It's all about the money. Roy Moore accuser Leigh Corfman sues him for defamation

[jillian]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

 

[Reasonable]

Anyone that thinks it is ok to rape a child should be deported to somalia. Sorry, but this shit shouldn't be acceptable.

So produce your EVIDENCE that roy raped a child. Even corfman never accused him of that.

Still protecting a child molester. Just when we thought you hit rock bottom, you keep digging..

 

[skews13]

Says she just wants money for her legal fees!!! But that number is whatever her lawyer says. Anyway she will have a tough time winning this defamation suit since she voluntarily turned herself into a public figure and such people have practically no protection under libel laws.

Woman who accused Roy Moore of unwanted sexual contact sues him for defamation

jan 4 2018 In a lawsuit that echoes a civil case against President Trump, an Alabama woman on Thursday sued failed U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore and his campaign for defamation, citing harsh personal attacks she faced after coming forward with allegations that he touched her sexually when she was 14 years old.

Leigh Corfman is not seeking financial compensation beyond legal costs, said her attorney, Neil Roman. She is asking for a declaratory judgment of defamation, a public apology from Moore, and a court-enforced ban on him or his campaign publicly attacking her again. Corfman said in a statement that the suit seeks “to do what I could not do as a 14-year-old — hold Mr. Moore and those who enable him accountable.”

A representative of Moore’s campaign, Brett Doster, said, “We look forward to transparently discussing these matters in a court of law.”

For Moore its all about the children.

 

[Lysistrata]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

 

[jillian]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

I've noticed that too. if it's bizarre, they manage to get their shills to spread the disinformation. the idea that the victim is suddenly a public figure is beyond comprehension. I don't know what rock they crawled out from under.

 

[Lysistrata]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

I've noticed that too. if it's bizarre, they manage to get their shills to spread the disinformation. the idea that the victim is suddenly a public figure is beyond comprehension. I don't know what rock they crawled out from under.

He really has glommed on to that, hasn't he? I learned how to do my legal research the hard and time-consuming way.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

again that's false... she is not a public figure.

Are you insane? Of course corfman is a public figure and it's a CHOICE she made. You don't have to be a politician to be a public figure. Where did you get that idea.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

A Roy Moore accuser apparently committed arson to their home today. How odd.

I read about that and yes, she probably did it herself.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I've noticed that too. if it's bizarre, they manage to get their shills to spread the disinformation. the idea that the victim is suddenly a public figure is beyond comprehension. I don't know what rock they crawled out from under.

HAHAHA. You just exposed yourself as a paid DNC shill. OF COURSE, corfman is a public figure and even you can see that. Hell - SHE WENT ON TV to tell her lies. Was probably paid by the network.

You keep telling us only politicians qualify as public figures and that is more lies.!!!

 

[bripat9643]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

Here's the kind of dumbass your ilk thinks is smart:

 

[Syriusly]

Says she just wants money for her legal fees!!! But that number is whatever her lawyer says. Anyway she will have a tough time winning this defamation suit since she voluntarily turned herself into a public figure and such people have practically no protection under libel laws.

Woman who accused Roy Moore of unwanted sexual contact sues him for defamation

jan 4 2018 In a lawsuit that echoes a civil case against President Trump, an Alabama woman on Thursday sued failed U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore and his campaign for defamation, citing harsh personal attacks she faced after coming forward with allegations that he touched her sexually when she was 14 years old.

Leigh Corfman is not seeking financial compensation beyond legal costs, said her attorney, Neil Roman. She is asking for a declaratory judgment of defamation, a public apology from Moore, and a court-enforced ban on him or his campaign publicly attacking her again. Corfman said in a statement that the suit seeks “to do what I could not do as a 14-year-old — hold Mr. Moore and those who enable him accountable.”

A representative of Moore’s campaign, Brett Doster, said, “We look forward to transparently discussing these matters in a court of law.”

LOL- so when Moore threatened to sue her he was just doing it for the money also?

I look forward to seeing Moore deposed.

 

[Syriusly]

I've noticed that too. if it's bizarre, they manage to get their shills to spread the disinformation. the idea that the victim is suddenly a public figure is beyond comprehension. I don't know what rock they crawled out from under.

HAHAHA. You just exposed yourself as a paid DNC shill. !!

LOL you are such a delusional paid GOP shill.

 

[jillian]

I've noticed that too. if it's bizarre, they manage to get their shills to spread the disinformation. the idea that the victim is suddenly a public figure is beyond comprehension. I don't know what rock they crawled out from under.

HAHAHA. You just exposed yourself as a paid DNC shill. !!

LOL you are such a delusional paid GOP shill.

certainly delusional.....

