Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn't read past the title did you?I know. I know. I shouldn’t do it. But as I noted before. I’m a conservative and thus, by nature, compassionate and giving and caring and sharing.So, I’m inclined to share an unofficial web site and quote to steer Bullfrog BULLDOG in the right direction:
Excerpted from: Appeals of Summary Judgment – Appeals
Well,no. Im not going to play semantic games with you. You said it could be appealed. I don't believe it can, but since i'm not willing to take your word for it, I guess we can just wait and see.I disputed your original claim. You are the proponent. Surely you must know where you got your incorrect information from?
As you might put it, easy.
And, since you have the burden, I’m sure you won’t object. Proceed.
I think you're confusing Nick Sandman with Kyle RittenhouseI didn't hate him. I don't think much of any of the adults he was connected with, though.
If Progressives were civil none of this stuff would happen. This was another case of something was made out of nothing for propaganda purposes.Another win for the good guys.
Hat boy is this week's Joe the Plumber.
Correct. Hatboy never had a case. And now...he is just another washed up tool of the right.If Progressives were civil none of this stuff would happen. This was another case of something was made out of nothing for propaganda purposes.
Sandman made your party look fucking terrible. Thats why you made this thread, right? Cuz he won in the court of public opinion and you all lost bad? From now until the end of time we get to keep bringing up this case to make your party look bad. Its one of many cases that has given your party black eyes, like Rittenhouse, Smollett, etc. Your dumb fuck party has a way of fucking up the easiest wins. All you had to do was watch the Rittenhouse footage to know that it was self defense. All you had to do was think about Smollett's story for a moment to realize how fucking stupid it sounded, but for some strange reason, your party continually fucks up these easy avoidable situations.Nick Sandman, who became a MAGA hero, and made all the rounds of right wing media lost in a sumary judgment in all his remaining cases. CNN and NBC had both previously settled with him for undisclosed amounts that reportdly were only a small fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he was seeking from them. Those two, and their settlements will not be effected by the judges recent ruling. ABC, Rolling Stone, CBS, Gannett, and The New York Times were all victorious against Sandman's accusations. Perhaps CNN and NBC might not settle so soon next time, but since their settlements are secret, and much less than Sandman was seeking, they might have saved money on litigation. Either way, the Sandman saga ended up being just another MAGA exaggeration that stirred up the trump base, but amounted to nothing.
Former Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Loses Defamation Lawsuits Against CBS, ABC, NYT, and Others
A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that Sandmann's lawsuits against five media companies could not survive summary judgment.lawandcrime.com
Wrong person White.I think the kid should not have bought the weapon through a straw buyer out of state, when he could not buy it in his own state. I think he had no business going to an out of state riot, and especially with a weapon, he should not have had. I think he was let down by his own parents, the people he went with, and the owner of the property he was stupidly guarding. If I got myself into that kind of dangerous, fluid, threatening situation and I had to choose between killing the shit out of whoever might be attacking and maybe attacking me, I would shoot the hell out of them and pray about it the next Sunday. So, do I think he was harmed by the mainstream media? NO. Do I think he deserves a big payday from the mainstream media? NO. Armed kids have no place in those type events and everybody knows it, including you. He even knows it now and last I heard, regrets going or even buying the weapon.
It can be done but let be factual he ( Sandman ) would have an impossible task to get any appeal.I know. I know. I shouldn’t do it. But as I noted before. I’m a conservative and thus, by nature, compassionate and giving and caring and sharing.
Excerpted from: Appeals of Summary Judgment – Appeals
Of course it was opinion. They clearly stated their reports were based on eye witness opinions. The judge said that's why he ruled againstthe kid.Win or lose it was a black eye for the media.
From the article.
some were statements of opinion;.................
Opinion is largely what drives the media today, not a desire to do any research and report on the news factually.
News today is based on tabloid journalism and not true journalism.Win or lose it was a black eye for the media.
From the article.
some were statements of opinion;.................
Opinion is largely what drives the media today, not a desire to do any research and report on the news factually.
Nick Sandman is the kid in the red MAGA hat and not Kyle Rittenhouse who shot those people in Wisconsin.I didn't hate him. I don't think much of any of the adults he was connected with, though.
Of course it was opinion. They clearly stated their reports were based on eye witness opinions. The judge said that's why he ruled againstthe kid.
Oh dear…that doesn’t look good for his buddy and rightist “hero” RittenhouseNick Sandman, who became a MAGA hero, and made all the rounds of right wing media lost in a sumary judgment in all his remaining cases. CNN and NBC had both previously settled with him for undisclosed amounts that reportdly were only a small fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he was seeking from them. Those two, and their settlements will not be effected by the judges recent ruling. ABC, Rolling Stone, CBS, Gannett, and The New York Times were all victorious against Sandman's accusations. Perhaps CNN and NBC might not settle so soon next time, but since their settlements are secret, and much less than Sandman was seeking, they might have saved money on litigation. Either way, the Sandman saga ended up being just another MAGA exaggeration that stirred up the trump base, but amounted to nothing.
Former Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Loses Defamation Lawsuits Against CBS, ABC, NYT, and Others
A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that Sandmann's lawsuits against five media companies could not survive summary judgment.
/-----/ Of course nothing happened to the clown who started the whole thing, Phillips. And Sandman settled with two networks.Nick Sandman, who became a MAGA hero, and made all the rounds of right wing media lost in a sumary judgment in all his remaining cases. CNN and NBC had both previously settled with him for undisclosed amounts that reportdly were only a small fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he was seeking from them. Those two, and their settlements will not be effected by the judges recent ruling. ABC, Rolling Stone, CBS, Gannett, and The New York Times were all victorious against Sandman's accusations. Perhaps CNN and NBC might not settle so soon next time, but since their settlements are secret, and much less than Sandman was seeking, they might have saved money on litigation. Either way, the Sandman saga ended up being just another MAGA exaggeration that stirred up the trump base, but amounted to nothing.
Former Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Loses Defamation Lawsuits Against CBS, ABC, NYT, and Others
A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that Sandmann's lawsuits against five media companies could not survive summary judgment.
Actually, I'm not aware of any of the news sources mentioned making any judgements at the time. They reported that there was an event, and quoted individuals that had been involved, or witnessed the event. All normal parts of news reporting. The judge remarked that the news sources didn't endorse the remarks of anyone they quoted.And as a news source, or one that pretends to be, you research what happened before reporting on it. Eye witnesses aren't really "opinions" either. If any eye witnesses stated what was reported they were lying and I have to imagine there were indeed eye witnesses there that stated what exactly did happen.
It's a news source job, or at least it used to be, to get the news correct, not report on "opinions".
Actually, I'm not aware of any of the news sources mentioned making any judgements at the time. They reported that there was an event, and quoted individuals that had been involved, or witnessed the event. All normal parts of news reporting. The judge remarked that the news sources didn't endorse the remarks of anyone they quoted.
You don’t have a clue what I’m referring to. Not a question.You didn't read past the title did you?
