Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed...
This is the link to her motion to dismiss.. I'm reading it as I post (not done yet). So far I haven't seen "no reasonable person would believe it" However, I did see this in the intro " Finally, should the Court decide to address the Complaint’s substantive allegations the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." To me, that sounds like they are still arguing that there's something,well, substantive to her statements. The link: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf
“reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process" That statement doesn't necessarily mean her claims were not substantial, only that for people to take the claims as fact, they need to be proven in a court of law. Which is a reasonable. I'm not saying that everything she claimed is true either, but from what I read ( haven't finished reading the motion to be fair) her lawyer still argues substantial claims, not that it's opinion only, which is why I included the 12b quote.
Commies have zero tolerance for any mention of election fraud and by policy will spread half truths. Any news about election fraud is probably a lie - is Sydney restricted by the court from discussing details that would explain?
Problem is Powell's claims were sensationalist and not vetted. Her lead witness lied about his entire background and credentials.
There was widespread election fraud, just not the way that Powell was claiming involving secret CIA servers, satellites hacking machines, vast communist plots from Hugo Chavez, and secret control rooms overseas swapping votes.....nope, its a lot more mundane and it involves massive mail-in ballot fraud and several Democrat strongholds kicking out observers, covering the windows, and then harvesting/manufacturing fraudulent ballots over the course of days/weeks to barely eek out a win before calling the state.
They are arguing because the courts didn't rule in her favor (because they didn't even hear the cases) then she is lying.
" Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.** Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. **
Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”
This means she expected to prove this in court but also expected they would not be accepted as fact until the process was complete. Which is exactly how the law works every single time.
3rd, lawyers go with the path of least resistance. It is easier to dismiss the suit than to prove the fraud.
This particular response should have been expected. It's not evidence of a grift. Tucker Carlson and Maddow used this defense and won.
Almost universally, the first step in any trial proceeding is to seek have it dismissed...
She will be excoriated by people who don’t understand it. Tiresome.
I thought she said she wanted them to sue her so they could open themselves up to discovery?
I love how this page is filled with 'China Law and Practice' advertisements throughout.
Well, if a reasonable person would believe it, why were her cases not heard?
Umm, if you read the actual court document, she does actually say that.
no, she doesn't
This is the link to her motion to dismiss.. I'm reading it as I post (not done yet). So far I haven't seen "no reasonable person would believe it" However, I did see this in the intro " Finally, should the Court decide to address the Complaint’s substantive allegations the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." To me, that sounds like they are still arguing that there's something,well, substantive to her statements. The link: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf
Ah yes, Rule 12b, typical response.
“reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process" That statement doesn't necessarily mean her claims were not substantial, only that for people to take the claims as fact, they need to be proven in a court of law. Which is a reasonable. I'm not saying that everything she claimed is true either, but from what I read ( haven't finished reading the motion to be fair) her lawyer still argues substantial claims, not that it's opinion only, which is why I included the 12b quote.
Didn’t Lin Wood do the exact same thing here a few weeks back.
Commies have zero tolerance for any mention of election fraud and by policy will spread half truths. Any news about election fraud is probably a lie - is Sydney restricted by the court from discussing details that would explain?
Until Pillow Guy calls it quits, I'm skeptical
Problem is Powell's claims were sensationalist and not vetted. Her lead witness lied about his entire background and credentials.
There was widespread election fraud, just not the way that Powell was claiming involving secret CIA servers, satellites hacking machines, vast communist plots from Hugo Chavez, and secret control rooms overseas swapping votes.....nope, its a lot more mundane and it involves massive mail-in ballot fraud and several Democrat strongholds kicking out observers, covering the windows, and then harvesting/manufacturing fraudulent ballots over the course of days/weeks to barely eek out a win before calling the state.
They are arguing because the courts didn't rule in her favor (because they didn't even hear the cases) then she is lying.
" Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.” Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.** Furthermore, Sidney Powell disclosed the facts upon which her conclusions were based. **
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699/gov.uscourts.dcd.225699.22.2_3.pdf
Stop believing the mainstream, read it yourself, that is not what she said