Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material
fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue
of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement,
which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material
fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue
of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an
issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the
2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible
credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement,
which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most
favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material
fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive >> proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue
of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an
issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the
2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible
credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or >> statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also >> be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement,
which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
But I see a silver lining. the dem party talking heads and former officials will
be forced to the sidelines if networks are held accountable for their lying ass BS.
On 4/1/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most
favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material
fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive
proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue >> of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an >> issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the >> 2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible
credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or
statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also
be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement,
which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
But I see a silver lining. the dem party talking heads and former officials willI see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
be forced to the sidelines if networks are held accountable for their lying ass BS.
I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptions
On 4/1/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most
favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material
fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive
proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue >> of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an >> issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.
The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the >> 2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible
credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or
statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also
be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement,
which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptionsYes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/1/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most
favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material >>>> fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive >>>> proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue >>>> of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an >>>> issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden. >>>> The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is
CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the >>>> 2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible
credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or >>>> statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also
be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, >>>> which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Yes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptions
It took discovery for you to claim to know Fox underlying philosophy.
Maybe you can watch this to see how CNN was doing it.
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/project-veritas-secretly-records-cnn-conference-calls-reveals-networks-dishonesty.html
........End quote.
On 4/2/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Yes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptions
It took discovery for you to claim to know Fox underlying philosophy.Nonsense. I brought this "traditional" vs Fox ethos up a month ago.
OTOH, now that there's discovery, it's not just a matter of opinion.
Maybe you can watch this to see how CNN was doing it.
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/project-veritas-secretly-records-cnn-conference-calls-reveals-networks-dishonesty.htmlYou love to tee those guys up, don't you?
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/1/23 12:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 6:32:28 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown >> by Fox at those other outlets.
Law&Crime: “While the Court must view the record in the light most >>>> favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material >>>> fact as to falsity,” Davis wrote in his ruling. “Through its extensive
proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue >>>> of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an >>>> issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden. >>>> The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is >>>> CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the
2020 election are true.”
This is the level at which the judge must give the greatest possible >>>> credence to the defense argument.
The trial will decide the issue of malice.
“Actual malice can be proven ‘through the defendant’s own actions or
statements,'” the judge noted in his ruling. “But actual malice can also
be determined through the subjective determination of whether the
defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, >>>> which can be proven by inference.”
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
Of course you don't. And you never will.Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air know untruths.
And just to forestall a possible future dumb argument:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice
"In criminal law, indicates the intention, without justification or
excuse, to commit an act that is unlawful."
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air knowI don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown >>>> by Fox at those other outlets.The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
untruths.
In spite of your gibberish...
.I still have a key question....
Who is they?
And just to forestall a possible future dumb argument:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice
"In criminal law, indicates the intention, without justification or
excuse, to commit an act that is unlawful."
So if you didn't think it was illegal, you can't have intentional malice.
Case closed.
........End quote.
Thank God.
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 11:17:15 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 11:19 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Nonsense. I brought this "traditional" vs Fox ethos up a month ago.
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Yes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptions
It took discovery for you to claim to know Fox underlying philosophy.
OTOH, now that there's discovery, it's not just a matter of opinion.
Maybe you can watch this to see how CNN was doing it.You love to tee those guys up, don't you?
https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/project-veritas-secretly-records-cnn-conference-calls-reveals-networks-dishonesty.html
I got a tee for the WaPo too.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/04/02/wapo-fact-checker-glenn-kessler-gets-fact-checked-by-twitter-community-notes-and-its-glorious-1346424/
Mr Vance replied that the Department of Justice, which typically holds seniority when it comes to investigating crimes, had asked his office to stand down its investigation into numerous aspects of the former president’s activities, presumably including the hush payments to Ms Daniels."
Bill Barr, take a bow.
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air knowI don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown >>>> by Fox at those other outlets.The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
untruths.
In spite of your gibberish...Sub "known" for "know" and maybe you'll understand it.
.I still have a key question....It refers to the defendant, Fox News Network LLC.
Who is they?
And just to forestall a possible future dumb argument:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice
"In criminal law, indicates the intention, without justification or
excuse, to commit an act that is unlawful."
So if you didn't think it was illegal, you can't have intentional malice.So that didn't work.
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:06:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Sub "known" for "know" and maybe you'll understand it.
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air know >>>> untruths.I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shown >>>>>> by Fox at those other outlets.The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
In spite of your gibberish...
.I still have a key question....It refers to the defendant, Fox News Network LLC.
Who is they?
So all those guests you claim were the source of the BS are not they.
Odd.
On 4/3/23 12:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:06:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Sub "known" for "know" and maybe you'll understand it.
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air know >>>> untruths.I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shownThe ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
In spite of your gibberish...
.I still have a key question....It refers to the defendant, Fox News Network LLC.
Who is they?
