2020 Presidential Updates

B

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Jones said:
Release the Kraken!

In a recent civil fraud case, attorneys for the state of North Dakota said that Maras-Lindeman falsely claimed to be a medical doctor and to have both a PhD and an MBA. They said she used multiple aliases and social security numbers and created exaggerated online résumés as part of what they called “a persistent effort . . . to deceive others.”

Sidney Powell’s secret intelligence contractor witness is a pro-Trump podcaster​

Click to expand...
63594749.jpg
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Box Ox said:
That's not how defamation suits work. The defaming person or entity has to prove they've got the goods to back up what they're saying and aren't just causing unfounded harm to the reputation of the aggrieved party.
Click to expand...


The plaintiff is just as responsible for proving the statements are untrue.
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Old Man Jingles said:
Never thought about it but since this is a civil case, I believe you're right ... I guess it comes down to the jury members.
Click to expand...

Even in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a civil case the plaintiff has to make compelling enough claim to be able to file suit. Defamation requires a few criteria be met for a statement to be considered defamatory. You have to prove the statement was made by the plaintiff as a declaration of fact rather than a statement of opinion. You have to prove it hurt you. And you have to prove it was not true. If you can't do any one of those things, you have no standing, and there is no case. If you have evidence of all three, then it behooves the defendants to disprove any one of them, but truth is the ultimate defense.

I haven't seen the allegations, but I'd be willing to bet the lawyers would be able to prove that what they said wasn't declarative, but rather speculative, which is the difference of stating something as a fact vs as an opinion. Opinion would be considered protected speech in most cases. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson had defamation suits against them thrown out by proving they were speaking hyperbolically and sarcastically with the clear intent of the statements not being taken literally. Even though Maddow used the words "literally" and "actually" in her statement.
 
Re-Raise

Re-Raise

Well-Known Member
zubenelgenubi said:
Even in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a civil case the plaintiff has to make compelling enough claim to be able to file suit. Defamation requires a few criteria be met for a statement to be considered defamatory. You have to prove the statement was made by the plaintiff as a declaration of fact rather than a statement of opinion. You have to prove it hurt you. And you have to prove it was not true. If you can't do any one of those things, you have no standing, and there is no case. If you have evidence of all three, then it behooves the defendants to disprove any one of them, but truth is the ultimate defense.

I haven't seen the allegations, but I'd be willing to bet the lawyers would be able to prove that what they said wasn't declarative, but rather speculative, which is the difference of stating something as a fact vs as an opinion. Opinion would be considered protected speech in most cases. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson had defamation suits against them thrown out by proving they were speaking hyperbolically and sarcastically with the clear intent of the statements not being taken literally. Even though Maddow used the words "literally" and "actually" in her statement.
Click to expand...
Bottom line it wasn’t true... but crazy people can say crazy sht
 
P

PT Car Washer

Well-Known Member
zubenelgenubi said:
Even in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a civil case the plaintiff has to make compelling enough claim to be able to file suit. Defamation requires a few criteria be met for a statement to be considered defamatory. You have to prove the statement was made by the plaintiff as a declaration of fact rather than a statement of opinion. You have to prove it hurt you. And you have to prove it was not true. If you can't do any one of those things, you have no standing, and there is no case. If you have evidence of all three, then it behooves the defendants to disprove any one of them, but truth is the ultimate defense.

I haven't seen the allegations, but I'd be willing to bet the lawyers would be able to prove that what they said wasn't declarative, but rather speculative, which is the difference of stating something as a fact vs as an opinion. Opinion would be considered protected speech in most cases. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson had defamation suits against them thrown out by proving they were speaking hyperbolically and sarcastically with the clear intent of the statements not being taken literally. Even though Maddow used the words "literally" and "actually" in her statement.
Click to expand...
We should consider Fox News to be speculative at best?
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Re-Raise said:
Bottom line it wasn’t true... but crazy people can say crazy sht
Click to expand...

All I've seen is a lot of he said she said. Aside from the one forensic audit report from the lawsuit in Michigan, or maybe Wisconsin (hard to keep them all straight), that concluded the machines were designed to flip votes. I wonder if the expert who made that report will get sued for defamation.
 
bottomups

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
zubenelgenubi said:
All I've seen is a lot of he said she said. Aside from the one forensic audit report from the lawsuit in Michigan, or maybe Wisconsin (hard to keep them all straight), that concluded the machines were designed to flip votes. I wonder if the expert who made that report will get sued for defamation.
Click to expand...
1609007629223.png
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
bottomups said:
View attachment 322505
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if facts frighten and anger you. I forgive you for lashing out.

DocumentCloud

beta.documentcloud.org beta.documentcloud.org

20201226_111135.png


This was admitted as evidence in the court of law. It is the only expert report I've seen about the issue. Everything else, both for and against the machines, has been declarative claims with no proof to substantiate. I'm not attesting to the veracity or accuracy of this report. The judge did, however, see the value in allowing it to be admitted to the record as evidence, and allowed it to be released to the public. I guess that makes the judge a tin foil hat wearing person in your eyes as well.
 
Babagounj

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Here's a thought to ponder.....

www.americanthinker.com

It's for Mike Pence to Judge whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All

On January 6, a joint session of Congress will open with Vice President Pence presiding as president of the Senate. His power will be plenary and unappealable. You heard that right. As president of the Senate, every o...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

If there are a handful of improper votes, we can suggest that there was in fact an election, perhaps tainted, but the election wasn't materially harmed. But when the people charged with managing the election decide to ignore the law, whatever process they supervise is not the process defined by the law. Therefore, it is not an election.

This leaves V.P. Pence with a dilemma. He is a gentleman who regards our governmental traditions with a degree of reverence, so he will be reluctant to take any bold action. But as an honorable man, faced with massive illegality, he must act to protect the law.
 

Similar threads

728ups
‘I Did Not Believe It for One Second’: Hannity Testifies Under Oath He Didn’t Buy Trump Election Fraud Claim
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
newfie
newfie
M
Welcome To Another Edition Of…
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
olroadbeech
olroadbeech
B
November 8th ....
Replies
1
Views
728
vantexan
V
728ups
Almost two years later Mike Pence says Trump endangered him and his family
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
7K
Non liberal
N
Old Man Jingles
2020 Presidential Election - Polls Indicate a Toss-Up
9 10 11
Replies
216
Views
16K
BrownFlush
B
Top