Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post

[Polishprince]

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

That is why they will settle out of court, The main stream media fucked up on the whole story… That is why they are called fake news

They may. Which of course underscores what we all know, Hat Boy is filing a nuisance suit. If they wanted “the truth”, they wouldn’t settle out of court. Papa and Momma McSmirk want a payday; not justice.

You don't think that the Sandmann child was damaged? The fact you call him "hat boy" shows how the WP hurt his reputation. BTW, we should be ENCOURAGING young people like Sandmann to become politically involved like the Covington kids were when they went to Washington in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

That is why they will settle out of court, The main stream media fucked up on the whole story… That is why they are called fake news

They may. Which of course underscores what we all know, Hat Boy is filing a nuisance suit. If they wanted “the truth”, they wouldn’t settle out of court. Papa and Momma McSmirk want a payday; not justice.

What they want is $250 million, shit for brains. How would settling out of court prove they don't want justice? A payday is justice. That's how lawsuits work, shit for brains.

 

[justoffal]

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

If I was Sandmann's lawyer, I'd enter Bezos' dick pics into evidence. Sandmann is basically on trial for his life, I think any judge is going to have to give a minor child some flexibility.

If I was advising hat boy, I’d point out that the money you may gain will never repair your reputation as a spoiled little ass hat.

It's almost as if the punk's parents are trying to keep him in the spot light because they like the fame....while trying to make a buck or two in the process. And, of course, enabling their little thug.

Thug? Don't see why you use that term at all. If it's your opinion then I guess you have a right to it. Sandmann is not in the spotlight because of his parents or even because of his school trip. He is there solely because a branch of predatory media chose to put him there. He can now never come out of that spot light. It will affect his ability to do anything and everything for the rest of his life pretty much including employment. So yeah....money is what he has left.

JO

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

If I was Sandmann's lawyer, I'd enter Bezos' dick pics into evidence. Sandmann is basically on trial for his life, I think any judge is going to have to give a minor child some flexibility.

If I was advising hat boy, I’d point out that the money you may gain will never repair your reputation as a spoiled little ass hat.

It's almost as if the punk's parents are trying to keep him in the spot light because they like the fame....while trying to make a buck or two in the process. And, of course, enabling their little thug.

Papa and Momma McSmirk…if they take a OCS, they are pimping little ass-hat out like a prostitute.

He gets the money, you stupid snowflake.

BTW, you keep posting defamation of Nick Sandmann and his family. Not only could that get you sued, but it could get USMB sued for allowing it.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

That is why they will settle out of court, The main stream media fucked up on the whole story… That is why they are called fake news

Bezos has just shown us what he thinks of black mail attempts.......

Since when is a law suit considered "blackmail?"

 

[justoffal]

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

That is why they will settle out of court, The main stream media fucked up on the whole story… That is why they are called fake news

They may. Which of course underscores what we all know, Hat Boy is filing a nuisance suit. If they wanted “the truth”, they wouldn’t settle out of court. Papa and Momma McSmirk want a payday; not justice.

What they want is $250 million, shit for brains. How would settling out of court prove they don't want justice? A payday is justice. That's how lawsuits work, shit for brains.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

I'm sure that Bezos' lawyers will object to it, but if I'm the judge I have to allow it. Sandmann is a minor, and the text messages are evidence of the total depravity of the defendant.

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

 

[Pogo]

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

If I was Sandmann's lawyer, I'd enter Bezos' dick pics into evidence. Sandmann is basically on trial for his life, I think any judge is going to have to give a minor child some flexibility.

If I was advising hat boy, I’d point out that the money you may gain will never repair your reputation as a spoiled little ass hat.

More defamation. Just hope small fry like you never come into Lin Woods gun sights, but he has talked about suing hundreds of people over this.

Who the fuck is "Lin Woods"? Is that the Mitch McConnell propaganda machine behind all this?

His name is Lin Wood, and he's a top lawyer based in Atlanta. He represented Richard Jewell, who the Leftist Media demonized back in 1996.

Yuh huh. Link?

^^ "How to keep a moron busy"

If I were advising Bezos, I'd be looking to settle.

Obviously you're not advising anybody, nor should you.
Once AGAIN you can't walk into court with a complaint and then go "my dog ate my evidence". Won't work. If Bezos (or anybody anywhere) were to "settle" on the basis of zero evidence then all of us could just walk around suing each other because hey, we don't need no steenkeeng evidence". Sorry, this planet doesn't work that way.

But wait. It gets better. NOW how much would you pay....

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

Here's a klown who thinks an appropriate legal tactic is "dick pics".

'Nuff said right there.

 

[bripat9643]

If I was Sandmann's lawyer, I'd enter Bezos' dick pics into evidence. Sandmann is basically on trial for his life, I think any judge is going to have to give a minor child some flexibility.

