rpenner1886 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (97)

• On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 06:18am

  Re: Re: Re: The Drama continues...

  Tuesday was the last day to request the court to amend the motions for sanctions. Instead, a motion to extend that deadline to Tuesday the 14th. Why does the lawyer think he needs extra time?

  The order itself was lengthy, covered multiple parties, and discussed a number of different facts and issues.

  Again, this was two lawyers who claimed damages of $160,000,000,000 and sought to amend their factually-unsupported generalized complaint demanding unconstitutional personal jurisdiction by recruiting another 152 plaintiffs none of which provided particularized injury or evidence of more that a feeling that something was wrong. To complain to the judge that the ruling was long-winded in the cataloguing of their offenses, the three separate authorities to impose sanctions and the dismissal of monetary sanctions for one individual for not having meaningfully contributed kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no.

  Additionally, the order required counsel for Plaintiffs to review the itemized billing of counsel for the Defendants, and respond accordingly to the court’s order concerning a possible stipulation with regard to an “appropriate sanction.”

  But the only known criteria they applied seems to have been the total cost measured against an arbitrary yardstick of $10,000. Dominion finally got them to reply for the first time on August 16. “Walker stated that Plaintiffs’ counsel would not agree to a stipulated sanctions award amount until after they received Dominion’s detailed billing records.” which was sent the next day. Did they respond to the reduced total, the hourly rates, the hours billed? Did they make time to confer at all? Not according to exhibit 1 of Doc 141. So where did the time go?

  Further, in light of the motions filed and the courts order, undersigned counsel has been slandered in multiple major newspapers, television and radio shows across the nation.

  I'm not a lawyer, but I expect what the meant to say is that they spent a lot of time reading constitutionally protected opinion and fair reporting on official government documents. Any chance now the court will issue a sua sponte order forbidding to file a defamation case in any jurisdiction without this court's approval? I'm just asking for a friend.

  As a result, lead counsel, Gary D. Fielder, Esq.,

  Are you really trying to impress the judge by styling yourself as an "Esquire" ???

  has closed the Law Office of Gary Fielder, and is currently in the process of laying off his employees and moving from both of his office locations. All of this has caused a great deal of anxiety, which has impacted counsel’s ability to concentrate, and thus finish and file an appropriate motion, pursuant to Rule 59.

  This kind of suggests the lawyers should have hired more staff — including better lawyers who could have told them no. But the bad press coverage seems like a predictable outcome of a predictable order on sanctions in a case where the law makes it predictable that you were going to lose. So why did you file this motion for additional time on the very day the motion was due? Also, whose fault is it that Fielder has two offices to close when he opened one office on June 2nd (the day after Judge Neureiter ordered a hearing on these sanctions) according to this press release? This is after the lawsuit crashed in District Cort back in April, but the press release touts it with:

  This is the same Fielder that is valiantly leading the charge in a historic class action lawsuit.

  Maybe they were thinking of a different case. Finally his kid has been sick this week and he needs to have a COVID test before the child can return to school. Now the other lawyer, Ernest Walker, has neither signed the motion nor apparently filed his own. (It may have been mailed in from out-of-state, as I haven't checked all the docket entries to see if Walker has used ECF.) But does Fielder speak for Walker? As late as August 16, Walker felt free to speak for Fielder.

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 02:55am

  Re: A guide for the easily confused

  But if I hadn't done this, I would not have known that 50% of the US lives in 9 states.

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2021 @ 11:00pm

  Re: NOT ENOUGH SANCTIONS

  Under the US Constitution, courts don't have power until disputes are brought to them. Since this case was resolved before an answer to the complaint was filed, there was no factual inquiry beyond the filings (discovery) which would have possibly revealed if there was third-party litigation funding. If there were such evidence and the lawsuit was directed by them for improper purpose, then sanctions could possibly be applied against them. (I think — I'm not qualified to offer legal advice.) Even if there were, the sanctions available to the court against such real parties of interest is unlikely to exceed the costs of defending the case. (And PACs and other politically motivated persons and organizations can have deep pockets.) But regardless of the motivation of the real parties of interest, the people who did the real damage here were the lawyers who ignored their oaths and duties and consented to this propaganda and harassment effort disguised as litigation. So the court will make them undo the only damage they can force them to undo and do its best to make sure they never do it again anywhere else. Even discounting the likelihood of disbarment for some, they all burned their reputation for seriousness in front of one of the most serious forums whose opinions grace the Internet.

