Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post

[bripat9643]

Why do you think that most adults would have suffered the abuse that the phony veteran was dishing out gladly?

Mr. Phillips didn't think that, that's why he decided to pester well behaved children instead of adults.

So you're saying the little shit sized up the old man and figured he could get away with that Smirk?

Tell us something we don't know.

no, the Phony Veteran came up to the child, Sandmann was just minding his own beeswax.

The Black Congressional Israelites had been hollering all kinds of filth at the Covington children for an hour, and Phillips decided to get in on the fun.

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

They printed Phillip's story as if it was the unvarnished truth, and they didn't bother to investigate or interview anything that contradicted his story.

WRONG, trolley-trax Boi. They QUOTED Philips, and several others.

What would you have them do, change the quote to shit he never said?

But you say when I point where they quoted WAPO, that we have to refer to the article. So why should we believe your claims?

 

[22lcidw]

no, the Phony Veteran came up to the child, Sandmann was just minding his own beeswax.

The Black Congressional Israelites had been hollering all kinds of filth at the Covington children for an hour, and Phillips decided to get in on the fun.

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

Neither "sympathy" nor "excuses" have any function here. What you need is called "evidence". And you don't have it.
And I've been telling you that for a ******* MONTH. Exactly how stupid does that make you.

Experience trumps over a drama biatch like you are. The games your progressive socialists play is long and decades of it. I seen my neighborhood where I grew up destroyed. I saw businesses destroyed..I saw drugs introduced that destroyed people in my neighborhood. That is just one bit of evidence. Not your bullcrap Saul Alinsky agendas. Forgive me. I would watch the Capitol Building be vaporized. That does not make me violent.

 

[Pogo]

no, the Phony Veteran came up to the child, Sandmann was just minding his own beeswax.

The Black Congressional Israelites had been hollering all kinds of filth at the Covington children for an hour, and Phillips decided to get in on the fun.

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you think that most adults would have suffered the abuse that the phony veteran was dishing out gladly?

Mr. Phillips didn't think that, that's why he decided to pester well behaved children instead of adults.

So you're saying the little shit sized up the old man and figured he could get away with that Smirk?

Tell us something we don't know.

no, the Phony Veteran came up to the child, Sandmann was just minding his own beeswax.

The Black Congressional Israelites had been hollering all kinds of filth at the Covington children for an hour, and Phillips decided to get in on the fun.

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

They printed Phillip's story as if it was the unvarnished truth, and they didn't bother to investigate or interview anything that contradicted his story.

WRONG, trolley-trax Boi. They QUOTED Philips, and several others.

What would you have them do, change the quote to shit he never said?

They published Phillips' lies and never checked them. They never checked any of the claims made about Sandmann. Also, the lawsuit includes multiple quotes from WAPO that you say we can't trust, but supposedly we can trust all the quotes you refer to.

Given your record for lying, why should anyone believe you?

 

[justoffal]

So you're saying the little shit sized up the old man and figured he could get away with that Smirk?

Tell us something we don't know.

no, the Phony Veteran came up to the child, Sandmann was just minding his own beeswax.

The Black Congressional Israelites had been hollering all kinds of filth at the Covington children for an hour, and Phillips decided to get in on the fun.

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

They printed Phillip's story as if it was the unvarnished truth, and they didn't bother to investigate or interview anything that contradicted his story.

WRONG, trolley-trax Boi. They QUOTED Philips, and several others.

What would you have them do, change the quote to shit he never said?

But you say when I point where they quoted WAPO, that we have to refer to the article. So why should be believe your claims?

This guy has appointed himself as the Ultimate authority of all things. A true lefty...he speaks from that position all the time as if the rest of the Universe needs his permission. Most posting boards have these people on them for whatever reason they come to post.

Lefty likes to point out how things SHOULD be but that only applies when lefty's interests are threatened. When it's not lefty's interests then anything goes....including any kind of rule or law breaking, any type of unfair disparity or anything at all that gets lefty to where he want's to be. In charge.

This is the foundation behind the two years worth of total denial about Trump's election win that as far as they are concerned never really happened. Just ask them or him for that matter.....he will tell you predictably that Trump is not really the President and that his election win was not legitimate. Trust me on this.

