So, obviously we're not posting it here, but are the names of the other 4 or 5 100% confirmed to be known or are we just speculating?
They are known. Not speculation.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
So, obviously we're not posting it here, but are the names of the other 4 or 5 100% confirmed to be known or are we just speculating?
They are known. Not speculation.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Unless YOU have proof in HAND...it’s speculation for YOU. ‘Those who know’....meaning YOU are not a ‘THOSE’. I didn’t create the English language but ‘speculation’ is pretty cut and dry. Unless you are an eye witness, YOU are speculating. Word of mouth is not proof.
Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.
Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.
(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
Proving a defamation suit is an incredibly high bar legally, I think that’s one of the most common misconceptions people have about the law. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be nowhere near reaching the standard of defamation. And if you sue and lose, which is the most likely thing in a defamation case by a mile, you often have to pay the attorneys fees (although I’m not sure this is true for Washington and I’m too lazy to look it up).
To get fees, the respondent would have to prove the suit was frivolous. There are plenty of arguments the “aggrieved” can make. So, getting fees ain’t happening.
As far as the claim. King 5 got the FOIA documents months ago and so far sat on the story. That should tell you something.
Often in these situations, deep pocketed plaintiffs file suit and paper the other side with discovery requests. If the respondent is a minor with rich parents, it gets interesting.
Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.
Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.
(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
Proving a defamation suit is an incredibly high bar legally, I think that’s one of the most common misconceptions people have about the law. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be nowhere near reaching the standard of defamation. And if you sue and lose, which is the most likely thing in a defamation case by a mile, you often have to pay the attorneys fees (although I’m not sure this is true for Washington and I’m too lazy to look it up).
Defamation suits are one of the biggest wastes of time. You have to prove negligence, harm, and that the statement was maliciously false.
Also, anytime you file suit on someone it should be because they have assets or insurance worth your time. Suing an 18 year old running a parody twitter account is a waste of time unless you like burning money for no reason.
Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.
Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.
(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
Proving a defamation suit is an incredibly high bar legally, I think that’s one of the most common misconceptions people have about the law. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be nowhere near reaching the standard of defamation. And if you sue and lose, which is the most likely thing in a defamation case by a mile, you often have to pay the attorneys fees (although I’m not sure this is true for Washington and I’m too lazy to look it up).
Defamation suits are one of the biggest wastes of time. You have to prove negligence, harm, and that the statement was maliciously false.
Also, anytime you file suit on someone it should be because they have assets or insurance worth your time. Suing an 18 year old running a parody twitter account is a waste of time unless you like burning money for no reason.
Thought the malice part only applies to public figures? Unless you can make the argument prominent high school athletes are public figures (hmm). Moot point though because there is no clear disregard for the truth in publishing/referencing a police report, right? In fact, the opposite.
Studying for the Bar (or should be), but instead am relying on a teen boi recruiting site for legal tidbits. I know I’ll pass..
Comments
As far as the claim. King 5 got the FOIA documents months ago and so far sat on the story. That should tell you something.
Often in these situations, deep pocketed plaintiffs file suit and paper the other side with discovery requests. If the respondent is a minor with rich parents, it gets interesting.
Ill LIPO and just be peepin’ Either way...
Also, anytime you file suit on someone it should be because they have assets or insurance worth your time. Suing an 18 year old running a parody twitter account is a waste of time unless you like burning money for no reason.
Studying for the Bar (or should be), but instead am relying on a teen boi recruiting site for legal tidbits. I know I’ll pass..