Now that Moore has lost- will he sues his accusers?

[EvilCat Breath]

If Moore did sue his accusers he would very likely win. Yes, the burden would be on him to prove that he was harmed by the defamatory statements but the standard of proof is slight. It's merely "more likely than not". In the ordinary course of defamatory lawsuits Moore might be barred as a public figure from even bringing the lawsuit in the first place, but, the nature of the statements (child molesting, sexual assault) bumps this up into slander per se and lible per se putting their delicate little middle aged asses right in the courtroom.

One of the most helpful complaints (to him) is that most of these corroborating statements would have to be named and testify. A mall security guard who said "I was instructed to remove Roy Moore from the Gadsen Mall" would have to be named and questioned under oath. Or, the statement itself excluded. All those friends who said "Yes, Sally Mae told me at the time that Roy played with her titties" would have to be identified and questioned under oath with appropriate tests at the details of memory. One by one, the witnesses and hearsay statements would be excluded until the whole shell came down.

This is what brought Dan Rather down. He had a person, a real person, that verified the truth of the statements contained in the fabricated report. When push came to shove, the person refused to be questioned and said he was having nothing more to do with the entire matter.

Why Don't Politicians Sue for Defamation?

a plaintiff must establish facts proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff—that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or other damage.

In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A person may be deemed a general public figure where there is evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures.

Moore is a public figure- he would need to establish that what was said was:
a) false and
b) made with actual malice

I look forward to Moore going through with the law suits he said he would be filing.

You are almost correct. Since the accusations are slander per se (child molestation )he does not have to prove malice.

The Daily Mail published articles accusing Malania Trump of being an escort. Since the slander was per se, she did not have to prove actual malice.

All that said, no I do not think that he will sue anyone. These women don't have a pot to piss in. Gloria Allred will do what she always does, run and hide while blaming her client. Leftist lawyers would pick up the defense pro bono and paper Moore into bankruptcy.

 

[Pogo]

If Moore did sue his accusers he would very likely win. Yes, the burden would be on him to prove that he was harmed by the defamatory statements but the standard of proof is slight. It's merely "more likely than not". In the ordinary course of defamatory lawsuits Moore might be barred as a public figure from even bringing the lawsuit in the first place, but, the nature of the statements (child molesting, sexual assault) bumps this up into slander per se and lible per se putting their delicate little middle aged asses right in the courtroom.

One of the most helpful complaints (to him) is that most of these corroborating statements would have to be named and testify. A mall security guard who said "I was instructed to remove Roy Moore from the Gadsen Mall" would have to be named and questioned under oath. Or, the statement itself excluded. All those friends who said "Yes, Sally Mae told me at the time that Roy played with her titties" would have to be identified and questioned under oath with appropriate tests at the details of memory. One by one, the witnesses and hearsay statements would be excluded until the whole shell came down.

This is what brought Dan Rather down. He had a person, a real person, that verified the truth of the statements contained in the fabricated report. When push came to shove, the person refused to be questioned and said he was having nothing more to do with the entire matter.

Why Don't Politicians Sue for Defamation?

a plaintiff must establish facts proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff—that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or other damage.

In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A person may be deemed a general public figure where there is evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures.

Moore is a public figure- he would need to establish that what was said was:
a) false and
b) made with actual malice

I look forward to Moore going through with the law suits he said he would be filing.

You are almost correct. Since the accusations are slander per se (child molestation )he does not have to prove malice.

The Daily Mail published articles accusing Malania Trump of being an escort. Since the slander was per se, she did not have to prove actual malice.

All that said, no I do not think that he will sue anyone. These women don't have a pot to piss in. Gloria Allred will do what she always does, run and hide while blaming her client. Leftist lawyers would pick up the defense pro bono and paper Moore into bankruptcy.

.
As usual you're talking out of your ass. The recounting of some incident is NOT "slander per se". It only becomes slander when and if the accused can PROVE the story false, and that the accuser knew it to be false. If the accused can't do that --- "slander" hasn't been established.

If it were as easy as partisan hacks like you would have it, nobody could ever report anything about anybody, anywhere, ever. Get your head out of your ass and actually THINK about it.

For instance --- instead of admitting to it Al Franken could have simply denied Leeann Tweeden's story and sued her for "slander" and he would have been off the hook.

As I said, break a synapse sweat and THINK about it. Foreign as that concept must be to you.

 

[Defiant1]

I hope he hounds them to the gates hell.

 

[JimH52]

Maybe he can join with the Comrade who is suing the women who have accused him..... Wait.... he still hasn't done that, has he?

BULLIES WILL BE BULLIES!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If Moore did sue his accusers he would very likely win. Yes, the burden would be on him to prove that he was harmed by the defamatory statements but the standard of proof is slight. It's merely "more likely than not". In the ordinary course of defamatory lawsuits Moore might be barred as a public figure from even bringing the lawsuit in the first place, but, the nature of the statements (child molesting, sexual assault) bumps this up into slander per se and lible per se putting their delicate little middle aged asses right in the courtroom.

One of the most helpful complaints (to him) is that most of these corroborating statements would have to be named and testify. A mall security guard who said "I was instructed to remove Roy Moore from the Gadsen Mall" would have to be named and questioned under oath. Or, the statement itself excluded. All those friends who said "Yes, Sally Mae told me at the time that Roy played with her titties" would have to be identified and questioned under oath with appropriate tests at the details of memory. One by one, the witnesses and hearsay statements would be excluded until the whole shell came down.

This is what brought Dan Rather down. He had a person, a real person, that verified the truth of the statements contained in the fabricated report. When push came to shove, the person refused to be questioned and said he was having nothing more to do with the entire matter.

Why Don't Politicians Sue for Defamation?

a plaintiff must establish facts proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff—that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or other damage.

In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A person may be deemed a general public figure where there is evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures.

Moore is a public figure- he would need to establish that what was said was:
a) false and
b) made with actual malice

I look forward to Moore going through with the law suits he said he would be filing.

You are almost correct. Since the accusations are slander per se (child molestation )he does not have to prove malice.

The Daily Mail published articles accusing Malania Trump of being an escort. Since the slander was per se, she did not have to prove actual malice.

All that said, no I do not think that he will sue anyone. These women don't have a pot to piss in. Gloria Allred will do what she always does, run and hide while blaming her client. Leftist lawyers would pick up the defense pro bono and paper Moore into bankruptcy.

.
As usual you're talking out of your ass. The recounting of some incident is NOT "slander per se". It only becomes slander when and if the accused can PROVE the story false, and that the accuser knew it to be false. If the accused can't do that --- "slander" hasn't been established.

If it were as easy as partisan hacks like you would have it, nobody could ever report anything about anybody, anywhere, ever. Get your head out of your ass and actually THINK about it.

For instance --- instead of admitting to it Al Franken could have simply denied Leeann Tweeden's story and sued her for "slander" and he would have been off the hook.

As I said, break a synapse sweat and THINK about it. Foreign as that concept must be to you.

Leeann Tweeden had a picture. That would be pretty hard to deny. You didn't think that through.

 

[bodecea]

Moore claimed he was going to sue his accusers- well now he can claim an injury- losing the election.

Will Moore actually file suit? Or will Moore just spend the next 6 years accusing his accusers of lying- without going to court?

Of course he will sue them. He is looking forward to his day in court, under oath, to show he's totally innocent.

 

[bodecea]

This election is key to Moore's nomination for The U.S. Supreme Court! When a Democrat someday becomes president and wants to honor the memory of Slick Willie Clinton, John F'n Kennedy & brother Ted-the-swimmer.

That would be just icing on the cake.....appoint someone who was fired from his judgeship TWICE to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, that would be priceless!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

While Moore would be a superb addition to the Supreme Court his expressed bias would prevent that. It would be as bad as Wise Latina Sotomayor.

 

[Pogo]

If Moore did sue his accusers he would very likely win. Yes, the burden would be on him to prove that he was harmed by the defamatory statements but the standard of proof is slight. It's merely "more likely than not". In the ordinary course of defamatory lawsuits Moore might be barred as a public figure from even bringing the lawsuit in the first place, but, the nature of the statements (child molesting, sexual assault) bumps this up into slander per se and lible per se putting their delicate little middle aged asses right in the courtroom.

One of the most helpful complaints (to him) is that most of these corroborating statements would have to be named and testify. A mall security guard who said "I was instructed to remove Roy Moore from the Gadsen Mall" would have to be named and questioned under oath. Or, the statement itself excluded. All those friends who said "Yes, Sally Mae told me at the time that Roy played with her titties" would have to be identified and questioned under oath with appropriate tests at the details of memory. One by one, the witnesses and hearsay statements would be excluded until the whole shell came down.

This is what brought Dan Rather down. He had a person, a real person, that verified the truth of the statements contained in the fabricated report. When push came to shove, the person refused to be questioned and said he was having nothing more to do with the entire matter.

Why Don't Politicians Sue for Defamation?

a plaintiff must establish facts proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff—that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or other damage.

In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A person may be deemed a general public figure where there is evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures.

Moore is a public figure- he would need to establish that what was said was:
a) false and
b) made with actual malice

I look forward to Moore going through with the law suits he said he would be filing.

You are almost correct. Since the accusations are slander per se (child molestation )he does not have to prove malice.

The Daily Mail published articles accusing Malania Trump of being an escort. Since the slander was per se, she did not have to prove actual malice.

All that said, no I do not think that he will sue anyone. These women don't have a pot to piss in. Gloria Allred will do what she always does, run and hide while blaming her client. Leftist lawyers would pick up the defense pro bono and paper Moore into bankruptcy.

