what area of law do you practice? i'm thinking you don't spend much time in court trials. legal briefs don't tell the whole story and aren't legal strategy in court. briefs are for evidence and discovery. no good lawyer tips their hand before the trial begins. you seem to believe that the judge at any moment is going to grant Dominion a summary judgement, apparently based on nothing more than depositions. oh and those briefs.You've no clue what you are talking about.
not gonna happen. neither side has presented anything that would be grounds for summary judgement, not FOX and certainly not Dominion. all of their motions for summary judgement have been denied.
you also seem to be waiting for FOX to settle at any moment. why exactly should FOX settle? just because you dislike FOX as a news outlet doesn't mean they don't have a case they can make in court and win. in fact, the law and legal precedent favor FOX.recall that the judge correctly ruled Dominion is a public figure making their case more difficult to prove. yeah it does. Dominion is a company not a private individual meaning they have public exposure to criticism. as a company they have no right to privacy.
there's not gonna be any summary judgement for Dominion. or FOX. book it Dano! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- 1blackman1
- 03-24-2023, 12:43 AM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 03-24-2023, 12:53 AM
I actually said that matter would proceed to trial. What I also said is that truth is an absolute defense and Fox has not argued once there was truth to the election fraud claims.
See that is the issue with people like Waco, blatantly state a lie about what someone supposedly stated, then argue against that lie. Be better Waco. Oh that is right, you admitted proudly that you are like Tucker, a liar. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
i hope you are a tax lawyer, you aren't Perry Mason that's for sure, even on eccie.
why exactly does Fox have to argue that there was any truth to what they reported? they reported claims by Powell. it's on Powell to prove her claims.
so what do you think the jury will make of Carlson .. on air .. stating Powell not only refused to appear with her "proof" but also told Fox to stop contacting her?
i find it amusing you keep insisting Fox has to prove someone else's claim. can you cite some case law on that?
- The_Waco_Kid
- 03-24-2023, 01:02 AM
I actually said that matter would proceed to trial. What I also said is that truth is an absolute defense and Fox has not argued once there was truth to the election fraud claims.
See that is the issue with people like Waco, blatantly state a lie about what someone supposedly stated, then argue against that lie. Be better Waco. Oh that is right, you admitted proudly that you are like Tucker, a liar. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
There’s no surprises that will come out at trial, both sides will have shot their load in the recent MSJ briefs. If you think some new evidence is gonna show up at trial, you clearly have ZERO clue how this works. It at Perry Mason or Alley McBeal, both sides have informed the court about any evidence which could be dispositive of this matter without trial. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
What are summary Judgement briefs?
A Summary Judgment motion is a request for the court to decide legal issues involved in the case, based on the evidence identified during discovery. The Summary Judgment motion is filed with the court usually by the defendant at the end of discovery.
still want to claim that Dominion didn't ask for a summary judgement in their favor?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/busin...ent/index.html
Lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems argued Tuesday that its defamation case against Fox News is so strong that a trial isn’t needed, and the judge followed up with some challenging questions for the right-wing outlet during an all-day courtroom clash.
Both sides were in court for a major hearing, where they tried to persuade Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis to to grant “summary judgment” — and decide the case in their favor now, instead of proceeding to a scheduled jury trial next month
- 1blackman1
- 03-24-2023, 09:48 AM
Waco, I’m truly lost at what you’re saying. Maybe it’s your reading comprehension that’s way off.
I never said both sides didn’t seek summary judgment. I don’t believe it will be granted and the matter will proceed to trial. Also, as part of their MSJ, both sides fully played their hands and there’s no “hidden or secret” evidence either would be holding back for trial that they wouldn’t use in the MSJ. An MSJ is dispositive so any evidence not included won’t be reviewed on appeal in the case that an MSJ was granted in whole or part, so it’d be simply stupid to “save evidence for later” and legal malpractice were that side to lose to the other sides MSJ.
I don’t know how to put it any simpler for you to understand what’s been written.
I never said both sides didn’t seek summary judgment. I don’t believe it will be granted and the matter will proceed to trial. Also, as part of their MSJ, both sides fully played their hands and there’s no “hidden or secret” evidence either would be holding back for trial that they wouldn’t use in the MSJ. An MSJ is dispositive so any evidence not included won’t be reviewed on appeal in the case that an MSJ was granted in whole or part, so it’d be simply stupid to “save evidence for later” and legal malpractice were that side to lose to the other sides MSJ.
I don’t know how to put it any simpler for you to understand what’s been written.