JO

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

The paper implied, moron. You knew what he meant, but you harp on a minor technical gaff because you know WAPO is going to get whacked big time.

 

[bripat9643]

He did respond to what was in your post, jackass.

No, ******* moron, he didn't. My post said the player in that photo was wearing a jersey which read, "Clark County," not "Clark University," as you moronically thought....

His reply to that post was, "I don't understand why you think that this 2012 photograph justifies Phony Veteran Nathan Phillips pestering of minor children or the Washington Post's character assassination of the same," which I never said it does. So how on Earth do you delude your ******* moronic self into thinking he addressed my post when I never said what he asked of me?

You obviously believe the photo is somehow relevant to what happened to Nick Sandman 7 years later. Otherwise, why would you be going on and on about it? Look at the title of this thread. That's what is being discussed, not some ******* photo from 7 years ago.

******* moron, I never said that photo has anything to do with Sandmann. I'm merely laughing my ass off at you for being such a ******* moron, you actually thought that uniform read, "university," as though there's a 'U' in the middle of the word, "university."

And why are you reminding me this thread is about Sandmann and not that photo -- when the only reason I talked about that photo was in response to YOU talking about that photo? Perhaps you should practice what you preach and not wander off about that photo if you don't want to talk about it?

As far as Sandmann's lawsuit, unless you've read what the Washington Post printed, you have nothing valid to say since you have no idea if the lawsuit is valid or not.

The photo was post in this thread, which is about Sandmann, so the person who posted believes it has something to do with Sandmann, and you chimed in to defend it. Therefore you imagine it has something to do with Sandman. On the other hand, since the leftwing media has thoroughly disgraced itself with piling in on one smear after another, no one is going to accept the photo without ironclad proof.

******* moron, I chimed in to show everyone what a ******* moron you are. I said nothing in Defense of it. And you were very happy to talk about that picture until I pointed out it reads “Clark County,” not “Clark University.”

But g’head, tell everyone again how there’s a ‘U’ in the middle of the word, “university.”

That was ******* hysterical!

You unhealthy obsession with me only shows what a sick twisted freak you are. I never said there was a 'U' in the middle of university, turd. That's totally your imagination.

 

[justoffal]

Yes, and then the WP interviewed Phillips and printed his story. How is that libelous on the part of the WP?

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

 

[Pogo]

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

The paper implied, moron. You knew what he meant, but you harp on a minor technical gaff because you know WAPO is going to get whacked big time.

I know no such thing, because I know how the legal system works and what 'evidence' is.

Perhaps the poster in his ignorance meant "implied" but that's irrelevant. Journalism doesn't "imply" either. It simply reports what happened. And that's what every citation of the WaPo's articles does. LITERALLY every one. "Video going viral". "Witness A said this". "Witness B said that". The fact that some butthurt blogparrot chose to plug in meanings of his own choosing is HIS problem, not the newspaper's. No newspaper can be responsible for the irresponsibility of a reader.

That's why, a FULL ******* MONTH AGO, I put out the challenge for anyone to show anywhere ANYONE published libel. And to date I've still got Zero.

 

[Rustic]

After many of these media outlets settle with Sandman out of court, he may never have to actually work a day in his life. LOL.

Ah....so THIS is what it's all about....a lazy spoiled brat.

Hat boy can sue whomever he wants. Every time McSmirk has his mug on TV as a result is probably going to remind us all of what an ass he was on that day.

The sad thing is that Papa and Momma McSmirk are the one pimping out their boy for little gain.

 

[Polishprince]

It was libelous because they didn't check the facts even though they were readily available. Sandmann is a minor child, not a public figure, and you better be certain of the facts before you drag their reputations through the mud. Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character. Taking his word for it and putting a child at risk is a pretty vile tort.

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

 

[justoffal]

No, ******* moron, he didn't. My post said the player in that photo was wearing a jersey which read, "Clark County," not "Clark University," as you moronically thought....

His reply to that post was, "I don't understand why you think that this 2012 photograph justifies Phony Veteran Nathan Phillips pestering of minor children or the Washington Post's character assassination of the same," which I never said it does. So how on Earth do you delude your ******* moronic self into thinking he addressed my post when I never said what he asked of me?

You obviously believe the photo is somehow relevant to what happened to Nick Sandman 7 years later. Otherwise, why would you be going on and on about it? Look at the title of this thread. That's what is being discussed, not some ******* photo from 7 years ago.

******* moron, I never said that photo has anything to do with Sandmann. I'm merely laughing my ass off at you for being such a ******* moron, you actually thought that uniform read, "university," as though there's a 'U' in the middle of the word, "university."

And why are you reminding me this thread is about Sandmann and not that photo -- when the only reason I talked about that photo was in response to YOU talking about that photo? Perhaps you should practice what you preach and not wander off about that photo if you don't want to talk about it?

As far as Sandmann's lawsuit, unless you've read what the Washington Post printed, you have nothing valid to say since you have no idea if the lawsuit is valid or not.

The photo was post in this thread, which is about Sandmann, so the person who posted believes it has something to do with Sandmann, and you chimed in to defend it. Therefore you imagine it has something to do with Sandman. On the other hand, since the leftwing media has thoroughly disgraced itself with piling in on one smear after another, no one is going to accept the photo without ironclad proof.

******* moron, I chimed in to show everyone what a ******* moron you are. I said nothing in Defense of it. And you were very happy to talk about that picture until I pointed out it reads “Clark County,” not “Clark University.”

But g’head, tell everyone again how there’s a ‘U’ in the middle of the word, “university.”

That was ******* hysterical!

You unhealthy obsession with me only shows what a sick twisted freak you are. I never said there was a 'U' in the middle of university, turd. That's totally your imagination.

OHHHH...you better correct the you to say your....or he will have a party with it.

You are correct of course. Lefty has become adept at the casting of straw men. Deflection, inference, and outright misrepresentation are his method. Scorn ( as in the overuse of snide GIF images ) is the chief tool of the Alinsky generation. Note number five below...of course it is rendered useless if you are expecting it and know why it is being used.

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

 

[Rustic]

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole ******* POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy ****. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

So which of these statements didn't WAPO make?

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”​

READ THE CITATIONS, asswipe. What you have here are the complaints --- which are written by the attorneys. WaPo didn't write that.

The CITATIONS would be under the heading, "Cause of Action for Defamation". Once again you quit reading before you got to the crucial part, and you're left standing on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.

They're in quotes, moron. That means WAPO said them.

Here is one:

The First Article features Nicholas prominently by publication of the @2020fight and/or Taitano Videos and emphasizing his alleged involvement as the “one standing about a foot from the drummer’s face wearing a relentless smirk.”​

That is what WAPO said, not Nick Sandmann or Phillips.

NO, Fingerfuck, that means the attorneys are CLAIMING WaPo said them. DIFFERENCE.

Here is the actual entire citation from that first article. Note the intro line at the beginning.

>>In its First Article, the Post published or republished the following false and defamatory statements:

• The headline “‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat wearing teens who surrounded him.”

• “In an interview Saturday, Phillips, 64, said he felt threatened by the teens and that they suddenly swarmed around him as he and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave.”

• “Phillips, who was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home, said he noticed tensions beginning to escalate when the teens and other apparent participants from the nearby March for Life rally began taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd.”

• “A few people in the March for Life crowd began to chant ‘Build that wall, build that wall,’ he said.”

• “‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’ Phillips recalled. ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’”

• “‘It clearly demonstrates the validity of our concerns about the marginalization and disrespect of Indigenous peoples, and it shows that traditional knowledge is being ignored by those who should listen most closely,’ Darren Thompson, an organizer for the [Indigenous Peoples Movement], said in the statement.”

• “Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People Law Project, said the incident lasted about 10 minutes and ended when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

• “‘It was an aggressive display of physicality. They were rambunctious and trying to instigate a conflict,’ he said. ‘We were wondering where their chaperones were. [Phillips] was really trying to defuse the situation.’”

