So disappointed in the Breitbart site. This interpretation of Powell's argument is completely off-base. To show defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the respondent held the plaintiff up to ridicule with assertions that would harm his reputation so as to give rise to actual damages. Dominion claims that Powell's assertions were wildly unfounded and not to be believed by any reasonable person. If that is the case, Dominion does not present an action upon which relief can be granted; in other words, Powell might as well have said that Dominion computers were controlled by little green men from Mars. Since no reasonable person would believe that, no actual damages can be shown. It isn't a bad argument, but one wishes they would have chosen to present the facts she uncovered instead; the truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.
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... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media
I suspect this is just the first step in what is potentially a very long running and expensive case. It gives a possibly controlled/corrupt judge legal justification to dismiss or give an early ruling in Sidney's favor, and thereby protecting Dominion from discovery and exposure. Laying out the evidence is a higher risk strategy because it hinges on what is admissible and non admissible, which is kind of like what's moot and not moot if you get my drift.
Brietbert and this Joel Pollak guy are morons. I guess they didn't actually read the motion papers but instead just parroted something they read on social media. It's readily available. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it.
So disappointed in the Breitbart site. This interpretation of Powell's argument is completely off-base. To show defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the respondent held the plaintiff up to ridicule with assertions that would harm his reputation so as to give rise to actual damages. Dominion claims that Powell's assertions were wildly unfounded and not to be believed by any reasonable person. If that is the case, Dominion does not present an action upon which relief can be granted; in other words, Powell might as well have said that Dominion computers were controlled by little green men from Mars. Since no reasonable person would believe that, no actual damages can be shown. It isn't a bad argument, but one wishes they would have chosen to present the facts she uncovered instead; the truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.
‘No reasonable person’ would believe that headline.
No reasonable person believes this election nor Dominion was legit.
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... Also, any information she released would be fodder for denial and nitpicking by the media and the complainants... Most of all, seeking dismissal is the set in stone first step of any trial strategy .... that PROOF will come out in the trial as it should. We don't try cases in the media
Exactly.
I suspect this is just the first step in what is potentially a very long running and expensive case. It gives a possibly controlled/corrupt judge legal justification to dismiss or give an early ruling in Sidney's favor, and thereby protecting Dominion from discovery and exposure. Laying out the evidence is a higher risk strategy because it hinges on what is admissible and non admissible, which is kind of like what's moot and not moot if you get my drift.
Brietbert and this Joel Pollak guy are morons. I guess they didn't actually read the motion papers but instead just parroted something they read on social media. It's readily available. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it.