Well this is happening, to the great distress of hardcore trumpets. clearly newsmax couldn’t survive being sued. What tv channel will they find now to feed them the lies they require. Very sad.
Maybe he’s imprisoned in an underground tunnel, kept alive on innocents’ bloodI love how they keep bringing up Hugo Chavez, Seriously the man is DEAD what do you not get about this?
I love how they keep bringing up Hugo Chavez, Seriously the man is DEAD what do you not get about this?
perhaps they'll be accusing Chavez of calling fish and loaves into existence from nothing soon.
Such a pity that it seems like California is the only US state which has the legal concept of a "vexatious litigant". It would be funny as fuck if the Trump campaign got slapped with that.
I love how they keep bringing up Hugo Chavez, Seriously the man is DEAD what do you not get about this?
The Washington Post has identified a secret witness in filings protesting the presidential election —who was presented by pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell as a former intelligence contractor — as a pro-Trump podcaster.
The Post identified the witness as pro-Trump podcaster Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman.
In the affidavit, the witness identifies herself as a former “private contractor with experience gathering and analyzing foreign intelligence.” She claimed that from 1999 to 2014 she delegated tasks to contractors in the U.S. and in foreign countries.
The Post said it identified the witness as Maras-Lindeman by matching parts of her affidavit with a 2019 blog post.
Powell in legal filings had claimed that the witness’s identity had to be kept secret to protect her “reputation, professional career and personal safety.”
Maras-Lindeman confirmed to the outlet that she authored the affidavit, telling the Post that “this is everybody’s duty” and that the results of the election are “just not fair.”
Federal judges have rejected the complaints that Powell has filed in Wisconsin and Arizona targeting the election results that include Maras-Lindeman’s affidavit.
The individual lawyers involved in the Trump campaign are facing multiple complaints that could see them disbarred.
Trump can tell ceaseless outrageous lies and apparently face no consequences over doing so but it's his superpower everyone else has to pay the piper sooner or later. It continues to amaze me how many people are prepared to ruin their careers and even their own lives in service to a petty demagogue who wouldn't do the same and will abandon them without a thought.I wonder if they know any good lawyers.
The QAnon-peddling attorney took things to a whole new level on Wednesday night, however, when he decided to take to Twitter and toss out a series of dangerously unhinged accusations
After painting Roberts as a murderous pedophile, the far-right attorney went further down the QAnon rabbit hole by bringing up deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting the chief justice was mixed up in trafficking children and apparently hinting that he may have had Epstein killed.
Trumpist Lawyer Lin Wood Goes on Unhinged Rant Suggesting Justice John Roberts Is a Murderous Pedophile
Wood has recently been in touch with President Trump, who has encouraged his election-stealing lawsuits and behavior.www.thedailybeast.com
The liability to prove the statement made is defamatory and untrue lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove that the statement was made and that the statement shall be published, or heard by a person other than the person being defamed. The statement made should be false and untrue and must cause injury to the person being defamed
Well, linking him with the folk devil of "paedophilia" pretty much maximises the potential harm. OTOH, Lin Woods' complete and total lack of credibility suggests that few are likely to take his claims seriously...though it is more likely to be the idiots who think kidnapping governors who are going to believe it.Although defamation is very difficult to prove in the US, different from the UK where the defendant has to prove the statement's true, and here that the judge has suffered harm from it.
Burden of Prove in case of Defamation - Law Corner
The liability to prove the statement made is defamatory and untrue lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove that the statement waslawcorner.in
I'm not sure how you'd actually prove you didn't kill Epstein, and the rest.
Well, linking him with the folk devil of "paedophilia" pretty much maximises the potential harm. OTOH, Lin Woods' complete and total lack of credibility suggests that few are likely to take his claims seriously...though it is more likely to be the idiots who think kidnapping governors who are going to believe it.
I think the likeliest outcome will be Woods' progressive disbarment from every court in the US.
I don't know if the US has an equivalent, but "vexatious litigant" status in the UK is a good way not to get your argument heard...I did also see that if someone goes round making preposterous accusations then courts don't look favourably on it along the lines of Crying Wolf.
I don't know if the US has an equivalent, but "vexatious litigant" status in the UK is a good way not to get your argument heard...
Lin Woods' complete and total lack of credibility suggests that few are likely to take his claims seriously
US Bar associations are generally reluctant to disbar members. For example, despite a 25 year career of filing not merely frivolous, but ridiculous suits, and even having been found to have inappropriately touched his kids, Larry Klayman still hasn't been disbarred, although he's currently serving a suspension.I think the likeliest outcome will be Woods' progressive disbarment from every court in the US.
.
He'll be banned from twitter for rule breaches and then only Melania will hear his rantings
And quite possibly the bottleI get the feeling that post-White House, she'll hit the road at the first opportunity.
And quite possibly the bottle
I get the feeling that post-White House, she'll hit the road at the first opportunity.
Very true, but he clearly has lasted a lot longer than she expected him to. Perhaps she's taking every chance to raise his blood pressure by endlessly dropping the election into the conversation.I've listened to the "secret recordings" an ex-friend made of their conversations. What I've heard suggests that she and Trump are pretty similar people. They're both very transactional in their personal relationships, and she doesn't seem to have much feeling for anyone other than herself and her son. Besides, why ditch the big payoff when she's so close to a payday? He's elderly and eats crap. He's not going to last forever.
I really can't understand why Roberts hasn't already gone DefConOne with lawsuits. I would, were I he.Whichever classes Roberts may have skipped, I'm pretty sure he's going to know quite a few competent lawyers who are very nicely skilled up on defamation, and probably also the use of insanity defences to try and avoid the consequences...