 

[Lysistrata]

BTW: Corfman does not qualify as a "public figure" under our defamation law, as she had no prior history of putting herself out in the public spotlight or seeking public attention. She came out of obscurity to speak about her interactions with moore when she was underage. In contrast, moore, for decades, did everything he could to seek the public spotlight.

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

Here's the kind of dumbass your ilk thinks is smart:

What does Rep. Lee have to do with any of this stuff about moore and his behavior?

Moreover, how is she a "freed slave"? I'm sure that she was born way after 1865.

Right-wingers certainly do suffer from delusions.

 

[bripat9643]

PRIOR history? That doesn't matter. She CHOSE to make a public figure of herself. You don't know the law.

Actually, I do. Go back and read New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny. Consult the websites Oyez or Justicia. How about Cornell University Law School. Yale? Harvard?

Your lack of knowledge about the law is entirely separate from your strange willingness to defend a slut like moore at all costs. Corfman is not a public figure. He has been one for quite some time.

I keep telling him he's clueless about the definition of public figure... but he doesn't like hearing that... so he's continuing on in his little delusional way.

There seems to be some organization out there in the ozone that specializes in floating bizarre and bogus "legal" theories. A month or two ago, I did a quick search on one of the Republicans leaving congress after being caught being naughty. I can't remember who it was, but he listed his education as a year or two of college and some seminar on the Constitution given by some unknown right-wing group, probably in somebody's garage. These "I'm a Constitutional kind of guy" idiots don't seem to get it that they simply don't know the most basic things about the law.

I'm looking forward to the depositions that will take place in this case. I know that her attorneys will be smart enough to use that $600 Latin phrase on moore's subpoena that means "and bring your documents with you." I particularly would like to see records dealing with his lie-detector test. It will be enjoyable to have him and his minions under oath.

Here's the kind of dumbass your ilk thinks is smart:

What does Rep. Lee have to do with any of this stuff about moore and his behavior?

Moreover, how is she a "freed slave"? I'm sure that she was born way after 1865.

Right-wingers certainly do suffer from delusions.

You were ridiculing Republican members of Congress for being stupid. Before you worry about that, you should look in your own backyard. Sheila Jackson Lee is a real intellect in your party. It's sad to say, but there are even worse examples than her.

 

[Skylar]

Says she just wants money for her legal fees!!! But that number is whatever her lawyer says. Anyway she will have a tough time winning this defamation suit since she voluntarily turned herself into a public figure and such people have practically no protection under libel laws.

Woman who accused Roy Moore of unwanted sexual contact sues him for defamation

jan 4 2018 In a lawsuit that echoes a civil case against President Trump, an Alabama woman on Thursday sued failed U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore and his campaign for defamation, citing harsh personal attacks she faced after coming forward with allegations that he touched her sexually when she was 14 years old.

Leigh Corfman is not seeking financial compensation beyond legal costs, said her attorney, Neil Roman. She is asking for a declaratory judgment of defamation, a public apology from Moore, and a court-enforced ban on him or his campaign publicly attacking her again. Corfman said in a statement that the suit seeks “to do what I could not do as a 14-year-old — hold Mr. Moore and those who enable him accountable.”

A representative of Moore’s campaign, Brett Doster, said, “We look forward to transparently discussing these matters in a court of law.”

Wait......wasn’t the narrative that all of these women had disappeared now that the election is over?

 

[Valerie]

wow... coincidence?


Tina Johnson, one of the eight women who accused former Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy Moore, of sexual misconduct, lost her Etowah County home in a fire on Tuesday. The fire is currently being investigated as arson, according to local authorities.

“That fire is still under investigation by the Etowah County Arson Task Force,” said Natalie Barton, public information officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department. “A suspect of interest is being spoken to. But there have been no charges, to my knowledge, related to the fire at this time.”

Roy Moore accuser loses everything in house fire under investigation for arson

 

[bripat9643]

wow... coincidence?


Tina Johnson, one of the eight women who accused former Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy Moore, of sexual misconduct, lost her Etowah County home in a fire on Tuesday. The fire is currently being investigated as arson, according to local authorities.

“That fire is still under investigation by the Etowah County Arson Task Force,” said Natalie Barton, public information officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department. “A suspect of interest is being spoken to. But there have been no charges, to my knowledge, related to the fire at this time.”

Roy Moore accuser loses everything in house fire under investigation for arson

She probably set the fire herself.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

She probably set the fire herself.

That's what everybody thinks. There is already a GoFundMe account set up for her.!!!!

Ex-Obama staffer starts GoFundMe for Moore accuser whose house burned down