Legal Eagle Question

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7741
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Taktix® » 29 Aug 2014, 09:15

"But your Honor, I want to represented by Rapey McSleeze..."
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26126
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by thoreau » 29 Aug 2014, 10:13

Taktix[REGISTERED SIGN] wrote:"But your Honor, I want to represented by Rapey McSleeze..."
The judge would demand that you be more specific.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11281
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 29 Aug 2014, 11:42

Taktix® wrote:"But your Honor, I want to represented by Rapey McSleeze..."
:lol: :lol:
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 24 Aug 2015, 11:53

As part of the fallout from the Josh Duggar/Ashley Madison scandal, it was discovered that Duggar apparently has/had a Facebook page under a fake name, which he used to arrange extramarital affairs, and "friend" strippers and other people who don't meet Quiverfull morality standards. Duggar used someone else's photo on his fake Facebook page -- the photo of a male DJ and sometimes model -- and now that DJ is suing Duggar. (Among other things, the poor guy lost his DJ job, because his boss figured he's "involved" with the scandal somehow.)

Assuming that fake Facebook page really is proven to be Duggar's -- does the DJ/model have grounds to sue him here?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 24 Aug 2015, 14:28

Probably. State law question. But my best guess is that a monetary damages judgement against Duggar is gonna be hard to collect.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22830
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 24 Aug 2015, 14:34

Get in before the divorce
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 9539
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 24 Aug 2015, 14:38

Mo wrote:Get in before the divorce
She's sticking by him for now.

It would be hilarious if this is the result of thinking that porn is as bad as adultery.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 04 Jul 2018, 18:25

Alex Jones is being sued by various Sandy Hook parents for his despicable claim that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened--according to him, all those mourning parents are lying, because their kids either never existed in the first place, or were paid "crisis actors" faking the whole mass shooting as part of the government's nefarious plan to impose gun control laws. He's hired Marc Randazza, who is claiming that the lawsuit infringes on Jones' first amendment free-speech rights.

But here is what I do not understand: the 1A covers opinions, but does not cover libel or slander. Aren't Jones' statements about the Sandy Hook parents inherently slanderous? Had Jones "merely" said "Pfft, those kids are better off dead because their parents are all liberal shits anyway, as evidenced by their desire to take our guns away" that would indeed be despicable but WOULD be covered under 1A, because that is an opinion, and opinions are legal even if they are utterly abhorrent. But saying "Those parents are lying, their kids never existed in the first place, the parents are just making shit up to help the UN and the Deep State steal our guns" --- no. Whether you had kids or not, whether your kid was murdered or not -- that is not a matter of opinion, that's a fact (or a lie, in Jones' case). So how could this possibly be a first amendment issue?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 04 Jul 2018, 18:50

You are surprised that an attorney might raise a defense or suggest in public that he will raise a defense which may not prevail?

I will assume without bothering to investigate that Jones is contending he's a journalist and that his statements are protected as freedom of the press under NY Times v. Sullivan.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 04 Jul 2018, 19:15

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 18:50
I will assume without bothering to investigate that Jones is contending he's a journalist and that his statements are protected as freedom of the press under NY Times v. Sullivan.
Here's what Randazza is arguing, according to the Las Vegas Sun:

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/jul/0 ... -sandy-ho/
Randazza has appeared on Jones’ radio show and in InfoWars videos. In a brief telephone interview, he acknowledged opinions by First Amendment lawyers not involved in the cases that the Sandy Hook families have a strong claim against Jones. “I think if you look at the allegations in the complaint, that’s an easy conclusion to make,” Randazza said. “But as these cases progress sometimes things turn in the other direction.”

“We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” he said, asserting that Jones has “a great deal of compassion for these parents.”
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 04 Jul 2018, 19:36

Yes,... and?

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 04 Jul 2018, 20:04

The very notion that Jones feels "compassion" for the parents seems to undermine the case: one should feel "compassion" for parents whose kids were murdered, but not for "crisis actors" who lied about ever having kids in the first place, and lied for evil reasons too.