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2021 @ 04:50am

  "Let me play you a mix tape"

  In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2:20-cv-01771, District Court, E.D. Wisconsin), attorneys for Governor Tony Evers plays the bench slap mixtape for the Court in Doc 111 — NOTICE by Tony Evers of Supplemental Authority.

  Covered are court orders from:

  • Matter of Giuliani (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div.) 2021-06-24

    “[f]alse statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society. When those false statements are made by an attorney,” the misrepresentation is exacerbated because it “tarnishes the reputation of the entire legal profession and its mandate to act as a trusted and essential part of the machinery of justice.”

  • Wis. Voters Alliance v. Pence Wis. (D.D.C.) 2021-02-19

    “To wait as counsel did smacks once again of political gamesmanship.”
    “When any counsel seeks to target processes at the heart of our democracy, the Committee may well conclude that they are required to act with far more diligence and good faith than existed here.”

  • O'Rourke v. Dominion Voting Systems Inc. (D. Colo.) 2021-08-03

    “sanctions are required to deter the filing of frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits such as this in the future and to compensate the Defendants for the unnecessary expenditure of private and public money in defense of a frivolous lawsuit filed without reasonable legal basis and without a reasonable inquiry into the facts.”

  • King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich.) 2021-08-25

    The decision in King is highly relevant here because it involves a nearly identical lawsuit brought by many of the same lawyers. As a result, nearly every observation in the thorough analysis presented by Judge Parker applies here, too.

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2021 @ 09:57am

  Re: From across the pond,

  Thank you for that. I found the packaged interview by Four Corners on You Tube and Above the Law also covered that interview and other Powell stories. Finally, if you want to see how they edited the interview into the documentary series is in "Fox and the Big Lie" part 2 of 4, also on YouTube.

• On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2021 @ 01:54am

  Re: Re: The Drama continues...

  In my head the future discussion should go along these lines.
  “We may be just simple Colorado lawyers, but we don't see why so many defendants had to plead so many distinct defenses and reasons for sanctions.”
  “Do you mean to say ... they shouldn't make a Federal case out of it?”
  “Exactly!”
  “Well, maybe you should have thought about that before dragging two corporations, a non-profit, four governors and various state officials across the country into Federal court while demanding $160,000,000,000.”
  “... but their hourly rates are so expensive and they worked so many hours!”
  “That is not their fault.”
  “... but $10,000 is reasonable.”
  “It's not about what you consider reasonable. It's about their work and what the court already said was reasonable.”
  “... but if it is much more than $10,000 then we wouldn't have made a profit.”
  “That is not their fault.” tl;dr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iazRuJn71Q Current asks appear to be: (Doc 141, Exhibit 1)

  • Dominion $89,557.00 “voluntarily reduced” (Doc 143, Paragraph 12)
  • Facebook $59,760.00 (not stipulated, status of negotiations unclear)
  • CTCL $37,500.00 (never responded to)
  • Pennsylvania $6,162.50
  • Michigan $4,900.00

  but then the Colorado lawyers again extend the matter by refusing to jointly sign any stipulations. (Doc 142, Doc 144) or negotiate with the corporations (Doc 143, Doc 145 ?) and non-profit (Doc 146). If they insist on the $10,000 figure, they are both going to any remaining credibility with the judge as to their capability to be reasonable and incur additional costs.

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2021 @ 06:09am

  Election fraud conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell pressed by Australian reporter: 'Do you ever hear yourself and think it sounds ridiculous?'

  YouTube of ABC Show "Fox and the Big Lie" Part 2 of 4 watch?v=gWJhqOPe6rw

  Sidney Powell @ 2:37-3:15 / 30:21-31:15 / 33:05-37:16
  Mike Lindell @ 11:35-11:55
  Janine Pirro @ 17:20-19:38
  Howard Kleinhendler @ 25:38-26:13
  (Smartmatic Lawyer) Eric Connolly @ 26:50-27:44 / 28:30-29:22 / 29:50-30:20 / 31:24-32:00 / 32:28-32:54 / 39:22-39:29
  Giuliani @ 27:48-28:08 / 29:24-29:49

  Tucket Carlson @ 37:17:37:37

  Just the Powell Interview watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk

• On the post: Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, And A Bunch Of Other Trump-Loving Lawyers Hit With Sanctions In Michigan

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2021 @ 09:16pm

  Re: lazy read

  All the defendants who meaningfully contributed to the defense to get paid, but not Davis since a) not a defendant, and b) not that helpful. All nine of the plaintiff's lawyers are ordered to 12 hours of remedial education with a essay addressed to the court required, and all lawyers are referred to all available disciplinary bodies.

