"Plaintiff is an adult who chose to enter the political arena and now to file this litigation, asserting claims against Defendant as a result of Defendant's alleged statements and activities concerning Plaintiff and Plaintiff's political campaign."
"After Murray relocated to another state, he contacted the Oceanside Police Department. He then learned the police report he received from Eva-Zacchara had been altered to support her version of events. The real police report concluded 'no assault could be substantiated.'"
against Esquire and Ryan Lizza.
A Magistrate Judge has just issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed, on the grounds that the allegations were substantially true.
The lawsuit is brought by the group Indigenous People of Biafra, which has been labeled a terrorist group by the Nigerian government.
Such libel cases aren't easy to win, but sometimes they can indeed be won.
A new short article of mine, calved off my duty-to-take-down-libels article; I'd love to hear feedback, especially suggestions for a clearer title.
The unusually named case is Doe v. Anonymous #1, now pending in Brooklyn state trial court.
Miller had asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order; no, said Judge Emily Hagan (Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas).
Should I file it in a Gothic font?
An interesting example of libel that harms reputation within a social community, rather than professional or business reputation.
So holds the Nevada Supreme Court, applying Nevada law.
Blankenship had been convicted of a misdemeanor related to a deadly disaster at a mine his company owned; Trump, Jr. had erroneously labeled him a "felon"; a judge concluded that there's enough evidence that Trump, Jr. knew the statement was false, or at least likely false.
"[M]ost revealing of actual knowledge of falsity is the vehicle chosen by Riccio to spread the falsehoods—the anonymous letter."
Maddow had said OAN "really literally is paid Russian propaganda," in reaction to a Daily Beast story that an OAN employee had also been freelancing for Sputnik News.
"A reasonable juror could ... conclude that the article was materially false because it stated that Nunes had made ... a baseless claim (when he had not)."
A week after granting summary judgment for another defendant (CEI), the judge rejects all but one of the proffered experts.
Another significant loss for the controversial climate scientist, though his cases against two remaining defendants will continue.
“For diversity jurisdiction to exist, no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant," and "[u]nincorporated associations, including LLCs, have the citizenship of each of their members."
Defendants had said Klayman "'could be the single worst lawyer in America,' has 'never actually won a courtroom victory in his life,' and is an 'idiot' and an 'egomaniac,'" and that "Corsi he seemed to mentally be extremely degraded to the point of what I would call dementia."
A Tennessee trial court "enjoined the parties [including a recent candidate for elected office] from making any public comments about each other and from making any 'negative or disrespectful comments' about each other to third parties."
at least through discovery and until the motion for summary judgment; Netflix’s motion to dismiss has been denied.
Remember, the lawyer’s true superpower is to turn every question into a question about procedure.
Special bonus connections: disbarred lawyers, Tupac Shakur, New York City political figures, and then-not-yet-Attorney-General Michael Mukasey.
The lawsuit stemmed from CNN's coverage of Dershowitz's argument in the first Trump impeachment trial.
(Lolicon is "A Japanese term derived from the English phrase 'Lolita complex,' lolicon describes a fascination with cartoons of very young-looking girls engaged in varying degrees of erotic behavior.")
even if the press release accurately summarizes the Complaint; the rule is different in some states, such as California.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks