Can you imagine hiring the Dazzler as your attorney?

HHusky

SFGbob said:

Don’t be a fucking liar Dazzler. So far no Defendant has “gotten out on a MTD.”

Correct. And I never said otherwise. Sandmann figured out how to allege a claim.

And he did have to amend his claim against NBC, which he did in August 2019. By the time he sued the NYT in 2020 he already had an improved complaint in hand.

HHusky

SFGbob said:

HHusky said:

So Sandmann's complaint now alleges a cognizable claim.

Quite the legal victory.

Yeah, those earlier complaints that you said didn't contain any actionable claims, CNN and the WaPo just settled with him for kicks. Never change Dazzler.

Those complaints got amended in order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim. Public record stuff, blob.

HHusky

WestlinnDuck said:

If we are pretending the dazzler actually practices law, can you imagine how many sh*tty claims he files looking for nuisance settlement money? Sandmann was crucified by the MSM and the dazzler initially "felt" that there was no actionable claim. Mad skillz.

The original complaints were dismissed, just as I “felt” they would be.

Sledog

If it was a little money they'd announce the amount to discourage future attempts. So it was substantial.

HHusky

Sledog said:

If it was a little money they'd announce the amount to discourage future attempts. So it was substantial.

I’ve settled cases for a little and a lot. Defendants almost always want confidentiality regardless. And Sandmann’s attorneys appear to have also wanted the amounts to remain confidential.

SFGbob

HHusky said:

And the NBC complaint looks an awful lot like the WaPo complaint to me. So I’d guess that NBC will probably get out on a motion to dismiss.

HHusky said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

HHusky said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

I'm hearing they told the kid to go back where he came from


The civility of the left on full display

You should read the opinion. You might learn something.

The opinion has nothing to do with how the kids were treated

Keep deflecting from the type of fake reporting that put their life in danger

Don't be a snowflake.

Race is poking sticks, but he’s right too. That story had no business being covered by reputable media, except as perhaps a “here’s what social media didn’t show you” story. Instead they let the mob yank them along by the nosering. Complete malpractice of journalism.

Shitty journalism isn’t actionable. And the right should be thankful for that as much as the left should.

My impression reading the complaint was that the lawyers involved were more interested in being culture warriors than in competently evaluating whether they really had a defamation case. It was much too filled with their words and too little filled with anything the WaPo had actually said. I don’t know about the remaining cases because I haven’t read the pleadings.

That’s not what I said there. As far as the legal case, I’m glad they brought it but I always knew it would be difficult. Libel always is. But it was interesting from the beginning there was no basis to say the kid was a public figure. Usually that makes most claims of libel tossed around unactionable at all. Also agree with you on primary motivation of the attorneys.

All that being said, the MSM (hate that term but it’s short) rushed into a nonevent, reporting too quickly and sacrificing credibility based on nothing more than a snotty smirk. No readily apparent crime, no public figures involved, nothing to command front page urgency but the mob. Truly shameful.

The judge was very through. The claim was defamation. There really wasn't anything there. The whole thing may have been a non-event, I agree, but it happened in the public square where everyone involved chose to be.

This was the Dazzler running his mouth in the WaPo case

Nothing there and yet a simple Motion for Reconsideration and a small amendment to the original complaint was all it took for the Court to disagree with the great legal mind of the Dazzler.

According to the Dazzler the kid never had a case because it "happened in the public square."

This story didn’t just get legs because of the left side of the aisle. Part of the shitshow was due also to the right wing outrage machine. I agree with you that the story was a big bore, but when I couldn’t recognize the kid’s name on this very message board, it wasn’t a lefty who pitched shit at me. This story took on an outsized importance to partisans of every stripe.

After the Motion for Consideration hearing the Dazzler weighed in.

The case has returned to critical condition. An upgrade from dead as a doornail.

Weird how a case that you said didn't have a chance because it happened in the "public square" became a winner. Did it no longer happen in the public square Dazzler?

HHusky

I don’t think its a good case. It has nuisance value. I’m sure Sandmann can make a little money. Emphasis little.

Fire_Marshall_Bill

HHusky said:

I don’t think its a good case. It has nuisance value. I’m sure Sandmann can make a little money. Emphasis little.

They smeared a 16 year old kid because they're vile, racist or self hating whites. I hope he gets a few million from this and throws it in their faces.

SFGbob

HHusky said:

I don’t think its a good case. It has nuisance value. I’m sure Sandmann can make a little money. Emphasis little.

What happened to the “public square” exclusion you mouthy fuck?