Jump to content

Pig Bellmont

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    7013
  • Joined

Everything posted by Pig Bellmont

  1. Everything is back to normal like before the loser TX judge made an insane ruling- at least until appeals at the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS are over.
  2. Did that article say the fine was $500?
  3. Did he muck or did you see what he played with? He obviously had a big range.
  4. Probably never should have been hired in the first place
  5. “Cook anything you want that tells a story and eats without utensils” and Canadian guy cooks molé with chicken thighs he makes on the stovetop?
  6. How’s the business on paper, though? Is it booming?
  7. This is what I’m assuming
  8. Best episode of the season so far
  9. Now that I think about it- You’re right. I’m sure there’s an issue that would let SCOTUS grant cert based on a first amendment issue. It’s *just* like this case you learned about in law school
  10. You’re not wrong, but failing to communicate an immunity offer in a criminal case/investigation is about as egregious as commingling client funds (which is one offense they actually do disbar attorneys for)
  11. Give me a fucking break. Republicans voted to keep a senile senator on an important committee only because she’s incapable of showing up to work. That’s a shitty move. I’m not saying Dems are blameless but it’s amazing that people just assume GOP will be soulless assholes who only care about power
  12. “Money is accountability," said Stephen Shackelford, Jr., the attorney scheduled to give opening statements for Dominion on Tuesday. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna80285
  13. Ahem, the defense paid 12.5 million *less* than half the 1.6 billion in claimed damages. “I’ve got great news, Rupert. We can be done for less than half the claim.” “How much less?” “It doesn’t matter, it’s the best we’re going to get- and it’s not the full $800million”. Cigars all around
  14. just run the one Southpark does then? lol
  15. This is probably true, but in I’m also willing to bet they’ve been working towards a deal since at least Friday- especially in light of yesterday’s delay. I think the timing of waiting until just before opening statements means Fox was scared of just those being blasted worldwide
  16. No, it shouldn’t be
  17. Settled?! lol Fox didn’t even allow for opening statements. I wonder how much they paid
  18. Yeah- my understanding is the question for the special master isn’t whether there will be sanctions, but rather what/how severe the sanctions will be.
  19. The longer the delay goes on, the more that seems likely to me. I can’t imagine a routine objection taking this long. Alternatively did the court go through with appointing a special master to recommend sanctions? I wonder if this break could be related to that
  20. I’m not being pedantic, sorry if the tone was weird. You’re not picking up the nuance. NYT v Sullivan was granted cert because the freedom of the press allows a news organization to report on what someone else said. For example if Fox could be sued under Delaware law for simply reporting “Trump said X”. That’s not what the Delaware law provides- instead the law is consistent with the first amendment and requires a finding of actual malice, where the Alabama case didn’t. Look I know this SCOTUS doesn’t respect precedent but there’s no first amendment claim here because Delaware’s defamation laws permitting suits against news organizations are not out of bounds. It’s not just because there’s a potential verdict for liability that could give grounds for SCOTUS review. Nothing is impossible but SCOTUS review of a verdict would be stunning. Just trying to help here but I/you got in the weeds. I’ve briefed/argued as lead attorney in federal circuit and district courts over a lot of years, so I’m not completely talking out of my ass.
  21. You’re welcome to Google it/do your own westlaw research but I think the question presented was related to the state’s libel law infringing on first amendment rights. the question about public figures and actual malice have long since been updated in state torts for defamation and this trial is exactly about that heightened standard. long story short Fox doesn’t have a first amendment claim here really (that the standard for liability violates the freedom of the press). Instead they’re just really arguing that they weren’t reckless or intentional in misleading
  22. No- the action has to arise under federal law or constitutional right. A defense invoking that won’t trigger federal jurisdiction Also, (if you have a removal right) time to remove is usually limited to 30 days after you receive notice of suit. You can’t just appeal to SCOTUS because you don’t like the result of your state trial
  23. Just wanted to clarify this usually would be something like a party is getting sued in state court for violations of a federal statute, like Title VII anti-discrimination laws. Those claims could be removed on federal question grounds and the federal court would have the option of taking on any related state claims. This case is a tort (defamation) and those are state claims (not federal). I don’t see how there’s a federal issue that would give any of those courts jurisdiction
×
×
  • Create New...