I don't know if Randazza actually has some Sekrit Strategery to somehow win some important 1a principle case, or if he's just milking Jones (and Anglin, his other high-profile client) for money and publicity.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11281
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 04 Jul 2018, 20:10

Well, as the defense lawyer, what's he supposed to be saying? "Yeah, my client is a piece of shit and he's totally guilty"? He has to argue some kind of defense, even if it's probably not going to win the case.
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 04 Jul 2018, 21:10

Ellie wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 20:10
Well, as the defense lawyer, what's he supposed to be saying?
I'm more wondering why Randazza took Jones' case in the first place. Like I said upthread: does he actually think he can win some sort of important 1A principle (similar to the ACLU fighting for Nazis' right to march, even though the ACLU loathes the Nazis' actual ideas), or is Randazza only doing this for the money and/or publicity, knowing full well Jones is guaranteed to lose? If the former, what might that principle be -- might he try some hairsplitting a la "It's okay to smear 'Sandy Hook parents' as liars, provided you don't identify any individual Sandy Hook parents by name?"

Might there even be some type of 12-dimensional-chess reason, other than money or "all publicity is good publicity" why a lawyer in Randazza's position would want to take a guaranteed-loser case if he didn't have to? Randazza's situation here is not analogous to, say, a public defender assigned to defend a definitely-guilty criminal.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 04 Jul 2018, 21:28

I assume Alex Jones has the wherewithal to pay legal fees. Yes, lawyers who take on this sort of work at all generally like free publicity. Is a further explanation required for why Randazza would take the case?

While it's true that defamation must as a rule be against specific individuals and not a generalized class, e.g., white people or men or Italians, as long as the individuals in question are easily identified from the alleged defamer's comments, that suffices. But even if one can prove defamation, there's a legitimate legal question of damages. Yeah, sure, mental or emotional distress will be part of the claim, but they'll have to demonstrate Jones' statements did cause legally cognizable harm by whatever standard the states require.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 04 Jul 2018, 22:25

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
04 Jul 2018, 21:28
I assume Alex Jones has the wherewithal to pay legal fees. Yes, lawyers who take on this sort of work at all generally like free publicity. Is a further explanation required for why Randazza would take the case?
I'm more wondering if he knows he's going to lose, or thinks he can actually win.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11281
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 04 Jul 2018, 23:31

Well, I assume he gets paid the same amount either way. And if defense lawyers only took on cases they thought they could win, there would be an awful lot of people left to represent themselves.
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 6542
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Pham Nuwen » 05 Jul 2018, 05:08

Jen, all do respect but what is it you are looking for exactly? The world is not black and white.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11281
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 05 Jul 2018, 10:18

Pham Nuwen wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 05:08
all do respect
All may, some do, none must!

*ducks*
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2018, 10:23

I wouldn't be surprised if they argued that, like Trump, Jones is too much of a bullshit artist to be truly liable to a defamation suit: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

Dangerman
Posts: 6214
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Dangerman » 05 Jul 2018, 11:32

If Jones isn't claiming to have private knowledge, this is all pretty clearly his opinion. I don't think that the plaintiffs have a case, even if Jones is a big fat liar who I'd love to see crash and burn.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22830
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 05 Jul 2018, 12:10

Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jul 2018, 12:14

IIRC, when he and his ex had their custody battle last year, he tried arguing that his show was just an act (in response to his ex's lawyer playing certain tapes of his shows to illustrate his unfit-parenthood). Judge didn't buy it, and his ex got full custody (assuming, of course, that he really DID have kids as opposed to crisis actors paid so his followers would think "The gubmint's coming to take your kids away!").
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8929
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by nicole » 05 Jul 2018, 12:36

Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22506
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jul 2018, 12:40

nicole wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:36
Mo wrote:
05 Jul 2018, 12:10
Randazza seems to have closed that avenue. If he never believed it, it seems pretty clear that he was making up outrageous lies about the families.

“The First Amendment has never protected demonstrably false, malicious statements like the defendants.'” I was stuck hard, though, by what the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote earlier in the complaint: “Alex Jones does not in fact believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – and never has.”
Not sure where Randazza comes in at that link?

But in any case the point is that if your whole thing is making up outrageous lies, all the time, and everyone knows that, then you become allowed to do that because no reasonable person would believe you.
Yeah, but we're not talking about "reasonable people"; we're talking about folks who think Alex Jones is an actual news source. (I honestly do not know how much of that comment is serious, and how much is snark.)

FWIW, another Randazza client, Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi, has tried arguing online that "Andrew Anglin the neo-Nazi" is merely a performance-art character, presumably in hope of making similar legal arguments in the future. (And just a couple days ago Angling lost a defamation lawsuit by default, since neither he nor his lawyer -- not Randazza for that specific case -- bothered showing up.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests