Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-19-2023, 11:48 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXCCCXX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Election-denying GOP troglodytes and their lolyers are ushering in a Golden Age for the litigation disaster tourism industry.

Take AZ gubernatorial election loser Kari Lake (please!), for instance. She filed a lolsuit challenging her loss. The trial judge shitcanned the entire case, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The state supreme court send one claim back to the trial court for further proceedings, a claim involving allegations that Maricopa County failed to follow established signature verification requirements as to ballots received during early voting.

Trial of that claim is under way. Lake has an expert witness who testified today.

As to expert testimony, Step One is establishing that your witness actually qualifies as an expert in the subject matter at issue. A lolyer does that by asking questions about the witness's education, training, experience and knowledge in the subject matter. After that, the lolyer turns to the judge and offers the witness as an expert in that particular subject. The other parties can object and question the witness on his qualifications, and eventually the judge will make a ruling. Assuming the judge rules the witness qualifies as an expert, the witness can give opinion testimony on the subject at issue. The first lolyer then conducts direct examination to elicit the expert's opinions and the factual and scientific bases for those opinions.

At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Lake's lolyer examined the witness on his qualifications and followed up with "No further questions":

Quote:
On Thursday, Lakeís lawyers called their expert signature verification witness, Erich Specki. But shortly after Lake attorney Kurt Olsen had established Speckinís background, Olsen said he had no further questions for the witness. He quickly tried to take that back, saying he didnít have more questions for Speckin at that particular moment, but wanted to ask more questions later.

ďYou said Ďno further questions,íĒ [Judge Peter] Thompson told him, explaining to Olsen that, when an attorney utters that phrase, that means they are done questioning the witness.

And lawyers for defendants Hobbs, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Maricopa County were not having it.

ďItís not my fault they donít understand basic procedure,Ē Craig Morgan, the attorney for the Secretary of Stateís Office, said. ďHe ceded the witness to me, and now itís my turn to cross-examine or not. Thatís how we do this, your honor.Ē
:laugh:

Lake's lolyer proffered an argument that amounted to, "Please forgive me for being a dipshit." The judge gave the lolyer a break, which appeared to be based mostly on concern that the case might come back yet again if the judge made the lolyer bear the full consequences of his dumbassery:

Quote:
Olsen asked for Thompsonís indulgence in allowing him to continue and the judge gave it, after admonishing Olsen.

ďI feel like Iím teaching a seminar up here,Ē Thompson said.

The judge added that he was giving Lakeís lawyers some wide latitude because he did not want to risk the appeals or Supreme Court remanding the case back to him a third time.
:laugh:

One cannot be blamed for thinking back to Orly Taitz examining her expert, ITT Tech grad Chito Papa, during birfer litigation all those years ago.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (05-20-2023), BrotherMan (05-20-2023), ChuckF (05-20-2023), Ensign Steve (05-20-2023), JoeP (05-20-2023), Kamilah Hauptmann (05-20-2023), lisarea (05-21-2023), SharonDee (06-07-2023), slimshady2357 (05-20-2023), Sock Puppet (05-22-2023), viscousmemories (05-20-2023)
  #52  
Old 05-20-2023, 12:45 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is online now
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MVDCCXXXIII
Images: 8
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Lake's lolyer proffered an argument that amounted to, "Please forgive me for being a dipshit." The judge gave the lolyer a break, which appeared to be based mostly on concern that the case might come back yet again if the judge made the lolyer bear the full consequences of his dumbassery:

Quote:
Olsen asked for Thompsonís indulgence in allowing him to continue and the judge gave it, after admonishing Olsen.

ďI feel like Iím teaching a seminar up here,Ē Thompson said.

The judge added that he was giving Lakeís lawyers some wide latitude because he did not want to risk the appeals or Supreme Court remanding the case back to him a third time.
I remember listening through parts of the Alex Jones trial (via the Knowledge Fight podcast), and as much as Jones was raging against the judge in public, the judge was extremely lenient on Jones and his team. I had gathered it's the same thing - give as much leniency as tolerable to avoid issues coming up on appeal.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (05-20-2023), JoeP (05-20-2023), Kamilah Hauptmann (05-20-2023), slimshady2357 (05-20-2023), Sock Puppet (05-22-2023), viscousmemories (05-20-2023)
  #53  
Old 05-20-2023, 07:37 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: XVMDXLIX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Guy sues for defamation only to have the Supreme Court of Canada go 'Yeah, nah, you really are a bigot.'

And since he just lost that one he's almost sure to lose this one too.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid

:AB: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (05-20-2023), lisarea (05-21-2023), SharonDee (06-07-2023), slimshady2357 (05-20-2023), Sock Puppet (05-22-2023), Stephen Maturin (05-20-2023), viscousmemories (05-20-2023)
  #54  
Old 05-20-2023, 02:27 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Mr. Condescending Dick Nose
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMDCCXXXIV
Images: 19
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

:chin:
IANAL so can someone with more insight than me explain how one might get from "Hansman's speech should be protected in the public interest", which is what the court said was its ruling, to "Barry Neufeld deserves to be called a bigot because he is one", which is what Kam's link suggests the ruling amounts to? I'm not seeing it and I'm thinking it might not be there.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (05-22-2023)
  #55  
Old 05-20-2023, 04:47 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: XMDXLIX
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Here ya go!
This Man is Probably The Worst School Trustee in British*Columbia

