+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: ZOGling jews use bogus civil litigation as weapon against First Amendment

  1. #1
    Andre the nigger Anglin's Avatar
    Andre the nigger Anglin is offline Niggroid Editard of the Daily $permer Veteran Member Andre the nigger Anglin has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    In a Phillipino Massage Parlor near jew!!!

    Default ZOGling jews use bogus civil litigation as weapon against First Amendment

    Sandy Hook Crisis Kike Wins $450,000 from Goy Professor Who Called Him a Liar


    The Daily $permer



  2. #2
    Meercat #4's Avatar
    Meercat #4 is offline A Meercat, not a Meercunt Veteran Member Meercat #4 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Somewhere in a hole near jew!!!

    Default How often do lawyers lie to ensure success in court?

    Duh !!! Why do you think they call them "law-yers"?

    How often do lawyers lie to ensure success in court?


    In the US, it’s extremely rare, but not necessarily for the reason you think.

    It’s not that lawyers are a bunch of upstanding pillars of morality. Trust me, I have met plenty of skeevy lawyers. I was actually shocked, given how many rules there are to enforce fairness in the courts, how many dirty lawyers there are out there, and I work in a community that is nationally renowned for its collegiality and fair play.

    But there are still very, very few lawyers who lie in court because lawyers don’t testify.
    It’s not a part of our job. It’s like asking whether people wear dirty underwear to bake a better cake. Maybe that person is generally gross, but it doesn’t really have a direct impact on the job you’re asking about.

    Lawyers’ inability to testify isn’t by accident. There is an inherent presumption that lawyers will lie if given the chance. In fact, without getting into details, I’ve had a bar complaint filed against me by someone who accused me of lying in court (it was an opposing party who was mad they lost) and the bar responded by saying (paraphrase) “we’ve found nothing wrong, because there is an expectation that lawyers provide information consistent with what they are told whether it’s true or not.” Think about that. The bar didn’t even check to see if I was lying or not. I wasn’t. Of course I would say that, but what I mean is, all I do is report what I’m told. That’s what I’m getting at with “lawyers don’t lie.”

    If a lawyer does try to introduce facts in court, the judge will cut them off and say, “where are you getting this information?” If the lawyer doesn’t have evidence to support what they’re saying, everything they’ve said is stricken from the record. Why? Because I am paid to tell the story that benefits my client. It’s inherent in the job. If I was allowed to testify personally as to what was happening, I would have an ethical responsibility to skew the facts in my client’s favor. And as a result, there isn’t a jury or judge in the world who would believe a single word any lawyer said.

    This weasel is claiming that it doesn't lie because it isn't allowed to testify while ignoring all the means by which it degrades the truth by trickery. No one should be allowed to personally profit from lawyering or trickery. Most countries have a civil law system in which everyone is supposed to know and obey the law as opposed to making it up based upon their own.

    Lawyers are prohibited from asserting facts in court at all. Even in cross-examination, which is where the lawyer’s conduct is closest to testimony, they have to ask the witness to confirm or deny everything the lawyer says. Then it’s not technically the lawyer saying it - it’s the witness adopting, or refusing to adopt, the lawyer’s version of events. And if the lawyer continues to try to put words in a witness’s mouth that the witness denies, it will draw objections, censure, or even a mistrial.

    Sure, the words lawyers use to characterize the facts may be unfair or misleading, but that’s why evidence is required. And, for that matter, why the opposing side has a lawyer of its own. After all, one of the easiest ways to win a case is to prove that the other side is lying, so why would any lawyer going against me give me that advantage? With the exception of very specific situations, such as when a lawyer has to testify that he sent a certain email or received a certain document, there is simply no element of truth or falsity to what a lawyer says at all. The lawyer just describes what everyone else is saying. And then has to prove it.


    Robert Bonwell Parker, lawyer specializing in litigation and entertainment law
    Answered Oct 4 2019


    Itz Fun Being A Witless Meercat!!!

  3. #3
    jewneric jewspaper is offline All the jew lies jews see fit to shit Member jewneric jewspaper is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Covington Catholic teen's $275 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal can proceed, judge rules

    Covington Catholic teen's $275 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal can proceed, judge rules

    By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times
    Updated: 10:15 p.m. on Thursday, November 21, 2019


    A federal judge ruled Thursday that Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann’s $275 million lawsuit against NBCUniversal may proceed on limited grounds, as he had with similar cases against the Washington Post and CNN.

    U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman dismissed parts of the lawsuit while allowing discovery on allegations that the network’s coverage defamed the teen by reporting that he “blocked” Native American elder Nathan Phillips in a Jan. 18 encounter at the Lincoln Memorial.

