Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    It's a tad off-topic but while I've stolen your attention from Borderlands 3 and a plate of Tagalongs...oh, wait, that's me. Anyhow my untrained opinion was "two accused people could insist on separate trials and in those separate trials accuse each other, to raise the chances both juries have reasonable doubt but nobody else they can blame". Is that even close?
    Given what legal defenses they are already attempting, they certainly could - and we see that a lot in criminal trials, notably in the press and in made-for-tv docudramas, murder trials.

    The issue here would be what they would accuse each other of, in their separate trials. In the criminal ones, they would be looking to sow legal doubt, or specifically reasonable doubt, and accusing the other person of committing the crime is one way to do it.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Given what legal defenses they are already attempting, they certainly could - and we see that a lot in criminal trials, notably in the press and in made-for-tv docudramas, murder trials.

    The issue here would be what they would accuse each other of, in their separate trials. In the criminal ones, they would be looking to sow legal doubt, or specifically reasonable doubt, and accusing the other person of committing the crime is one way to do it.
    For me as a juror, given what they are under, I would take it as proof they were both guilty. These are charges were proving one was involved didn't preclude the other from being involved too.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  3. #43
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    For me as a juror, given what they are under, I would take it as proof they were both guilty. These are charges were proving one was involved didn't preclude the other from being involved too.
    They are going to hinge this, on none of their statements being under oath, because it was all fake. One of the big jokes about all the cases they filed, is that they ran away from ever making these claims under oath. If I understand it correctly, in court they presented different arguments, that were centered on small technicalities, but they wanted extreme resolutions to said technicality. Something like, a democrat passed gas during the vote count, so they need to toss all ballots from that county.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    They are going to hinge this, on none of their statements being under oath, because it was all fake. One of the big jokes about all the cases they filed, is that they ran away from ever making these claims under oath. If I understand it correctly, in court they presented different arguments, that were centered on small technicalities, but they wanted extreme resolutions to said technicality. Something like, a democrat passed gas during the vote count, so they need to toss all ballots from that county.
    Idk, here’s the GA lawsuit...

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ia-Lawsuit.pdf

    They make a lot of claims, including against Dominion.

  5. #45
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    They are going to hinge this, on none of their statements being under oath, because it was all fake.
    I don't think defamation works that way. It's not like Rudi and the Kraken hosted SNL. The stood in front of the world and said "These things are true, we have evidence".

  6. #46
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    It Was Capitalism All Along
    Posts
    54,056
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    They reported the news, and what they had before them was a licensed attorney filing multiple suits, under oath, that what she was saying was true. At the time it was filed, Fox can reasonably argue that they believed the story to be true. Fox was NOT reporting on something they knew to be wrong - and that's the standard used in cases against the media.
    Are y'all just willfully ignoring the part where that excuse doesn't fly because of what other media channels were doing? Lol.

    Other news channels were able to report on it in such a way that did not cause Dominion damages, therefore it was Fox' choices about the way in which that news was broadcast that resulted in the damages. Under the most charitable interpretation they are still on the hook for negligence, nor is perceived truth an absolute defense against defamation anyway.

    The news version of the Nuremberg Defense is equally as shitty as the original.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-03-28 at 05:14 PM.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  7. #47
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Are y'all just willfully ignoring the part where that excuse doesn't fly because of what other media channels were doing? Lol.

    Other news channels were able to report on it in such a way that did not cause Dominion damages, therefore it was Fox' choices about the way in which that news was broadcast that resulted in the damages. Under the most charitable interpretation they are still on the hook for negligence, nor is perceived truth an absolute defense against defamation anyway.

    The news version of the Nuremberg Defense is equally as shitty as the original.
    You continue to point out the flaws in your own arguments. Other new agencies covered the same issue. Your assertion that no damages befell Dominion from those other reporting agencies is species, at best - with absolutely no way to prove it.

    Your case site is not germane, as it relates to neither the First Amendment generally, nor news agencies specifically. I haven't found solid case law on this yet, so were just going to have to run off the standards set up in other media cases.

    But you need to remember, Fox News didn't make this claim, they merely reported what someone else said. That's the key difference here between the suit against Fox and the suits again Sydney and Rudi.

  8. #48
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,841
    Good...take them for everything they're worth, and shut Faux News down.

  9. #49
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    It Was Capitalism All Along
    Posts
    54,056
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Your assertion that no damages befell Dominion from those other reporting agencies is species, at best
    Stop carrying water for Fox. Other news agencies were not spreading the impression that Dominion's voting machines were unreliable - i.e. what caused them to lose revenue from cancelled contracts. A reasonable person would not look at Fox' versus MSNBC's coverage and conclude the latter is what defamed Dominion, and 'a reasonable person' is the judicial litmus test for defamation and libel if you recall your Hustler v. Falwell.

