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

[justoffal]

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

Gonna cost them 7 figures...will go straight to the Scotus for sure and is destined to become a landmark case.

This should hit just about the same time Barr begins to bear down on Amazon with trust busting investigators....

Jo

You've never been anywhere in smelling distance of a courtroom, have you.

So what you have here is a nuisance harassment suit, fueled by Mitch McConnell's propaganda people, alleging "defamation" that it can't show any evidence of, complaining that a teenager was so "defamed" in the public mind that the entire public, given an entire month to come up with any shred of any evidence at all on a partisan hack message board, can't come up with a damn thing --- that's how pervasive this public "defamation" is.

Rotsa ruck with that. As for the disposition of this action, invest in paper shredders.

I just posted the evidence, you fucking retard. You refuse to respond to it.

NO, Dumbass, you posted part of the narrative of the COMPLAINT. Once AGAIN the WaPo doesn't write the complaint. What the WaPo writes is the articles ----- which are QUOTED in that section to which I just referred you. ALL of them. And nowhere in those quotes is the complaint demonstrated.

In other words the part you just posted, is lying about what was published. And specifically, it's lying about who made those characterizations.

Go ahead. Read it and try to prove me wrong.

I just demonstrated it, shit for brains. And you still haven't posted anything from any of the articles that demonstrates your case.

Don't bother I've been on a dozen boards that's exactly what they do. They will look at the elephant right in front of them and call it a mouse. It's a method.

This case is important for a lot of reasons. it's certainly far more important than whatever Award the Sandman family will get.

Libel law has been left in the dust by New age media. While I lean heavily in favor of freedom of speech..nowadays your entire life can be utterly devastated by one careless moment on the connected New age media. This has been a long time in coming and I'm sure that the court system is already preparing for one hell of a battle. Mark my words this will become a landmark case.

Jo

 

[bodecea]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

I would say they are equally relieved, since you appear to have no understanding of the most basic Christian precepts...first and foremost the difference between good, and evil. You poor anti-Christian loons seem to have no internal ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, right from wrong. You honestly think that it's *moral* to target little kids.And you honestly think it's *immoral* to stand one's ground in the face of attack...and that anybody who does stand their ground when under attack is, in fact, attacking their attackers.

Nobody is surprised. You are the party that defends pedophiles, molesters, human traffickers, and other offal.

Oh, that's right....you've been demonstrating good CRC (conservative republican christianity) in your posts in this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

It's also time to look into that diocese and that school's tax exempt status. Tax laws allow churches to be involved in political causes....but NOT politicians. Almost all those kids were wearing "Trump" gear....NOT anti-choice gear. Maybe WaPo can also bring that up to the IRS, file a complaint.

You're such a dingbat. The kids aren't politicians, and the school didn't force them to wear the hat. Your post is too stupid for words to describe.

 

[Pogo]

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

 

[justoffal]

Not a Barrister....nope.

The law firm taking the case is the premier
Libel outfit in the US.

They don't operate on sentiment or politics.
Trust me they'll get money from wapo.

Maybe next time the journalists will do some real work instead of political campaigning. If they followed the rules they wouldn't be where they are right now.

Jo

Once AGAIN ---- this challenge has been out there for a MONTH now ---- go ahead and show the class where they failed to "follow the rules".

And cut crickets, yet again.

Can't do that.....it's in plain sight....plain print too. If you don't already see it you cannot be helped.

7 figures....new rulings coming to fit new age media. Long overdue.

Jo

It's quite amusing to see how quickly CRCs (conservative republican christians) forget how Jeff Bezos responds to black mail attempts.

You follow pure evil. For whatever reason.

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

Have you went to a Catholic School with Catholic Church and Parents who are the same? And this is not 50 years ago.

I was raised in an area with a large number of Catholic Parochial Schools. They sure had reps.

The church has a battle hardened legal team. After 100 Years of running around with their zippers undone.... It's catching up to them.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Gonna cost them 7 figures...will go straight to the Scotus for sure and is destined to become a landmark case.

This should hit just about the same time Barr begins to bear down on Amazon with trust busting investigators....

Jo

You've never been anywhere in smelling distance of a courtroom, have you.

So what you have here is a nuisance harassment suit, fueled by Mitch McConnell's propaganda people, alleging "defamation" that it can't show any evidence of, complaining that a teenager was so "defamed" in the public mind that the entire public, given an entire month to come up with any shred of any evidence at all on a partisan hack message board, can't come up with a damn thing --- that's how pervasive this public "defamation" is.

Rotsa ruck with that. As for the disposition of this action, invest in paper shredders.

I just posted the evidence, you fucking retard. You refuse to respond to it.

NO, Dumbass, you posted part of the narrative of the COMPLAINT. Once AGAIN the WaPo doesn't write the complaint. What the WaPo writes is the articles ----- which are QUOTED in that section to which I just referred you. ALL of them. And nowhere in those quotes is the complaint demonstrated.