So all those guests you claim were the source of the BS are not they.From the ruling:
Odd.
C. DOMINION IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ELEMENT OF
PUBLICATION AS TO FNN.
The next element of defamation is publication of the challenged
statements without privilege or authorization to a third party.316... To ascertain who is responsible for the publication of a statement, the
Court examines who participated in the creation or the publication of
the challenged statements, because “all who take part in the
procurement, composition and publication of a libel are responsible in
law and equally so.”
...FNN does not directly contest the issue of publication. It addresses publication with actual malice, stating that Dominion’s proffered
evidence fails to prove that those allegedly responsible played a role
in the publication, and therefore cannot be held liable. Because FNN
makes that argument in the scope of actual malice, it will be addressed below.
The record is clear. FNN, as a network, broadcasted the Statements. In
other words, FNN published the Statements by broadcasting the Statements
to FNN’s viewers.
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptionsYes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.
And, yes, those are very minor exceptions other than the Trump stuff for which I will again refer you to the Mueller and Senate reports.
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/3/23 12:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:06:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:From the ruling:
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Sub "known" for "know" and maybe you'll understand it.
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air know >>>>>> untruths.I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shownThe ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
In spite of your gibberish...
.I still have a key question....It refers to the defendant, Fox News Network LLC.
Who is they?
So all those guests you claim were the source of the BS are not they.
Odd.
C. DOMINION IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ELEMENT OF
PUBLICATION AS TO FNN.
The next element of defamation is publication of the challenged
statements without privilege or authorization to a third party.316... To
ascertain who is responsible for the publication of a statement, the
Court examines who participated in the creation or the publication of
the challenged statements, because “all who take part in the
procurement, composition and publication of a libel are responsible in
law and equally so.”
This is great. You're guilty of libel for just for being a composer
which likely includes the links with BS that you often post.
...FNN does not directly contest the issue of publication. It addresses
publication with actual malice, stating that Dominion’s proffered
evidence fails to prove that those allegedly responsible played a role
in the publication, and therefore cannot be held liable. Because FNN
makes that argument in the scope of actual malice, it will be addressed
below.
The record is clear. FNN, as a network, broadcasted the Statements. In
other words, FNN published the Statements by broadcasting the Statements
to FNN’s viewers.
It's the end of anything done live. Don Lemon should be in jail for all the BS
liars he put on TV to instigate a riot in Ferguson.
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 8:05:03 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/1/23 7:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Yes, they make mistakes. The point is their underlying philosophy.I see you didn't understand my recent point about the right not
understanding that the media is basically fact-based.
with a few "minor" exceptions
And, yes, those are very minor exceptions other than the Trump stuff for
which I will again refer you to the Mueller and Senate reports.
Minor stuff?
Hunter laptop and Wuhan lab leak?
And just what is the underlying philosophy of the mainstream media? Liberal!!!!!
However, "liberal" does include the principles of objectivity and
fairness to which I referred in the earlier discussion.
On 4/3/23 5:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/3/23 12:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:06:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:From the ruling:
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:Sub "known" for "know" and maybe you'll understand it.
On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>Perhaps not. But for Fox, it's a ruling of fact that they did air know
I don't see the long-standing pattern of airing known untruths as shownThe ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
If Fox loses a big award, the lawyers will have a field day with CNN and MSNBC.
Even 60 minutes will be f'd.
by Fox at those other outlets.
Of course you don't. And you never will.
untruths.
In spite of your gibberish...
.I still have a key question....It refers to the defendant, Fox News Network LLC.
Who is they?
So all those guests you claim were the source of the BS are not they. >>> Odd.
C. DOMINION IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ELEMENT OF
PUBLICATION AS TO FNN.
The next element of defamation is publication of the challenged
statements without privilege or authorization to a third party.316... To >> ascertain who is responsible for the publication of a statement, the
Court examines who participated in the creation or the publication of
the challenged statements, because “all who take part in the
procurement, composition and publication of a libel are responsible in
law and equally so.”
This is great. You're guilty of libel for just for being a composerI'm not a cable network employee.
which likely includes the links with BS that you often post.
More importantly, I don't knowingly
publish falsities.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:21:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/3/23 5:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/3/23 12:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:06:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/2/23 8:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 10:57:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>
The ruling:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885/dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment.pdf
Sure you do. I've been showing you for years how full of shit your are.
But you keep on crapping.
ScottW
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:21:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
I'm not a cable network employee.From the ruling:
C. DOMINION IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ELEMENT OF
PUBLICATION AS TO FNN.
The next element of defamation is publication of the challenged
statements without privilege or authorization to a third party.316... To >>>> ascertain who is responsible for the publication of a statement, the
Court examines who participated in the creation or the publication of
the challenged statements, because “all who take part in the
procurement, composition and publication of a libel are responsible in >>>> law and equally so.”
This is great. You're guilty of libel for just for being a composer
which likely includes the links with BS that you often post.
Irrelevant, you're a publisher here.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:21:42 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,361 |