Can you say “$$$$$ettlement$$$$$?”

Ha Ha - Break those mother f'kers

Nick might be able to buy him$elf a network when this is all over.

And they will all lose their cases if they progress all the way to a trial conclusion. The problems with their defenses are multifold. First and most importantly----these outlets were all universally wrong on the facts they reported. Secondly, they were clearly negligent in their reporting because the facts were easily obtainable as video of the entire incident was available for free on the internet. Even after being told their facts were wrong, these outlets continued to paint a knowingly incorrect narrative further damaging Sandman. Furthermore, the person they smeared was NOT a public figure, but was instead a private citizen in the form of a 16 year old minor child. Finally, there was clear malice of intent as the entire purpose of the story was not to impart news----but to inflict harm on a political figure (and the paper really didnt care if the story was actually true or if it damaged an innocent private citizen). These kinds of cases are usually difficult to win---but this one represents that rare case where all the requirements for slander or libel apply and are easy to prove.

(10-02-2020 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  And they will all lose their cases if they progress all the way to a trial conclusion. The problems with their defenses are multifold. First and most importantly----these outlets were all universally wrong on the facts they reported. Secondly, they were clearly negligent in their reporting because the facts were easily obtainable as video of the entire incident was available for free on the internet. Even after being told their facts were wrong, these outlets continued to paint a knowingly incorrect narrative further damaging Sandman. Furthermore, the person they smeared was NOT a public figure, but was instead a private citizen in the form of a 16 year old minor child. Finally, there was clear malice of intent as the entire purpose of the story was not to impart news----but to inflict harm on a political figure (and the paper really didnt care if the story was actually true or if it damaged an innocent private citizen). These kinds of cases are usually difficult to win---but this one represents that rare case where all the requirements for slander or libel apply and are easy to prove.

Which, I'm sure was the reason that these outlets continued their smear, even when they knew they were wrong. What private citizen (kid) would have the resources to come after them? What they didn't count on was that some rather high powered attorneys saw what was happening and swooped in to the rescue. That changed everything.

I agree that the facts are on his side and it is doubtful that those being sued will escape penalty.

The best possible part now is that this kid already has a Phat bank account.

If he really wants to, he can stick it to them and not settle - force them into court and make those settlement offers look like a Five Dollar bill in comparison.

He already got the safety net from CNN. Playing with House money now

(10-02-2020 02:53 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  The best possible part now is that this kid already has a Phat bank account.

If he really wants to, he can stick it to them and not settle - force them into court and make those settlement offers look like a Five Dollar bill in comparison.

Yep, the CNN lawsuit can fund his case against the others. He’s playing with house money now.

Hopefully more people hold the "news" accountable for stuff like this in the future.

Say what you will about lawyers, but when you need one....

(10-02-2020 03:06 PM)solohawks Wrote:  He already got the safety net from CNN. Playing with House money now

And the Washington Compost. Don't forget about them.

(10-02-2020 05:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  Say what you will about lawyers, but when you need one....

Point taken.

But it was mostly lawyers (in judicial garb) who have shielded media from the consequences of its lies for the past 60 years or so, and thereby emboldened media to be so negligent and malicious in the first place.