supreme Court Says NY Times Promoted "Deceptive, Disinformation"
