Real Lawyer Explains WaPo's Motion to Dismiss Sandmann's Lawsuit

David

Opinions are my own...
Staff member
PREMO Member
Love this guy.

Takeaways:
  1. Even if the respective court doesn't require it, he's surprised that they didn't number the lines or paragraphs in the document; thus making it so much harder to refer to anything. (each court might have different requirements)
  2. This doesn't even resemble a Motion to Dismiss. They're essentially arguing the case on evidence that has yet to be presented/determined. Example of a legit motion to dismiss: Even if we assume plaintiff is 100% correct in his allegations, we are 5 years past the statute of limitations to file the case.
  3. No way they'll prevail and the case will proceed.
  4. Why did the WaPo lawyers even bother to submit this motion? “Procedural harassment”… make Sandmann’s lawyers work, incur fees. That’s one reason. But we’ll talk about the rest [at a later time]. (he added this remark to the comments section when the question was posed by a viewer...he forgot to address it in the video)


Be sure to see his other video about Sandmann's suit against Comcast Universal:

https://forums.somd.com/threads/real-lawyer-explains-nicholas-sandmann-defamation-lawsuit-against-nbc.341713/
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
You know, I'm pretty much long past the idea that justice will prevail in this country. Money talks and screw the little guy. I learned that when Bill Clinton's bought and paid for judge threw out the Paula Jones case. But I'm really hoping that the Sandmanns can get justice. What the media did to that kid is a disgrace and they should all be put out of business, if not jailed.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
You know, I'm pretty much long past the idea that justice will prevail in this country. Money talks and screw the little guy. I learned that when Bill Clinton's bought and paid for judge threw out the Paula Jones case. But I'm really hoping that the Sandmanns can get justice. What the media did to that kid is a disgrace and they should all be put out of business, if not jailed.
we don't have a justice system, it's a legal system and it often sucks.
The plaintiff is at a huge disadvantage, the Sandman;s don't have the resources WaPo or any of the other media outlets do.
Corporations live forever, people die. They can out lawyer them and out last the Sandmans.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Don't be angry with me, justice would be if we had a populace intelligent enough to push back with logic and reason against the thought police.
Don't have another term for them, it's political correctness, liberal / socialism, ney communism.
Socialism doesn't remove religious beliefs, communism does, it replaces God with THE party chairman.
Sandman is / was the opposition, anything is fair to silence him because he is deemed to not be representative of the correct side.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Just be glad you aren't on the jury ---if it come to trial.
The lawyers from WAPO and the others will drag this thing on forever.

If the brief to dismiss is 45 pages long imagine how long the trial will be.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that the lawyer was doing this pro bono.
I believe his lawyer is pro bono if they lose. but if a large settlement is reached I am sure that will go out the window ------------fast
Of course the POST is hiring top notch guys and paying through the nose.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
I couldn't give less of a **** about the money WashPo has to shell out. They helped create this shitshow, let them pay for it.
Then I don't understand this:
I was under the impression that the lawyer was doing this pro bono.
in response to this:
You know, I'm pretty much long past the idea that justice will prevail in this country. Money talks and screw the little guy. I learned that when Bill Clinton's bought and paid for judge threw out the Paula Jones case. But I'm really hoping that the Sandmanns can get justice. What the media did to that kid is a disgrace and they should all be put out of business, if not jailed.
 

Toxick

Splat
Then I don't understand this:


in response to this:
You appear to be saying that since WashPo has more money they have an advantage over Sandmann, because they can afford to drag it out.


My response refers to the fact that Sandmann's attorney is working for nothing (unless he wins, presumably) so nothing is coming out of Sandmann's pockets. That being the case, dragging it out doesn't actually hurt Sandmann, and therefore the chances of actual justice are far greater.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
You appear to be saying that since WashPo has more money they have an advantage over Sandmann, because they can afford to drag it out.


My response refers to the fact that Sandmann's attorney is working for nothing (unless he wins, presumably) so nothing is coming out of Sandmann's pockets. That being the case, dragging it out doesn't actually hurt Sandmann, and therefore the chances of actual justice are far greater.
They can afford to drag it out and they can also afford to buy off the judge, which is why I mentioned Paula Jones.

Nicholas Sandmann clearly has a case, so we'll know how the hogs ate the cabbage if this motion to dismiss is granted.
 