Neufeld appears to be an anti-lgbtq antisemite conspiracy theorists who sued because he was called a bigot. The courts upheld the right for others to call him a bigot.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (05-20-2023), slimshady2357 (05-23-2023), Sock Puppet (05-22-2023), Stephen Maturin (05-22-2023)
  #56  
Old 05-22-2023, 06:00 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXCCCXX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
:chin:
IANAL so can someone with more insight than me explain how one might get from "Hansman's speech should be protected in the public interest", which is what the court said was its ruling, to "Barry Neufeld deserves to be called a bigot because he is one", which is what Kam's link suggests the ruling amounts to?
The dismissal was based on a British Columbia statute called the Protection of Public Participation Act. It's an anti-SLAPP law designed to provide courts with an early screening mechanism authorizing quick dismissal of defamation lawsuits aimed at stifling discourse on matters of public importance.

Under the Act, the defendant has to show that the speech on which the lawsuit was based covers a matter of public interest. At that point, to avoid dismissal, the plaintiff has to show (1) his claim has "substantial merit," (2) the defendant has no "valid defense," and (3) the harm to the plaintiff outweighs the public interest in protecting the defendant's speech.

The Supreme Court's holding wasn't actually based on the "truth" of the defendant's statement but rather on plaintiff's failure to prove that the alleged harm to him outweighed the public interest in protecting the speech. The bigoted POS kept on expressing his views and ultimately got reelected. So, limited harm. On the other side, the defendant's speech was counter-expression intended to protect groups that are particularly susceptible to harm from statements like shitboy's/the plaintiff's.

The Supreme Court also found that the trial judge was correct in ruling that the plaintiff failed to adequately rebut the "fair comment" defense:

Quote:
To constitute fair comment, a factual basis for the impugned statement must be explicitly or implicitly indicated within the publication itself or the facts must be so notorious as to be already understood by the audience. There is, however, no requirement that the facts support the comment, in the sense of confirming its truth. At trial, H need not demonstrate that N is bigoted, transphobic, or promoted hatred, as the question is merely whether the statement can be tethered to an adequate factual basis so the reader can be an informed judge. Nís original online post could provide the requisite factual basis for most statements at issue, as Nís views were available to readers and grounded Hís statements. Additionally, this was a high-profile local controversy that spanned over a year, involving two public figures. Nís statements had likely achieved a level of notoriety such that they would have been known to the reading audience. (Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court's opinion is available here.

Make no mistake, though; as Ari's link shows, that Neufeld guy is a shitbag's shitbag.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kamilah Hauptmann (05-22-2023), mickthinks (05-22-2023), slimshady2357 (05-23-2023), Sock Puppet (05-22-2023), viscousmemories (05-22-2023)
  #57  
Old 06-23-2023, 06:46 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXCCCXX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

The attorney disciplinary proceedings against John Eastman are well under way, and hoo boy! Wingnuts and MSM alike have been casting Eastman as some sort of megagenius, but the unhealthy amount of material I've read regarding Eastman and his his role in 1/6 bespeaks kind of a Jenna Ellis/Lin Wood combo, dumb as dirt and mentally defective.

On Tuesday, Eastman's lolyer wanted to call this here fellow as a witness:

Quote:
On Tuesday, Eastman called a man named Joseph Fried to the stand, referring to him as an "expert witness." The Daily Beast reported that Fried is a public accountant and author of an eBook that detailed his skepticism about President Joe Biden's 2020 election win.
Dudebro did not get to testify. :sadpanda: Somehow, the judge was unconvinced by the argument of Eastman's lolyer that 40 years as a CPA made the guy an expert on statistics and therefore an expert on elections as well.

Other highlights have included:

- Mountains of "I don't know" and "I don't recall" testimony from Eastman himself.

- Eastman disagreeing with statements in an article he submitted as evidence.

- Failed efforts to keep out evidence of post-1/6 tomfoolery like the Cyber Ninjas (:lol:) audit in Arizona, based on Eastman's claim that all this theories were, well, theoretical, and that he couldn't be held responsible if the people he was advising were still listening to him.

- There are rumblings that Eastman may also try to call John Yoo, of Shrub administration torture memos fame, and Janice Rogers Brown, wingnut former California Supreme Court justice and federal court of appeals judge.

The trial was expected to run 8 days but now appears destined to go longer, a circumstance the internet has described as the worst Hanukkah miracle of all time.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (06-23-2023), BrotherMan (06-24-2023), Ensign Steve (06-24-2023), JoeP (06-24-2023), slimshady2357 (06-23-2023), viscousmemories (06-24-2023)
  #58  
Old 08-09-2023, 11:21 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: XVMDXLIX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

IMG_6868.jpeg

Not sure about this one.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid

:AB: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (08-10-2023)
  #59  
Old 08-10-2023, 07:57 AM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
Feedback loop
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kalkkitehdas
Gender: Male
Posts: XXXVMCLVI
Images: 18
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

All your contract are belong to us.
__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:   :finland:
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-11-2023, 05:18 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: XVMDXLIX
Default Re: I Fought the LOL and the LOL Won

Trump case shows America needs some special verdict options | Financial Times
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid

:AB: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.17820 seconds with 16 queries