In other words the part you just posted, is lying about what was published. And specifically, it's lying about who made those characterizations.

Go ahead. Read it and try to prove me wrong.

I just demonstrated it, shit for brains. And you still haven't posted anything from any of the articles that demonstrates your case.

Don't bother I've been on a dozen boards that's exactly what they do. They will look at the elephant right in front of them and call it a mouse. It's a method.

This case is important for a lot of reasons. it's certainly far more important than whatever Award Sandman family will get.

Libel law has been left in the dust by New age media. While I lean heavily in favor of freedom of speech..nowadays your entire life can be utterly devastated by one careless moment on the connected New age media. This is been a long time in coming and I'm sure that the court system is already preparing for one hell of a battle. Mark my words this will become a landmark case.

Jo

And yet you STILL can't cite a single shred of evidence.

Not so much a "landmark" case as "landfill".

 

[bodecea]

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

What's wrong with that quote? What's inaccurate about that quote?

 

[justoffal]

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

“Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before

Bwahahahahaha!

His weapon was a potato peeler stateside.


Jo

 

[justoffal]

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

What's wrong with that quote? What's inaccurate about that quote?

Save that question for the WAPO accounting department.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

“Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before

Bwahahahahaha!

Jo

Again --- irrelevant. No matter how hard you jerk off your fonts.

The point for you losers is, again, this is directly out of the suit, cited as "evidence" of "false and defamatory statements". Which it clearly is not.

 

[caddo kid]

If this gets before a judge the judge will likely toss this POS suit

then shit for brains Sandman will have to get a job, one day

 

[bripat9643]

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

Sorry, you dumb fucking turd, but the statement is in quotes. If you claim WAPO didn't say that, then prove it. So far all you've done is whine.

The last statement was clearly made by WAPO, and it's clearly defamatory. Sandman expressed no "anti-Native American sentiments" whatsoever.

You disproved your own claim, shit for brains.

Furthermore, WAPO presented opinions from only one side of the story, and it presented them as if they were fact. WAPO deliberately whipped up animosity towards Sandmann. Of that there is no doubt.

 

[justoffal]

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

“Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before

Bwahahahahaha!

Jo

Again --- irrelevant. No matter how hard you jerk off your fonts.

Ahem:

Bwaaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Jo

 

[justoffal]

If this gets before a judge the judge will likely toss this POS suit

then shit for brains Sandman will have to get a job, one day

Of course he will....it will go up the ladder till it hits the SCOTUS. It is long overdue. No low level judge will touch this with a ten foot pole.



Jo

 

[koshergrl]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

It's also time to look into that diocese and that school's tax exempt status. Tax laws allow churches to be involved in political causes....but NOT politicians. Almost all those kids were wearing "Trump" gear....NOT anti-choice gear. Maybe WaPo can also bring that up to the IRS, file a complaint.

You're such a dingbat. The kids aren't politicians, and the school didn't force them to wear the hat. Your post is too stupid for words to describe.

I can describe it. "Retarded".

 

[justoffal]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

It's also time to look into that diocese and that school's tax exempt status. Tax laws allow churches to be involved in political causes....but NOT politicians. Almost all those kids were wearing "Trump" gear....NOT anti-choice gear. Maybe WaPo can also bring that up to the IRS, file a complaint.

You're such a dingbat. The kids aren't politicians, and the school didn't force them to wear the hat. Your post is too stupid for words to describe.

I can describe it. "Retarded".

This isn't about politics.... That's why they don't get it. This is about the need to update the libel system which is a full fifty years behind. Also if Bezos had any influence and they can prove that you could see Federal anti trust action which is what I suspect this is really all about.


Jo

 

[bripat9643]

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

What's wrong with that quote? What's inaccurate about that quote?

The phrase "wearing a relentless smirk" is defamatory.

 

[miketx]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

It's also time to look into that diocese and that school's tax exempt status. Tax laws allow churches to be involved in political causes....but NOT politicians. Almost all those kids were wearing "Trump" gear....NOT anti-choice gear. Maybe WaPo can also bring that up to the IRS, file a complaint.

LOL! Emulating black jesus, huh?

 

[bripat9643]

If this gets before a judge the judge will likely toss this POS suit

then shit for brains Sandman will have to get a job, one day

Wrong. If it goes before a Kentucky jury they will slam WAPO with the maximum judgement.

 

[pismoe]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!

Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Why was a Catholic kid allowed to wear a MAGA hat on a class trip? Where were the chaperones? Where were the priests? The RCC always bragged that it was the arbiter of morals. BS! So glad I got out of it.

It's also time to look into that diocese and that school's tax exempt status. Tax laws allow churches to be involved in political causes....but NOT politicians. Almost all those kids were wearing "Trump" gear....NOT anti-choice gear. Maybe WaPo can also bring that up to the IRS, file a complaint.

--------------------------------------- yeah , time to go after tax exempt . 'catholic churches' are big time enablers of 'immigration' into the USA . Might as well go after the minority / black churches tax exempt status also as they are very political Bode .