.
As usual you're talking out of your ass. The recounting of some incident is NOT "slander per se". It only becomes slander when and if the accused can PROVE the story false, and that the accuser knew it to be false. If the accused can't do that --- "slander" hasn't been established.

If it were as easy as partisan hacks like you would have it, nobody could ever report anything about anybody, anywhere, ever. Get your head out of your ass and actually THINK about it.

For instance --- instead of admitting to it Al Franken could have simply denied Leeann Tweeden's story and sued her for "slander" and he would have been off the hook.

As I said, break a synapse sweat and THINK about it. Foreign as that concept must be to you.

Leeann Tweeden had a picture. That would be pretty hard to deny. You didn't think that through.

Leann Tweeden's complaint wasn't about a "picture". Nor does a picture exist of it. Go read the news.

 

[evenflow1969]

Moore will never go to court...he cannot prove his innocence..and should thank his lucky stars that some of his accusers don't file their own suits.

If he took them to court, wouldnt that mean they would need to prove their allegations?
This isnt Europe...
IDK maybe im wrong

Hmm..I'm not even close to being a lawyer..but if Moore brings suit..he is the Plaintiff, right? So the burden of proof would be on him. Some of you more legal types could ring in of this..but that is my understanding.

But wouldnt all he have to do is somehow show their unproven accusations cost him a senate seat?
Im not even close to being one either. But my mom said i should be one the way i can argue. lol

Court is about convincing a jury. It is supposed to be about convincing a jury beyond reasonable doubt, but who the fuck realy knows waht a jury is going to do.

 

[Syriusly]

This election is key to Moore's nomination for The U.S. Supreme Court! When a Democrat someday becomes president and wants to honor the memory of Slick Willie Clinton, John F'n Kennedy & brother Ted-the-swimmer.

That would be just icing on the cake.....appoint someone who was fired from his judgeship TWICE to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, that would be priceless!

Considering that the Republican leadership in the Senate was against him being a Senator- imagine how they would react to having to conduct confirmation hearings for an accused child sex abuser......

 

[Syriusly]

If Moore did sue his accusers he would very likely win. Yes, the burden would be on him to prove that he was harmed by the defamatory statements but the standard of proof is slight. It's merely "more likely than not". In the ordinary course of defamatory lawsuits Moore might be barred as a public figure from even bringing the lawsuit in the first place, but, the nature of the statements (child molesting, sexual assault) bumps this up into slander per se and lible per se putting their delicate little middle aged asses right in the courtroom.

One of the most helpful complaints (to him) is that most of these corroborating statements would have to be named and testify. A mall security guard who said "I was instructed to remove Roy Moore from the Gadsen Mall" would have to be named and questioned under oath. Or, the statement itself excluded. All those friends who said "Yes, Sally Mae told me at the time that Roy played with her titties" would have to be identified and questioned under oath with appropriate tests at the details of memory. One by one, the witnesses and hearsay statements would be excluded until the whole shell came down.

This is what brought Dan Rather down. He had a person, a real person, that verified the truth of the statements contained in the fabricated report. When push came to shove, the person refused to be questioned and said he was having nothing more to do with the entire matter.

Why Don't Politicians Sue for Defamation?

a plaintiff must establish facts proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the defendant published a false statement regarding the plaintiff—that is, the defendant communicated the statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement could damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the community; and (3) the statement caused economic loss or other damage.

In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently. However, if the court concludes that a plaintiff is either a limited or general public figure, the plaintiff must prove “clearly and convincingly” that the alleged defamatory statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A person may be deemed a general public figure where there is evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society. Politicians generally fall into the category of public figures.

Moore is a public figure- he would need to establish that what was said was:
a) false and
b) made with actual malice

I look forward to Moore going through with the law suits he said he would be filing.

You are almost correct. Since the accusations are slander per se (child molestation )he does not have to prove malice.

The Daily Mail published articles accusing Malania Trump of being an escort. Since the slander was per se, she did not have to prove actual malice.

All that said, no I do not think that he will sue anyone. These women don't have a pot to piss in. Gloria Allred will do what she always does, run and hide while blaming her client. Leftist lawyers would pick up the defense pro bono and paper Moore into bankruptcy.

I was quoting a lawyer- are you saying the lawyer was 'almost correct'? LOL

The Daily Mail was being sued under UK slander laws which are much different than the United States- that case frankly is legally irrelevant to the U.S. defamation laws.

I agree that he will likely not sue anyone. Because Moore doesn't want to be forced to testify. Money? Moore is making tons of money from Conservatives and Contard lawyers would pick up the case pro-bono and paper Allred into bankruptcy.

My prediction is that Moore instead of setting himself up for potential criminal perjury charges will spend the next 6 years saying that his accusers lied and blaming everyone but himself- while raking in cash from Contards who don't care he was accused of molesting a 14 year old.