If I was advising hat boy, I’d point out that the money you may gain will never repair your reputation as a spoiled little ass hat.

More defamation. Just hope small fry like you never come into Lin Woods gun sights, but he has talked about suing hundreds of people over this.

Who the fuck is "Lin Woods"? Is that the Mitch McConnell propaganda machine behind all this?

His name is Lin Wood, and he's a top lawyer based in Atlanta. He represented Richard Jewell, who the Leftist Media demonized back in 1996.

Yuh huh. Link?

^^ "How to keep a moron busy"

If I were advising Bezos, I'd be looking to settle.

Obviously you're not advising anybody, nor should you.
Once AGAIN you can't walk into court with a complaint and then go "my dog ate my evidence". Won't work. If Bezos (or anybody anywhere) were to "settle" on the basis of zero evidence then all of us could just walk around suing each other because hey, we don't need no steenkeeng evidence". Sorry, this planet doesn't work that way.

But wait. It gets better. NOW how much would you pay....

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

Here's a klown who thinks an appropriate legal tactic is "dick pics".

'Nuff said right there.

They have a ton of evidence, moron. You're SOP is to make the same wrong claim over and over, based solely on your own authority.

 

[Pogo]

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

The paper implied, moron. You knew what he meant, but you harp on a minor technical gaff because you know WAPO is going to get whacked big time.

I know no such thing, because I know how the legal system works and what 'evidence' is.

You obviously don't know jack shit about how the legal system works.

Perhaps the poster in his ignorance meant "implied" but that's irrelevant. Journalism doesn't "imply" either. It simply reports what happened. And that's what every citation of the WaPo's articles does.

You just utterly destroyed your credibility.

LITERALLY every one. "Video going viral". "Witness A said this". "Witness B said that". The fact that some butthurt blogparrot chose to plug in meanings of his own choosing is HIS problem, not the newspaper's. No newspaper can be responsible for the irresponsibility of a reader.

Except where the lawsuit says WAPO said this and WAPO said that. Then it's not an accurate quote and we have to refer to the article, which no one has access to.

Who do you think you're fooling?

That's why, a FULL FUCKING MONTH AGO, I put out the challenge for anyone to show anywhere ANYONE published libel. And to date I've still got Zero.

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Once again, Trolleytracks, *ANYBODY* *ANYWHERE* can claim the WaPo, or anybody, published this or published that. Talk is cheap. What they have to do in court is PROVE that they did.

 

[Pogo]

If I was advising hat boy, I’d point out that the money you may gain will never repair your reputation as a spoiled little ass hat.

More defamation. Just hope small fry like you never come into Lin Woods gun sights, but he has talked about suing hundreds of people over this.

Who the fuck is "Lin Woods"? Is that the Mitch McConnell propaganda machine behind all this?

His name is Lin Wood, and he's a top lawyer based in Atlanta. He represented Richard Jewell, who the Leftist Media demonized back in 1996.

Yuh huh. Link?

^^ "How to keep a moron busy"

If I were advising Bezos, I'd be looking to settle.

Obviously you're not advising anybody, nor should you.
Once AGAIN you can't walk into court with a complaint and then go "my dog ate my evidence". Won't work. If Bezos (or anybody anywhere) were to "settle" on the basis of zero evidence then all of us could just walk around suing each other because hey, we don't need no steenkeeng evidence". Sorry, this planet doesn't work that way.

But wait. It gets better. NOW how much would you pay....

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

Here's a klown who thinks an appropriate legal tactic is "dick pics".

'Nuff said right there.

They have a ton of evidence, moron. You're SOP is to make the same wrong claim over and over, based solely on your own authority.

My SOP is to put out an open challenge for anybody to show the evidence..

A month later, no one has.

Is "a ton" the same amount of evidence you had when you posted a pic of wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin and claimed it was a political convention? Member that? Good times.

 

[bripat9643]

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

The paper implied, moron. You knew what he meant, but you harp on a minor technical gaff because you know WAPO is going to get whacked big time.

I know no such thing, because I know how the legal system works and what 'evidence' is.

You obviously don't know jack shit about how the legal system works.

Perhaps the poster in his ignorance meant "implied" but that's irrelevant. Journalism doesn't "imply" either. It simply reports what happened. And that's what every citation of the WaPo's articles does.

You just utterly destroyed your credibility.

LITERALLY every one. "Video going viral". "Witness A said this". "Witness B said that". The fact that some butthurt blogparrot chose to plug in meanings of his own choosing is HIS problem, not the newspaper's. No newspaper can be responsible for the irresponsibility of a reader.

Except where the lawsuit says WAPO said this and WAPO said that. Then it's not an accurate quote and we have to refer to the article, which no one has access to.

Who do you think you're fooling?