  IT IS ORDERED that the motions for sanctions filed by the State Defendants (ECF No. 105) and City of Detroit (ECF No. 78) are GRANTED. The Court is granting in part and denying in part Davis’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 69) in that the Court finds sanctions warranted but not an award of Davis’ reasonable attorneys’ fees or costs.
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall jointly and severally pay the fees and costs incurred by the State Defendants and the City of Detroit to defend this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of this Opinion and Order, the State Defendants and City of Detroit shall submit time and expense records, specifying for each attorney who performed work on the matter, the date, the hours expended, the nature of the work performed, and, where applicable, the attorney’s hourly rate. Plaintiffs’ counsel may submit objections to the requested amount within fourteen (14) days of each movants’ filing.
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall each complete at least twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total) and election law (at least six hours total) within six months of this decision. Any courses must be offered by a non-partisan organization and must be paid for at counsel’s expense. Within six months of this decision, each attorney representing Plaintiffs shall file an affidavit in this case describing the content and length of the courses attended to satisfy this requirement.
  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this decision to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and the appropriate disciplinary authority for the jurisdiction(s) where each attorney is admitted, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment: (i) Sidney Powell - Texas; (ii) L. Lin Wood - Georgia; (iii) Emily Newman - Virginia; (iv) Julia Z. Haller - the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York and New Jersey; (v) Brandon Johnson - the District of Columbia, New York, and Nevada; (vi) Scott Hagerstrom - Michigan; (vii) Howard Kleinhendler - New York and New Jersey; (viii) Gregory Rohl - Michigan; and (iv) Stefanie Lynn Junttila - Michigan.
  IT IS SO ORDERED.
  Doc 172, pp 109-110

• On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2021 @ 09:02pm

  Re: Re: Glee

  remember when Trump created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to 'investigate' voter fraud

  Pepperidge Farms remembers

• On the post: More Pro-Trump Lawyers Sanctioned For BS Election Fraud Lawsuits

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2021 @ 09:31pm

  The Drama continues...

  After the August 3 order granting sanctions, the lawyers continue dispute that they owe anything and seemingly just now notice that corporate lawyers in the private sector are paid much better than the civil servants in the public sector, which they would have been clued in about if they had consulted the guidelines for reasonable fees the judge referred them to.

  Colorado Bar's 2017 Economic Survey table on page 34.

  Doc 143 Dominion on Sanctions
  Doc 147 Plaintiff's Lawyers on Sanctions

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2021 @ 08:24pm

  Re: Re:

  Chozen wrote:

  When you boil down what the court wrote in order to dismiss with prejudice is that if Rachel Maddow said it, it cannot be taken as factual.

  But that's not what the judge said since we have this:

  There are certainly facts presented in the segment that are not in dispute. ... There is no dispute that Maddow discussed this article on her segment and accurately presented the article’s information. Indeed, the facts in the title of her segment are not alleged to be defamatory: “Staffer on Trump-favored network is on propaganda Kremlin payroll.” ... [OANN] agrees that President Trump has praised OAN, and Rouz, a staffer for OAN, writes articles for Sputnik News which is affiliated with the Russian government. Rouz is paid for his work by Sputnik News. Maddow provided these facts in her segment before making the allegedly defamatory statement. ... The basis for Maddow’s allegedly defamatory statement is clearly the story from the Daily Beast, which she presents truthfully and in full. Thus, she sufficiently provides listeners with the factual basis for her statement.