    “[T]he court finds that the statements that plaintiff ‘blocked’ Phillips or did not allow him to retreat, if false, meet the test of being libelous per se under the definition quoted above,” said Judge Bertelsman in his order.

    Judge Bertelsman initially dismissed the $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post, but in October, he allowed an amended complaint concerning three of the 33 allegedly libelous statements to go forward. All three pertained to reports that the teen had blocked Mr. Phillips.

    “As predicted, today Judge Bertelsman entered an order allowing the Nicholas Sandmann case against NBCUniversal to proceed to discovery just as he had earlier ruled with respect to WaPo & CNN cases. Huge, huge win!” tweeted Sandmann attorney L. Lin Wood.

    A group of boys from Covington Catholic High School in Covington, Kentucky, was initially accused of harassing Mr. Phillips based on video clips of the encounter that went viral, while lengthier footage showed that the older man approached the teens.

    Under Kentucky law, a communication is considered defamatory if it brings a person into “public hatred, contempt or ridicule,” or causes the person to be “shunned or avoided,” according to the ruling.

    The Sandmann complaint “alleges that this is exactly what occurred to the plaintiff,” the order said, and that at the pleading stage, “plaintiff is entitled to have all inferences drawn in his favor.”

    The Washington Times has reached out to NBCUniversal for comment.

    The lawsuit alleges that Nicholas was wrongfully depicted as the aggressor because he was white and wore a “Make America Great Again” ball cap, while the news outlets have defended their coverage of the incident as fair and accurate.

    The Sandmanns have requested $275 million in punitive and compensatory damages against NBCUniversal for creating a “false narrative” driven by its “anti-Trump agenda.”

    Unlike Ol' Niggerlips this kid never pretended to be a "White Supremacist" nor was a pub[l]ic figgr nor a professional plaintiff. Even then the pleading had to be amended narrowly in order to proceed. PML CJCC/AN


    lying jewspapers

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default SCOTUS Denies Petition to Hear National Review v. Mann

    SCOTUS Denies Petition to Hear National Review v. Mann

    November 25, 2019 10:24 AM


    The Supreme Court announced Monday morning that it will not hear Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review v. Michael E. Mann, a case with dire freedom-of-speech implications for National Review and all American media outlets that publish commentary on contentious public-policy debates.

    Mann, a Penn State climatologist famous for the “hockey stick” global-warming graph, was targeted by CEI’s Rand Simberg in a 2012 blog post. Simberg criticized the methods Mann used to collect data for the study, in which Mann attempted to chart the earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years and found a sharp uptick in global temperatures in the 20th century.

    In 2010, Penn State investigated Mann for alleged data manipulation and university-ethics violations in regards to the study, but Mann was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. Taking an opportunity to criticize both the scientist’s methodology and Penn State’s administration, Simberg drew a metaphor in his column between Mann’s case and the infamous Jerry Sandusky coverup, a comparison that then-syndicated columnist Mark Steyn referenced in a National Review column.

    Writing in dissent, Justice Alito argued that the high court has an interest in taking up the case because it would help establish free speech standards around one of the most hotly debated issues of the time, climate change.

    “Climate change has staked a place at the very center of this Nation’s public discourse. Politicians, journalists, academics, and ordinary Americans discuss and debate various aspects of climate change daily — its causes, extent, urgency, consequences, and the appropriate policies for addressing it,” Alito wrote. “The core purpose of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression is to ensure that all opinions on such issues have a chance to be heard and considered. I do not suggest that speech that touches on an important and controversial issue is always immune from challenge under state defamation law, and I express no opinion on whether the speech at issue in this case is or is not entitled to First Amendment protection. But the standard to be applied in a case like this is immensely important.”

    Mann subsequently filed defamation lawsuits against all parties involved, alleging that the leveled accusations of scientific and data molestation were false statements of fact, rather than opinion.

    In 2016, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mann over the defendants, who argued on First Amendment grounds that the 2012 post represented “a subjective opinion about a matter of scientific or political controversy” and that “the evidence of record is that it actually has been proved to be false by four separate investigations.” The court also turned down a defense under the Anti-SLAPP Act, which intends to stop lawsuits aimed at silencing advocates on public issues.

    Appeals of the decision, most recently in March, have also gone Mann’s way. The stakes are high. A decision in favor of Mann would set a precedent for political rhetoric moving forward: Parties could potentially sue public adversaries and rely on juries to settle differences of policy opinion.

    In May, the defendants, joined by the Cato Institute, the Individual Rights Foundation, and the Reason Foundation, filed the petition the Supreme Court denied today. “In holding to the contrary, the decision below declares open season on all manner of speech offering analysis, interpretation and conjecture premised on reported fact, as the circumstances of this case illustrate,” they contend.

    Alito Dissent on Denial of Cert:

    I am The Librarian

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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