That's why, a FULL FUCKING MONTH AGO, I put out the challenge for anyone to show anywhere ANYONE published libel. And to date I've still got Zero.

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Once again, Trolleytracks, *ANYBODY* *ANYWHERE* can claim the WaPo, or anybody, published this or published that. Talk is cheap. What they have to do in court is PROVE that they did.

We all know that, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

More defamation. Just hope small fry like you never come into Lin Woods gun sights, but he has talked about suing hundreds of people over this.

Who the fuck is "Lin Woods"? Is that the Mitch McConnell propaganda machine behind all this?

His name is Lin Wood, and he's a top lawyer based in Atlanta. He represented Richard Jewell, who the Leftist Media demonized back in 1996.

Yuh huh. Link?

^^ "How to keep a moron busy"

If I were advising Bezos, I'd be looking to settle.

Obviously you're not advising anybody, nor should you.
Once AGAIN you can't walk into court with a complaint and then go "my dog ate my evidence". Won't work. If Bezos (or anybody anywhere) were to "settle" on the basis of zero evidence then all of us could just walk around suing each other because hey, we don't need no steenkeeng evidence". Sorry, this planet doesn't work that way.

But wait. It gets better. NOW how much would you pay....

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

Here's a klown who thinks an appropriate legal tactic is "dick pics".

'Nuff said right there.

They have a ton of evidence, moron. You're SOP is to make the same wrong claim over and over, based solely on your own authority.

My SOP is to put out an open challenge for anybody to prove me wrong.

A month later, no one has.

Based on your own authority, shit for brains. Lin Wood is the one who has to make the case. He has a record of winning.

 

[candycorn]

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

That is why they will settle out of court, The main stream media fucked up on the whole story… That is why they are called fake news

They may. Which of course underscores what we all know, Hat Boy is filing a nuisance suit. If they wanted “the truth”, they wouldn’t settle out of court. Papa and Momma McSmirk want a payday; not justice.

What they want is $250 million, shit for brains. How would settling out of court prove they don't want justice? A payday is justice. That's how lawsuits work, shit for brains.

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO

Bezos text messages to his mistress/lover will not be part of these proceedings.

I'm sure that Bezos' lawyers will object to it, but if I'm the judge I have to allow it. Sandmann is a minor, and the text messages are evidence of the total depravity of the defendant.

Bezo's dick pics are out there and can never be retracted. Even so much as the mention of prohibiting them will bring them into the dilemma. They are IN...one way or another....fair or unfair....legal or illegal. Such is the irreversible power of media which of course makes the point that libel laws need to be updated.

JO

Again, someone has a vivid imagination.

Can I submit into evidence my poor customer service experience with Amazon as well?

 

[Pogo]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

 

[bripat9643]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory, but claim that can't be trusted, but somehow the other stuff is. Even the other stuff includes stuff that is defamatory, but you deny it.

Arguing with you is like trying to catch a greased pig.

You'll have to excuse us if we don't accept your rules of evidence that say only the evidence that supports your claim is valid.

 

[Pogo]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory

--- and yet, you can't find it.

Nor can anyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory

--- and yet, you can't find it.

Nor can anyone else.

I posted it, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory

--- and yet, you can't find it.

Nor can anyone else.

Here's the headline of WAPO's third article on Sandmann:

The headline “Marcher’s accost by boys in MAGA caps draws ire.”​

That alone is false and defamatory.

Are you going to claim the headline is not a valid quote?

 

[Pogo]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory

--- and yet, you can't find it.

Nor can anyone else.

Here's the headline of WAPO's third article on Sandmann:

The headline “Marcher’s accost by boys in MAGA caps draws ire.”​

That alone is false and defamatory.

Are you going to claim the headline is not a valid quote?

That line isn't even English.

WTF is a "marcher's accost"?

 

[bripat9643]

You did that only because you know no one on the right would pay for WAPO's shit so they don't have access to the evidence.

Nor would I. But it's not necessary to, as I ALREADY TOLD YOU days ago, since all the relevant articles are QUOTED in the narrative of the suit. It's all freely available for anybody to find "evidence". I told you two hundred posts ago to go do that. And you CAN'T.

The suit quotes all kinds of stuff that is clearly defamatory

--- and yet, you can't find it.

Nor can anyone else.

Here's the headline of WAPO's third article on Sandmann:

The headline “Marcher’s accost by boys in MAGA caps draws ire.”​

That alone is false and defamatory.

Are you going to claim the headline is not a valid quote?

That line isn't even English.

WTF is a "marcher's accost"?

It's a typo, moron. I quoted exactly what it said. I don't know if Lin Wood made the mistake, or WAPO did. I presume the former. However, it makes little difference. You know exactly what was said. You aren't fooling anyone. The statement is defamatory.