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

Will Moore sue his accusers now?


  • Total voters
    10

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2014
54,850
7,154
1,840
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?
 
images
 
I read, "Moore will spend the next 6 years claiming he lost the election because of 'lies'- and not go tc" ----

"Go to" -- what? Hell? The Gadsden Mall? The local high school? The haberdashery for something more geographically alert?
 
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.
 
I read, "Moore will spend the next 6 years claiming he lost the election because of 'lies'- and not go tc" ----

"Go to" -- what? Hell? The Gadsden Mall? The local high school? The haberdashery for something more geographically alert?
At least its not just me that you are a complete ass to..
 
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
 
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.
 
I read, "Moore will spend the next 6 years claiming he lost the election because of 'lies'- and not go tc" ----

"Go to" -- what? Hell? The Gadsden Mall? The local high school? The haberdashery for something more geographically alert?
Turd pretending to be superior than anyone else.
 
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.
 
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
 
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

This wouldn't be a criminal case.

If he took them to court, it would be by suing them for defamation, and the burden of proof would be on him, not them.

Their lawyer would depose him, and he'd have to deny everything, under oath.

Which is something he doesn't seem to want to do.
 
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

No, he can't rely on their statements being "unproven" - he'd have to demonstrate that they were false.

*Clarification - he would not have to "prove" that the statements were false, but he would have to state under oath that they were false (in a way that would convince the jury) - and if any of the women can prove that they were true, they'd had an absolute defense against defamation (truth is a complete defense to defamation) as well as open him up for charges of perjury and quite a few tort claims as well.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?

No, of course not.

Roy Moorelester is not going to have the women go into great detail in a public court of law that will be broadcast by the media about how he groped them when they were 14.
 
I read, "Moore will spend the next 6 years claiming he lost the election because of 'lies'- and not go tc" ----

"Go to" -- what? Hell? The Gadsden Mall? The local high school? The haberdashery for something more geographically alert?

LOL- yeah something got truncated there.....
 
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

I am no lawyer either- so I can't say I really know.

But if he did sue- he could be forced to testify on the stand- as could any woman he sued.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top