Toxick

Splat
They can afford to drag it out and they can also afford to buy off the judge, which is why I mentioned Paula Jones.

Nicholas Sandmann clearly has a case, so we'll know how the hogs ate the cabbage if this motion to dismiss is granted.

Ah.

My big concern with that is the media coverage if that happens. Or rather - the lack thereof. The media seems to have a very annoying habit of unapologetically ignoring stories when it is politically expedient (or in this case self-serving) to do so.
 

transporter

Active Member
They can afford to drag it out and they can also afford to buy off the judge, which is why I mentioned Paula Jones.

Nicholas Sandmann clearly has a case, so we'll know how the hogs ate the cabbage if this motion to dismiss is granted.
Nope. Nicholas Sandman does not "clearly have a case". Anybody can sue for just about anything. Sandman has to prove that the WaPo did something wrong with the information they had available to them.

Which he is not likely to be able to prove.

It is highly doubtful that Sandman has a case. What he does have is a lawyer looking to make a name for himself.
 

David

Opinions are my own...
Staff member
PREMO Member
They requested a jury trial, so as long as the judge is anywhere near honest, they should get a fair trial. Plus, I believe it is in Kentucky, so that's pretty much a red state ... which could lead one to believe that the jurors may be predisposed to be on the side of the plaintiff ... which further leads me to conclude that jury selection will be long and tedious.

...assuming it gets that far. If the insurance company is footing the bill for this, I imagine their objective will be to get out with the lowest out-of-pocket cost. Plus, if there is a settlement, Sandmann won't have to worry about a lengthy appeal. Depends if this is about money or principle.

Either way, settlement or lose in Court, WashPo comes out with a badge of disgrace that the right can use to beat them up for years to come.

Bezos is so arrogant and rich that he may want to fight just because he can, and no one challenges the emperor.

P.S.Amazon might be convenient, but the wise man says look for alternative buying sources and suffer some minor inconvenience for the sake of doing the right thing (crickets....)
 

David

Opinions are my own...
Staff member
PREMO Member
My response refers to the fact that Sandmann's attorney is working for nothing (unless he wins, presumably) so nothing is coming out of Sandmann's pockets. That being the case, dragging it out doesn't actually hurt Sandmann, and therefore the chances of actual justice are far greater.
Sandmann may not be footing the bill, but the law firm is, and they may not have unlimited resources to fight forever. They have to pay salaries and rent and fees to expert witnesses and travel, etc. Plus, while they're working on this, they aren't making any income from other jobs.

However, based on what the Real Lawyer said, they seem to be good attorneys based on the quality of their complaint against NBC.
 

David

Opinions are my own...
Staff member
PREMO Member
It is highly doubtful that Sandman has a case. What he does have is a lawyer looking to make a name for himself.
Those are contradictory statements. A lawyer who is looking to make a name for himself does not take a case that he is highly likely to lose. No one is that stupid. Look for a settlement after WashPo realizes these guys can't be bullied away. Personally, I would like to see it get to the deposition phase so we can watch some of those juicy proceedings on Youtube.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
Depends if this is about money or principle.
My understanding is that this isn't about money; it's about holding the media accountable. If it were me, I'd want a public legal decision, not a pay day. Well, not just a pay day anyway. The judgement has to hurt. Their credibility is already shot with anyone sporting more than one brain cell, and we've already seen that public embarrassment doesn't phase them.

That leaves money.

Which unfortunately makes it easy for the shitbags out there to go, "Oh, they just want to get paid!" when that is clearly not the case. This is a civil suit, not a criminal one, which is too bad because I'd really like to see those aholes behind bars for a stretch. Maybe they'd learn.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
What Sandman has to prove is that they ignored accurate information and refused to publish it in a timely manner to undo the damage to him they they had done by publishing incorrect information. Pretty easy to demonstrate how fast that accurate information was available and how long the Post and others ignored that accurate information. And the press's prevarications about the sources of the accurate information not being vetted sort of dries up as it had exactly the same provenance as the original information, namely social media. If the original, uncorroborated information was fit to print, then the secondary, corroborated information (meaning two or three sources all showed the same thing) was not, there's the fault that is proven.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
the kid got death threats because of the Progressive Media ....
I'm all for him getting 2 or 3 hundred million
 
Top