    Also - arguing that their actions (i.e. defamation) can't be prosecuted because they're protected under the First Amendment is still an admission that the actions (i.e. defamation) took place, sweaty. It's pleading the First, rather than the Fifth.

    Your case site is not germane, as it relates to neither the First Amendment generally, nor news agencies specifically.
    Defamation isn't a First Amendment issue, apparently.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-03-29 at 08:06 PM.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  10. #50
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Stop carrying water for Fox. Other news agencies were not spreading the impression that Dominion's voting machines were unreliable - i.e. what caused them to lose revenue from cancelled contracts. A reasonable person would not look at Fox' versus MSNBC's coverage and conclude the latter is what defamed Dominion, and 'a reasonable person' is the judicial litmus test for defamation and libel if you recall your Hustler v. Falwell.

    Also - arguing that their actions (i.e. defamation) can't be prosecuted because they're protected under the First Amendment is still an admission that the actions (i.e. defamation) took place, sweaty. It's pleading the First, rather than the Fifth.
    Stop misunderstanding objective legal analysis for "carrying water" - I mean, holy shit, have you been around at all the last 10 years? I'm pretty sure I didn't coin the phrase "Faux News", but I sure as shit expanded it's usage. The issue is about the coverage of what Sydney and Rudi said, and if Fox New's coverage went beyond reporting the news and into actual defamation.

    No, it's not. You really do not understand the law, at all - "sweaty".

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Defamation isn't a First Amendment issue, apparently.
    It sure is when it involves the First Amendment.

    I mean - do you have any legal training at all? Do you even understand phrases like "case law"? Do you know how precedent works and more importantly how it doesn't work? Hustler v Falwell was about hyperbole and parody - NOT about covering a news story.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Defamation isn't a First Amendment issue, apparently.
    Just reread this statement. Not sure you were even remotely thinking when you posted this. Let us all know when defamation, which involves speech, isn't a first amendment issue.

    (you might want to just stop posting on this topic - you aren't even remotely equipped for this conversation)

  11. #51
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    It Was Capitalism All Along
    Posts
    54,056
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Just reread this statement.
    Perhaps you should, since it was clearly made in sarcasm - you were the one claiming the case (which involves defamation) isn't a First Amendment issue when it, again, is a defamation case case of whether or not truth, or believing something to be the truth, is a defense. Lol.

    As Endus pointed out:

    The problem for Fox News specifically, rather than just the talking heads, and why Fox News themselves would be liable, is that Fox News allowed this to continue without sanction over multiple episodes, for weeks, without any repercussions or editing by the station. That's implicit sanction of what those opinion shows were expressing, and that's why they'll get found liable.
    The fact other news agencies followed adequate fact checking to protect Dominion from potential damages and Fox did not is the relevant factor. If "they were just saying X said Y" were a clear cut defense, Dominion would not have a case.
    Last edited by Elegiac; 2021-03-29 at 09:03 PM.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The issue here would be what they would accuse each other of, in their separate trials. In the criminal ones, they would be looking to sow legal doubt, or specifically reasonable doubt, and accusing the other person of committing the crime is one way to do it.
    Reminds me vaguely of the ending to A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, where the accused murderer gets off after his wife and mistress each come forward accusing the other of the murder, creating enough reasonable doubt for the whole thing to be tossed.

  13. #53
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Reminds me vaguely of the ending to A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, where the accused murderer gets off after his wife and mistress each come forward accusing the other of the murder, creating enough reasonable doubt for the whole thing to be tossed.
    I think @Breccia was getting at that idea. I do not think a defamation case could lead in that direction, although the shenanigans we're seeing (and will see) from the Sydney/Rudi idiocy will certainly take us to new levels.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Perhaps you should, since it was clearly made in sarcasm -
    Certainly didn't seem that way, not the way your other analysis was worded. Perhaps you should work on your clarity in communication - I think we'd all appreciate that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    you were the one claiming the case (which involves defamation) isn't a First Amendment issue when it, again, is a defamation case case of whether or not truth, or believing something to be the truth, is a defense. Lol.
    Sorry - whut? I was claiming it wasn't a defamation case? You want to go ahead and link that for us, champ? Never in your wildest dreams would I claim defamation wasn't a First Amendment case. Holy hell what is wrong with you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    As Endus pointed out:
    The problem for Fox News specifically, rather than just the talking heads, and why Fox News themselves would be liable, is that Fox News allowed this to continue without sanction over multiple episodes, for weeks, without any repercussions or editing by the station. That's implicit sanction of what those opinion shows were expressing, and that's why they'll get found liable.
    The fact other news agencies followed adequate fact checking to protect Dominion from potential damages and Fox did not is the relevant factor. If "they were just saying X said Y" were a clear cut defense, Dominion would not have a case.
    And I disagreed with that analysis. I still believe Fox will slip away from liability in this case. Sydney and Rudi are fucked, however, imo.

  14. #54
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,466
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I think @Breccia was getting at that idea
    Indeed I was. The Kraken is saying nobody reasonable would believe her, and FOX News will say they believed her.

    So in your analogy, the wife and mistress are blaming each other, but the wife is holding the murder weapon.

  15. #55
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Indeed I was. The Kraken is saying nobody reasonable would believe her, and FOX News will say they believed her.

    So in your analogy, the wife and mistress are blaming each other, but the wife is holding the murder weapon.
    I didn't make that last piece conclusion - this will be VERY interesting to see played out in court. I would have to say that regardless of her claims now, the issue would be whether what she was saying could be taken as fact. And she did file several law suits, and never at the time suggested she was "just kidding".

  16. #56
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,466
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And she did file several law suits, and never at the time suggested she was "just kidding".
    With the lead pipe, in the conservatory.

    Yes, if the only defense was "nobody should take me seriously" she's more fucked than Graham's wife. Because that immediately calls up all those court filings and public announcements, of something she's claiming was just a joke. Satire might be protected speech, but if I yell "I'm going to kill you!" at the top of my lungs in public, I should be arrested even if I was being sarcastic, because most of the people who heard me wouldn't have known that and would only be responding to an obvious threat of violence.

    The Kraken losing more money than she has, being disbarred, being committed or any mix of those won't be the best thing ever to happen, but it's within striking range of the top ten. She willingly took money to attack democracy in public. There should be only one response to that.

  17. #57
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    With the lead pipe, in the conservatory.

    Yes, if the only defense was "nobody should take me seriously" she's more fucked than Graham's wife. Because that immediately calls up all those court filings and public announcements, of something she's claiming was just a joke. Satire might be protected speech, but if I yell "I'm going to kill you!" at the top of my lungs in public, I should be arrested even if I was being sarcastic, because most of the people who heard me wouldn't have known that and would only be responding to an obvious threat of violence.

    The Kraken losing more money than she has, being disbarred, being committed or any mix of those won't be the best thing ever to happen, but it's within striking range of the top ten. She willingly took money to attack democracy in public. There should be only one response to that.
    And claiming those filings were "jokes" or "political hyperbole" would be the end of her law license, in short order. I wonder if she is trying to balance which punishment she would prefer - losing her law license or losing a billion dollar defamation suit.

    I hope part of the punishment is going to be publically stating she was lying the whole time. Those Dominion employees are really getting hammered.

  18. #58
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,466
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I hope part of the punishment is going to be publically stating she was lying the whole time.
    I would like to believe that "filing a false document in court" and "filing a false document in court, but she was just kidding" were the same thing. Not just disbarrment, but an actual crime you can be arrested for -- especially if you sign a second court document confessing to it.

  19. #59
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    22,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I would like to believe that "filing a false document in court" and "filing a false document in court, but she was just kidding" were the same thing. Not just disbarrment, but an actual crime you can be arrested for -- especially if you sign a second court document confessing to it.
    I imagine the judges that were forced to hear her drek, and any judges she'd be brought before on trial, would be far less charitable to her wasting all of their collective time than the GOP was to Trump when they held their kangaroo court senate hearing dealing with impeachment or the various panels on his appointments.

    I think it's worth remembering that when Trump and co. have had to actually deal with professionals in the past and not spineless GOP yes-men, they have a terrible track record of winning court battles or getting out of legal troubles.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  20. #60
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I would like to believe that "filing a false document in court" and "filing a false document in court, but she was just kidding" were the same thing. Not just disbarrment, but an actual crime you can be arrested for -- especially if you sign a second court document confessing to it.
    Lol, same here. I think the "...but she was just kidding" is the proof for it being a false document in the first place. I have to admit I'm not following every aspect of her multiple legal perils, but it certainly doesn't seem to be going well for her overall.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    I imagine the judges that were forced to hear her drek, and any judges she'd be brought before on trial, would be far less charitable to her wasting all of their collective time than the GOP was to Trump when they held their kangaroo court senate hearing dealing with impeachment or the various panels on his appointments.
    And this is something else to keep in mind, she didn't just file those cases, she argued them before a judge (see also "wasted the court's time"). Judges fucking hate most cases they see, much less the ones where the filing attorney now claims "no one should have taken her seriously". She might end up losing on both fronts - her law license for filing a meritless claim, and the defamation suit, because at the time of filing, a reasonable person would have taken her claim seriously, given she was an officer of the court (all licensed attorneys are considered "officers of the court" - just for those who don't know that term of art).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •