Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs

[Doc7505]

BREAKING: ​

Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs​

BREAKING: Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs

redstate.com

18 Nov 2021 ~~ By Scott Hounsell
The judge in the defamation suit filed by Project Veritas against the New York Times has ordered the paper to provide justification for their publishing of privileged documents that the New York Times allegedly received from either the FBI or Department of Justice. These documents were allegedly acquired by federal law enforcement officials in several pre-dawn raids on the homes of Project Veritas reporters just last week. The New York Times published these documents, despite already being embroiled in a defamation lawsuit with Project Veritas.
Harmeet Dhillon, a well-known constitutional rights attorney who represents Project Veritas, tweeted the news just a bit ago:

​

~Snip~
he New York Times is in deep doo-doo with this one. The Times is already involved in very risky litigation with Project Veritas. With Project Veritas’ legal record, they would have to at least recognize that they have a chance of facing some pretty steep penalties for their statements. Yet, despite this risk and knowing that they are currently under the demands of the defamation suit, they still figured it was appropriate to not only take possession of illegally-obtained privileged information but to then also publish those privileged documents. To know those risks, and to know that the action you’re taking is illegal, shows a stunning level of incompetence, or a flat-out effort to create further damages. In a suit that requires intent, like defamation, handing your opposition an exhibit of your intent, is never a smart play.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.


Comment:
Project Veritas and especially James O'Keefe has been in the crosshairs of the Biased Media Complex for years.
It began with exposing the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat union scam called ACORN in 2009.
Unfortunately the judge has not demanded disclosure as to how the NY Times obtained privileged information seized by the FBI in their latest raid on Project Veritas and James O'Keefe related to Ashley Biden's diary.
Is this now going to be SOP that the STASI-FBI notifies the NY Times, WAPO, CNN or other news outlet, whenever they are going to conduct a raid or leak privileged information to them?

 

[Otis Mayfield]

First Amendment gives iron clad protection to any news source.

Not will come of this.

 

[Rambunctious]

First Amendment gives iron clad protection to any news source.

Not will come of this.

Nick Sandmann would disagree....

 

[White 6]

BREAKING: ​

Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs​

BREAKING: Judge Demands Answers From New York Times Over Publishing Project Veritas' Privileged Docs

redstate.com

18 Nov 2021 ~~ By Scott Hounsell
The judge in the defamation suit filed by Project Veritas against the New York Times has ordered the paper to provide justification for their publishing of privileged documents that the New York Times allegedly received from either the FBI or Department of Justice. These documents were allegedly acquired by federal law enforcement officials in several pre-dawn raids on the homes of Project Veritas reporters just last week. The New York Times published these documents, despite already being embroiled in a defamation lawsuit with Project Veritas.
Harmeet Dhillon, a well-known constitutional rights attorney who represents Project Veritas, tweeted the news just a bit ago:

​

~Snip~
he New York Times is in deep doo-doo with this one. The Times is already involved in very risky litigation with Project Veritas. With Project Veritas’ legal record, they would have to at least recognize that they have a chance of facing some pretty steep penalties for their statements. Yet, despite this risk and knowing that they are currently under the demands of the defamation suit, they still figured it was appropriate to not only take possession of illegally-obtained privileged information but to then also publish those privileged documents. To know those risks, and to know that the action you’re taking is illegal, shows a stunning level of incompetence, or a flat-out effort to create further damages. In a suit that requires intent, like defamation, handing your opposition an exhibit of your intent, is never a smart play.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.


Comment:
Project Veritas and especially James O'Keefe has been in the crosshairs of the Biased Media Complex for years.
It began with exposing the Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat union scam called ACORN in 2009.
Unfortunately the judge has not demanded disclosure as to how the NY Times obtained privileged information seized by the FBI in their latest raid on Project Veritas and James O'Keefe related to Ashley Biden's diary.
Is this now going to be SOP that the STASI-FBI notifies the NY Times, WAPO, CNN or other news outlet, whenever they are going to conduct a raid or leak privileged information to them?

Project Veritus is a private organization, not government or classified in any way. If a newspaper wants to investigate and report, they can report, as long as not slandering with false information. Doubt this is going anywhere.

 

[Doc7505]

First Amendment gives iron clad protection to any news source.

Not will come of this.

Aux Contraire,

Are There Limits to Freedom of the Press in the U.S.?

The U.S. Constitution touts freedom of the press, but a closer look at the law - especially as interpreted by the Supreme Court - shows that press "freedom" has its limits. How are journalists bound by the law?

people.howstuffworks.com

**********​

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2595&context=dlj

**********​

https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2192&context=vulr

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Project Veritus is a private organization, not government or classified in any way. If a newspaper wants to investigate and report, they can report, as long as not slandering with false information. Doubt this is going anywhere.

So privilege information between Lawyers and Clients arent protected? You fuckers keep opening Pandora's box, and every time, it bites you stupid asses, well, in the ass..

Attorney-client privilege refers to a legal privilege that works to keep confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client secret. The privilege is asserted in the face of a legal demand for the communications, such as a discovery request or a demand that the lawyer testify under oath.

Attorney-Client Privilege | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal ...​

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege

 

[White 6]

So privilege information between Lawyers and Clients arent protected? You fuckers keep opening Pandora's box, and every time, it bites you stupid asses, well, in the ass..

Attorney-client privilege refers to a legal privilege that works to keep confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client secret. The privilege is asserted in the face of a legal demand for the communications, such as a discovery request or a demand that the lawyer testify under oath.

Attorney-Client Privilege | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal ...​

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege

Are you saying the lawyer for Project Veritas, gave the times privileged information?
Are you saying the times broke into a lawyers office and stole privileged information?
Or are you saying that if 3rd person brings a document and shows it to the times, they are not allowed to report on it?
I am well aware of the meaning of attorney-client privilege, and that a lawyer cannot be compelled to reveal what his client has discussed with him, even in a criminal trial.
If this is an attorney-client privilege thing, the problem is with the lawyer safeguarding client information, not the paper that published what fell into their hands, as long as they broke no law obtaining it.
Newspapers have been reporting on leaked information with impunity since the beginning of newspapers and lawyers, and it will continue, like it or not.
I doubt the times is too worried.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Are you saying the lawyer for Project Veritas, gave the times privileged information?
Are you saying the times broke into a lawyers office and stole privileged information?
Or are you saying that if 3rd person brings a document and shows it to the times, they are not allowed to report on it?
I am well aware of the meaning of attorney-client privilege, and that a lawyer cannot be compelled to reveal what his client has discussed with him, even in a criminal trial.
If this is an attorney-client privilege thing, the problem is with the lawyer safeguarding client information, not the paper that published what fell into their hands, as long as they broke no law obtaining it.
Newspapers have been reporting on leaked information with impunity since the beginning of newspapers and lawyers, and it will continue, like it or not.
I doubt the times is too worried.

Dude, i am saying that the corrupt FBI who works as a fascist organization released to the NY slimes just like they did with the Russian Collusion bullshit. You are an idiot, and are now going to the fucking ignore slave pen with the rest of the other idiots.

 

[g5000]

They should have sent it to Wikileaks.

 

[g5000]

The Times must have some serious dirt on Project Veritas.