Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
My point is thaty they are both irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wanna cry some more about the George Zimmerman/Trayon Martin case then make your own thread about it. Keep in mind though, that that case was decided by a jury and this one was thrown out by a single left-leaning biased judge. You can disagree with the Zimmerman case all you like but the jury disagreed with you. And yeah, I realize the OJ Simpson case was decided by a jury as well.
You were the one talking about setting precedents being set by claiming that feeling threatened is enough for the law to rule in your favour. I'm simply pointing out an example of where it has happened before so this isn't setting the precedent as it had already been set.
Your only issue with it seems to be that you're annoyed because your "side" didn't win this case.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You would think the far-left would be morally opposed to big corporations getting away with lying.
They're only opposed to it when those corporations lie about someone on their side. Lying about anyone on the right, especially Trump supporters, is totally fine by them.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anyone with a cursory understanding of the law knew these suits were dead on arrival. I cannot believe people that they had merit.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of the law and centuries of legal precedence know this has a very solid ground to stand on.
Glassman vs. Santa Barbara News-Press where Glassman won $2.25 million in damages for falsely linking Glassman to a separate fraud case.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-01-mn-45440-story.html
Then there was Elias, IV, Hadford and Folwer v. Rolling Stone. Frat boys sued because of false information about an assault case. $1.65m
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_0919_rolling_stone_2nd_circuit.pdf
ABC News v Beef Products Inc, “The Pink Slime case”
Huge case. ABC News greatly blundered on this one. Lost to the tune of $177m.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/business/media/pink-slime-abc-lawsuit-settlement.html
Gill v Anagnost, Crews and Grenier
Defamation for false info on a billboard.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Jury-awards-over-$274M-in-billboard-defamation-case-12815648
And here are the legal requisites to have defamation/libel/slander lawsuits:
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-lawsuit-proving-harm.html
In the history of KMC destruction, this is near the very top. You're one of the last people I would expect to throw the legal back at considering your depth of legal knowledge.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyone with a cursory understanding of the law and centuries of legal precedence know this has a very solid ground to stand on.Glassman vs. Santa Barbara News-Press where Glassman won $2.25 million in damages for falsely linking Glassman to a separate fraud case.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-01-mn-45440-story.html
Then there was Elias, IV, Hadford and Folwer v. Rolling Stone. Frat boys sued because of false information about an assault case. $1.65m
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2017_0919_rolling_stone_2nd_circuit.pdf
ABC News v Beef Products Inc, “The Pink Slime case”
Huge case. ABC News greatly blundered on this one. Lost to the tune of $177m.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/business/media/pink-slime-abc-lawsuit-settlement.html
Gill v Anagnost, Crews and Grenier
Defamation for false info on a billboard.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Jury-awards-over-$274M-in-billboard-defamation-case-12815648And here are the legal requisites to have defamation/libel/slander lawsuits:
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defamation-character-lawsuit-proving-harm.htmlIn the history of KMC destruction, this is near the very top. You're one of the last people I would expect to throw the legal back at considering your depth of legal knowledge.
Legal book*
Can't edit my error.
I'm not a lawyer but an actual lawyer reviewed the court documentation for this particular lawsuit.
He breaks down the lawsuit in this video and why WaPo terribly f*cked up:
Then he breaks down why the judge was acting in bad faith and in a partial manner when he motioned to dismiss this case:
And then he breaks down why this is a terrible injustice for the Covington Kids, here:
If anyone posts in this thread without first watching all three of those videos, I can assume you are not familiar with this case and posting in bad faith.
Originally posted by dadudemonwatched videos. 3 thoughts.
I'm not a lawyer but an actual lawyer reviewed the court documentation for this particular lawsuit.He breaks down the lawsuit in this video and why WaPo terribly f*cked up:
Then he breaks down why the judge was acting in bad faith and in a partial manner when he motioned to dismiss this case:
And then he breaks down why this is a terrible injustice for the Covington Kids, here:
If anyone posts in this thread without first watching all three of those videos, I can assume you are not familiar with this case and posting in bad faith.
1. If ur gonna eat the pepper on camera, dont cut away. Sack up and finish the vid or dont eat the pepper.
2. Nobody wants to buy ur crappy shirts
3. It probably should have gone to jury trial.
Originally posted by Raptor22
watched videos. 3 thoughts.1. If ur gonna eat the pepper on camera, dont cut away. Sack up and finish the vid or dont eat the pepper.
2. Nobody wants to buy ur crappy shirts
3. It probably should have gone to jury trial.
I agree on all counts. lol
And I can't believe you took the time to educate yourself on this and watched all 3 videos. It's a ton to watch and take in but it did feel damn good to see an actual good lawyer, who covers this exact shit as part of his day job, talk through all the legal considerations.
He tries to make the legal machinations accessible to the layman but he speaks of complicated legal concepts using legal terms that are just barely out of reach of most educated people (in my opinion). I'm enmeshed in legal, compliance, and regulation all the time as part of my day job. Literally, I'm sometimes debating legal terms, agreements, and laws with lawyers, as part of my regular duties. And I find myself having to pause the videos, think a bit, and then come to an understanding of what he just said. So I think he misses the mark sometimes of making this kind of stuff accessible to the layman.
Still, his videos do far better than anyone I can find out there, to cover the legal considerations for this big issues.
He covered the Mueller Report and investigation and he did a damn good job keeping it non-partisan. I was shocked he was able to lawyer his way through the investigation without coming off as partisan but if I were to guess, he's not a Trump fan.
They are suing individual people now.
Originally posted by Surtur
They are suing individual people now.
And they are not going to get a different result. All they will be for it is that much deeper in legal bills, with an even more damaged reputation.