  (Doc 30, pp. 11-12, citations omitted, emphasis added) So what did the the District Court judge say about dismissal with prejudice? First of all, lawyers need to get their case in order before they sue or they can face sanctions (but that is a different TechDirt story.) Second, while local rules may vary, Plaintiffs have a right to amend their complaint once provided it is within 21 days of service and thereafter only by permission. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15.) OANN completed service on 2019-09-20 (Doc 10) so by the time Maddow's lawyers filed the Anti-SLAPP motion OANN's freedom to amend expired and could only do by leave of the defendants (unlikely!) or the court. The district court analyzed the disputed statement and its context following the precedent of Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc. and Standing Comm. On Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman and distinguishing it from the pattern of facts in Unelko Corp. v. Rooney to determine:

  Considering the totality of the circumstances—including the general context of the statements, the specific context of the statements, and the statements’ susceptibility of being proven true or false—a reasonable factfinder could only conclude that the statement was one of opinion not fact. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the contested statement is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim. ... Because there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

  (Doc 30, pp. 16-17) So Maddow both faithfully presents the factual news and inserts her own opinion and hyperbole and the judge says a reasonable person could tell the difference due to the context. The case was dismissed with prejudice because you can't change established facts by alleging more facts. What OANN needed to do was present less facts about the context so that the fraction of a sentence that they complained about would have to stand on its own. This they cannot do, by controlling precedent. Masnick wrote:

  That is not even remotely close to what the judge said, nor the 9th circuit in affirming it. You are either too fucking stupid, or willfully misreading the ruling, which is a very standard defamation dismissal.

  Chosen wrote:

  The 9th circuit is trying their best to tip toe around the issue but the obvious inference in their decision is that anything said on the show is opinion and cannot be libel.

  Again the District Court clearly said: “There is no dispute that Maddow ... accurately presented the article’s information.” Accurate information is facts. So what did the 9th Circuit say?

  A reasonable viewer would be able to differentiate between Maddow’s commentary and the actual news she is reporting.
  (p. 18, emphasis added) ... Maddow reports the undisputed facts and then transitions into providing “colorfully expressed” commentary.
  (p. 20, emphasis added) In comparison to the undisputed facts that Maddow reports, the contested statement was particularly emphatic and unfounded ...
  (p. 21, emphasis added)

  So clearly, the circuit court finds Maddow report facts and opinion and that reasonable people know which is which from the context. Finally, on the dismissal with prejudice, the Circuit Court wrote:

  the deficiency in Herring’s complaint would not have been overcome by incorporation of the rejected evidence.

  (p. 23) Stone wrote:

  The court said Maddow is expected to express her opinions, not that everything she says is an opinion.

  Chozen wrote:

  Its in the nature of what dismissal with prejudice means. 'There are no set of facts that could possible support the claim.'

  Not a true quote, see below. Because you can't change the facts that determined the outcome of the case by adding more facts which necessarily are tangential at best or irrelevant. (You can't escape being caught with your hand in the cookie jar by pointing out that Billy's Mom buys him Oreos all the time.) Chozen wrote:

  Which is exactly what the original judge said
  "there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow's statement,''

  The district court did write “... there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement” (Doc 30, p.17) but you ignored the preceding reasoning based on precedent from Partington v. Bugliosi and Underwager v. Channel 9 Austl (Doc 30, pp. 7, 9-10) which is a controlling argument that additional facts would not budge. Chozen wrote:

  This is in the context of the show as a whole not just the segment.

  Incorrect. The context was analyzed at multiple levels, including what was on screen at the exact time the contested statement was made. The District Court even includes a screen capture on page 14 because both the general and specific context matter. Chozen wrote:

  Even if you had an e-mail where Maddow admits the statement is deliberately false and made with malice it would still not be actionable because at its core Maddow is an opinion show and no reasonable person would take anything on an opinion show as a statement of fact.

  Incorrect. Setting aside that Maddow is clearly reacting to the Daily Beast uncontested news story, such a hypothetical letter would be irrelevant to the reasoning in the case because

  The threshold question “in a defamation claim is ‘whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.’ If the answer is no, the claim is foreclosed by the First Amendment.”

  (Doc 30, p. 7, quoting Gardner v. Martino) It's not like OANN was caught unaware, the argument MSNBC used closely paralleled that in their letter (attached to the complaint) which rejected OANN's demand for a retraction. Which means you must 1) be reasonable and 2) study each contested statement according to the law. You have attempted neither. For example, you never considered Unelko Corp. v. Rooney where an opinion column writer statement was not considered protected opinion and Rooney had to rely on it being substantially true. (“his evaluation of Rain-X was capable of being understood as an assertion that the product failed to meet certain objective indicia of effectiveness.” at *1055) Chozen wrote:

  And BTW I agree with this. No reasonable person should ever take anything said on an opinion show as fact.

