Dominion Starts Rolling Out the Lawsuits

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

this wasnt against a public figure. The case is being brought by a company, who is the aggrieved party.

The company was clearly in the public eye.

farmerman wrote:

In a civil case, the plaintiff merely needs to show the preponderence of evidence supports its claim. "Why Rudy and Hortense lied" is immaterial.
For example, filing incorrect or false information causing damage to Dominion is the basis of the civil case in total. Court doesnt reach a verdict based on whether you "meant it" or not, the damage is the issue and whether the damage was not an "Act of Frd"

Not when it comes to public figures.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

stop being an idiot

Quote:

The company was clearly in the public eye.

So is a Supermarket. Now youre trying to say "being in the pubic ye makes on a public figure".

Keep stretching the facts, maybe youll snap

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

stop being an idiot

You cannot provide any examples of idiocy in my posts.

farmerman wrote:

So is a Supermarket.

Not necessarily. A supermarket would probably not have had anything to do with the election controversy.

farmerman wrote:

Now you're trying to say "being in the pubic eye makes one a public figure".

Hopefully I succeeded in saying it.

farmerman wrote:

Keep stretching the facts, maybe you'll snap

You cannot provide any examples of me stretching facts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

see my first comment above.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

See my reply to your first comment above.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I doubt that Dominion can prove that any falsehoods were said with malice.

I would think they would only have to prove that their company was slandered without a factual basis, and suffered reputational damage because of it. That could include claims like:
- they worked with the democrats to fraudulently steal the election
- they designed their machines to enable fraudulent elections
- etc

It wouldn't be up to Dominion to disprove this, but up to Guiliani etc to prove their was a factual basis for their slander of Dominion. And I think, given the degree of the slander, Guiliani etc would have to possess a very strong factual basis.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I think Giuliani also loses because he didn't retract his statements when they were shown to be false. It's one thing to say "I heard this", it is another to keep saying it when it has been debunked. He can't really say "well, I thought that was true" as a defense.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I would think they would only have to prove that their company was slandered without a factual basis, and suffered reputational damage because of it.

When it comes to slandering public figures there also has to be proof of malice.

vikorr wrote:

It wouldn't be up to Dominion to disprove this, but up to Guiliani etc to prove their was a factual basis for their slander of Dominion.

It is up to them to disprove it.

If Dominion can't make a case that the statements in question are untrue, then they have no case.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

See engineers comments above.

That said, dominion is not a public figure. It is a company / corporation

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

See engineers comments above.

We'll see how it plays out in court.

vikorr wrote:

That said, dominion is not a public figure.

I disagree. They were in the public eye.

vikorr wrote:

It is a company.

A company that was in the public eye.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

ahhhh, I was wrong. Dominion is the plaintiff and RUDY , is the defense. Rudy Is a public figure. Im wrong on this(Unless they duke it out in PA where "Strict liability" can apply).

"Bing in the public eye isnt the issue, Ruy is a public figure with a long history.
I had it reversed.

0 Replies

@engineer,

0 Replies

Dominion Starts Rolling Out the Lawsuits

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know