“no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
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
The Chicago Sun Times? Isn't that like linking to The Onion?
Yes.
Newsflash: You must've stumbled in from Rachel Madcow's site. This is a pro-Trump site. Insulting Trump supporters won't fly here.
Oh, and it's not a site for socialist parasite Bernie Sanders, either, since you've been pushing him, too.
Get lostGoodbye.man you live in a legit delusional world
“no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
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
Where are links to Sidney's actual filings in this case rather than some leftist's interpretation of them?