  Reasonable people use a variety of mechanisms to evaluate what they hear and read. That's why both general and specific context as well as the details of the statement are important to consider. Even fictional television shows can support claims to defamation. but the particular facts about this one statement on Maddow's show do not, because of context.

• On the post: Former Trump Lawyer Facing Sanctions In Michigan Now Saying The Things She Said Were Opinions Are Actually Facts

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2021 @ 09:21pm

  Sanctions!

  http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/08/25/parker.opinion.in.powell.wood.sanctions.case.pdf

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2021 @ 05:36am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test

  You claim to have a predictive model. But I actually demonstrated my predictive model.

  Impotent internet vitriol and cartoonish misogyny which rises to the level of poorly written Hollywood villain, does nothing to articulate your philosophical disagreement.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2021 @ 04:31am

  Re: Re:

  Impotent internet vitriol and cartoonish misogyny which rises to the level of poorly written Hollywood villain, does nothing to articulate your philosophical disagreement. Indeed, as Chozen makes a repeatedly factual assertion and has not yet backed it up with a direct quote from:

  • Daily Beast's Story about OANN's correspondent
  • Maddow's 3m34s video which is central to the lawsuit
  • The District Court's judgment that there was no defamation and it was wrong to even argue so, and/or
  • The Circuit Court's judgment that the District Court was right

  And that doesn't even include the repeatedly asserted defense that the challenged words of Maddow were substantially true when read in a reasonable manner which the judges didn't find a need to consider given the precedents invoked. So the one evading engagement with the facts of the debate is Chozen who would prefer that we not look at the facts and the law. If Chozen's assertion had a leg to stand on, it would be a simple cut-and-paste. But the Judges wrote nothing dispargaing to Maddow or her MSNBC show, leaving Chozen's post like the self-pity of a Incel -- baseless and a bit ugly.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 25 Aug, 2021 @ 04:00am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show on the Other Foot Test

  Weak argument: "So fuck off".

  It's not an argument. The verb is used in the imperative mood and thus is a command. Do you know why that poster is confident enough with his relation with this site to issue such a command?

  Are you 12?

  Apparently you do not. Once again, the ignorance of the subject matter, history, law, and/or the US Constitution renders your posts into a tragic self-own and the absence of self-awareness robs you of the compassion of others. Anyone who gives the least bit of human gratitude for online social interaction at TechDirt knows who Mike Masnick is. Anyone with the most cursory introspection into the site on which they will attempt to portray themselves as a victim of tertiary syphilis would know the relation between Mike and Tech Dirt is a particularly privileged one. Thanks to the unhelpful irksomeness of posters like Chozen and yourself, while you go about trying to "win" what you think are debates, Mike has almost certainly won yet another free lunch at Benihana or Greens or possibly an upscale ramen shop. Apropos quote: I'm laughing at the "superior intellect."

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2021 @ 10:46pm

  Re: Re: More Techdirt GARBAGE

  Ah, Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Curiously Specific Denial.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2021 @ 02:09pm

  From Exhibit D

  Back on August 6, 2019, NBC wrote OANN a letter which was attached to the complaint. Here are two paragraphs.

  Your letter acknowledges that Mr. Rouz writes for Sputnik- indeed, it makes clear that Mr. Rouz has written 1,300 articles for the outlet, which is nearly one article per day for the past four and a half years. Importantly, your letter also does not dispute the fundamental fact that Sputnik is funded by the Russian government. Nor could you. The United States intelligence community has determined that Sputnik played a key role in the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election and the Department of Justice ordered Sputnik's affiliated U.S. entities to formally register as foreign agents. Mr. Rouz's compensation for the more than one thousand articles he wrote for Sputnik was essentially paid for by the Russian government. You also do not dispute that Mr. Rouz is employed by and writes for OAN. Indeed, you state that his job includes collecting and analyzing articles from other sources and writing articles for OAN based on those other sources. OAN, therefore, publishes content collected or created by a journalist who is also paid by the Russian government for writing over a thousand articles. Ms. Maddow's recounting of this arrangement is substantially true and therefore not actionable.

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2021 @ 02:03pm

  Re: Defame

  Someone who works for a media site partly or fully financed by Russia or any other country is not automatically a liar, an automaton, or a propagandist.

