(02-21-2019 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 09:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sandmann sues Washington Post for 50 million damages, 200 million punitives.

Linky poo to complaint

What is the over/under on how many suits Sandmann is the plaintiff in over this incident?

Depends on how many people with money condemned him without knowing the facts.

So, about 30.

I think that any number is way too small. With all respect, the differences between the 'reported' and the video, I hope Sandmann drains the hell out of many of the legal departments' budgets here.

And, it will be fun to see the people who called for him being physically assaulted on Twitter and elsewhere to be run through the legal meat grinder that is in motion here.

I know people that have dealt with and know the lead plaintiff's attorney here. I dont think 'having money' will be a distinction on filing suit in this instance.

I think the drum major in fact Nathan Phillips will get to know the Federal District filing clerk pretty well in the next short while.

Just meant no use drilling where there is no oil.

I hope Colbert and some Hollywood celebrities are in the line to pay.

And I hope that that a good portion of the proceeds are donated to the Trump campaign.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm no lawyer but I've read that the process of discovery for this manner of lawsuit could be quite invasive/potentially problematic for the teenager (searching through text/email history for evidence of prior racist behavior, etc.).

The process of discovery can be quite invasive no matter *who* the party is. I am sure the Washington Post will burn through abut 50-75k in discovery costs all by their lonesome. A lesson they will (re) learn.

Can be 'problematic'? Maybe. I dont know. I have nothing to judge or even imply Sandmann's supposed deep email racism on except your comments above. If the kid is a closet white pointy hat wearer, I guess we will find out. That is his (really his guardian's) explicit choice to make. Do you have any 'inside' information on this?

Quote:Can you sue a talking head who gives an opinion on a news story that later turns out to be (possibly) debunked?

The question is not 'can you sue', the question is 'can one win'? But the answer to both is yes. If the 'opinion' repeats facts that are untrue, then yes. And, the coverage from CNN 'opinion' people did appear to include recitations of the incident that were untrue when actually viewed away from the highly edited and chopped up versions shown.

Then you get to the Bill Maher type comments:

Quote:"I don't blame the kid, the smirk-face kid, I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting. And, oh yeah, I blame the f---ing kid, what a little prick.”

Quote:"Smirk face, like that's not a dick move at any age to stick your face in this elderly man, You know, I don't spend a lot of time, I must tell you, around Catholic school children, but I do not get what Catholic priests see in these kids.”

I find it very ironic (and hypocritical) for Bill Maher to be mouthing off about 'smirks', 'pricks', and 'dick moves' to be absolutely honest.

And even if Sandmann doesnt win on this angle, I for one will be rooting to see Maher explain this grotesque display of absolute vehemence against a 14 year old. Even if I do have to see the smug smirk on the prick's face as he does so. Those comments may not necessarily be actionable, but I have no problem having Maher pay 100k to extricate himself for lowering himself to attacking a 14 year old on his national podium. Especially in that mudpit type fashion. TFBFB (the last FB means For Bill) in my opinion.

(Honestly, I would really enjoy to see the smug smirk on Maher's lawyers face as *that* dude cashes the checks resulting from his client's comments above, among others.....)