  Someone who gets paid by a state-sponsored organ of propaganda to tell stories and who sometimes repeats that state's propaganda would appear to be a propagandist. The original Daily Beast article and Maddow's same-day video segment (3m34s), which refers to it, both make it clear that Sputnik is “the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet” and Kristian Rouz was both writing for Sputnik and giving stories as a "“One America correspondent", some of which repeat unprompted “Kremlin propaganda.” Neither accused Rouz of being an automaton, but it is clear that Rouz has repeated debunked stories as part of purported news.

  Was Larry King a Russian agent?

  Larry King was paid by a state-sponsored organ of propaganda to tell stories so if he was not a propagandist, then at a minimum he was paid to help put an acceptable face on an organ of propagandia. Then he did it again ... for another. He might not be a committed Russian agent, but he does seem to have a history of taking money to be a talking head without the type of strict vetting to prevent unseemly associations with propaganda.

  Maddow claimed that the OAN person was.

  • Maddow did not claim Rouz was a liar.
  • Maddow did not claim Rouz was an automaton.
  • Maddow did claim Rouz was “on the payroll of the Kremlin”, and “being paid by the Russian government to produce government-funded, pro-Putin propaganda for Russian [a] government-funded propaganda outfit called Sputnik” so OANN's “on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government”

  But that was based entirely on the Daily Beast story and was not a contested statement of fact in the lawsuit.

  That was a smear. That was pure defamation.

  No. It was true. Truth is always a defense to a charge of defamation.

  Meaning that claiming someone is a Russian agent simply because they did reporting for Sputnik is defamation. Meaning it's not bullshit.

  Except that

  • Maddow does not say Rouz is a Russian agent in the sense of not having agency of his own, and
  • the Daily Beast article make is clear Rouz does not simply do "reporting for Sputnik" absent a buy-in to repeat debunked Russian propaganda.

  Instead of celebrating corruption in the judiciary, why not support justice. Because you know.....they coming for you one day.
  You'll look as stupid then as you look now. Crack down on defamation and smears.

  Where is there "corruption in the judiciary" ? Just because you don't understand the issue enough to know why multiple judges were bound by law to rule against OANN, an outcome predicted in a letter by MSNBC in 2019 before the lawsuit began*, is no reason to allege "corruption."

  • • See Exhibit D attached to OANN's complaint

  An important principle of justice is supporting truth and the First Amendment protects people who tell the truth. Scientists, Journalists, and Public Health official seek out the truth and hope to spread it. I don't know who this "they" you refer to might be nor have you given an example of them persecuting anyone. If anything, this story has told us if a rich family-owned business tries to sue you for their hurt feelings over nothing and caused you to spend over a quarter million dollars to argue in court, some state laws may help you recover most of that wasted money. As a published amateur mathematician, I don't look stupid all the time and I wonder why you think I do now. Are you responding to something specific or is this a general paranoiac rant? You say "Crack down on defamation and smears." and I say "Promote the First Amendment, Suppor Truth, It's not defamation if it true, It's not defamation if it is pure opinion based on disclosed facts, Fair comment and criticism is not an unseemly smear, and If OANN doesn't like people pointing out their reporters were paid to promote Russian propaganda stories, then maybe they need to clean house rather than attacking their critics."

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2021 @ 01:19am

  Re: The LA Times says...

  The LA Times doesn't go quite that far...

• On the post: Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit

  

  rpenner1886 ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2021 @ 10:35pm

  Re: Be glad the court refused to open that box OAN

  OANN : Give us more than $10,000,000.00 (Doc 1, 2019-09-09)
  MSNBC: For what?! (Doc 18, 2019-10-21)
  Judge: You're crazy. You pay them. (Doc 30, 2020-05-22)
  MSNBC: LA media litigation is expensive. They should pay us $323,965.00 + $9,706.28 (Doc 35, 2020-06-05)
  OANN: San Diego lawyers aren't that expensive. How about $84,995.80 + $9,706.28 (Doc 37, 2020-6-26)
  MSNBC: Now that we think about it, it should be $347,244.00 + $10,724.36 + what ever we are separately awarded for winning the appeal. (Doc 38, 2020-07-09)
  Judge: You both make some good points and some weak ones. OANN will pay $247,667.50 + $10,724.36. (Doc 40, 2021-02-05) Herring Networks, INC v. Maddow (3:19-cv-01713) District Court, S.D. California

Next >>