• “Phillips, an Omaha tribe elder who also fought in the Vietnam war, has encountered anti-Native American sentiments before . . . .” <<

That's it. The entire citation for the first article. Not only is it entirely comprised of reported statements by other people --- it makes no mention of the Smirk itself, at all. Note the operative verbs throughout --- "said" and "recalled". Not "is".

This is the entire citation of "defamatory statements" for article 1. All of it. Ain't there. The only way such a suit could make the case anything on this list is "false" is by proving Philips, Thompson, Chase Iron Eyes et al, DID NOT make those statements.

Lol
Phillips approach the kid not the other way around you stupid ass ************, and by the way that’s not even his real name you sorry sack of shit...

 

[bripat9643]

Without a source, subtitles or explanations, your pic is worthless.

Here ya go. Lots more pics there too.

It says they were "from" Covington high school. That doesn't mean the Covington high school team is playing here. Notice the player's shirt says "University" at the bottom, so this obviously isn't a high school game. So if it wasn't a high school game, then how do we know the students in the photo were actually from Covington High School?

It also says they "goaded" black members of the opposite team. Probably all the team members were black, and what does "goaded" mean? Did they shout "your mother wears army boots?" Goading the opposite team is quite common in basket ball games.

Overall, this picture is bullshit. It would have been all over the internet if it was credible.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dayum, ******* moron, you sure do go out of your way to live up to that name, huh?

******* moron .... that says "Clark County," not Clark University.

Here's Covington Catholic HIGH SCHOOL on George Rogers Clark HIGH SCHOOL's schedule....

Schedule - George Rogers Clark Cardinals 2012-13 Basketball (Winchester, KY)

Yes, that was a HIGH SCHOOL game and yes, they played them and yes, that photo is of Covington Catholic High School students wearing black face at their own game,...

.... and yes, that's how we know the students in that photo were actually from Convington Catholic High School.

Yet again (I've lost count), you once again prove for the forum you are, by far, the biggest ******* moron on this site.

"County" doesn't have an "I" in it. the last three letters are "ITY," and you can't read the rest.

You can't prove a thing you posted.

It's a U. As in "DUMBASS".

>> ... Second, the photograph appeared to originate with a message board for Kentucky prep schools titled BluegrassPreps.com where it was posted on 7 December 2015, well before the controversy over the January 2019 viral video. The photograph was posted as part of a discussion on whether or not “The Colonel Crazies’ treatment of inbounders” — players making an inbound passes — should change, and the thread included posts from several individuals defending both the antics and the wearing of black paint as well.

Third, the photograph appeared to depict a game between Covington Catholic and “Clark County,” based on the uniform of the opposing player, a game that actually took place. The event was Covington Catholic’s season opening game at George Rogers Clark High School, which was held on 27 November 2012. An archived version of Covington Catholic’s school newspaper described their opponent as “Clark County” in that game, which Covington won 59-38. << --- Snopes​

Clark county is just a bit south of the wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin where the Democratic Party held their convention a month after the election was over, so you ain't exactly the most observant moron in the world, are ya.

Hmmmm, dumbass, that's not the team from the same year as the other picture. That team was in 2012. As you can see the result for 2012 are already on the wall.

So far, we have no links to the original publication of the photograph. We also have no idea when the above photograph is taken. It could have been last year. The other two photographs show 4 black players. Where are they?

Last, what does any of this have to do with Sandman? Did he wear blackface at the basketball game? This won't get WAPO off the hook.

 

[justoffal]

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

This is a case that will open up the worm can on the need for new Libel guidance in the NEW AGE MEDIA COMPLEX.....the end result may be something that none of us like. But I'll tell you one thing for sure....WAPO is going to pay out some bucks.

JO

 

[22lcidw]

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

The paper implied, moron. You knew what he meant, but you harp on a minor technical gaff because you know WAPO is going to get whacked big time.

I know no such thing, because I know how the legal system works and what 'evidence' is.

Perhaps the poster in his ignorance meant "implied" but that's irrelevant. Journalism doesn't "imply" either. It simply reports what happened. And that's what every citation of the WaPo's articles does. LITERALLY every one. The fact that some butthurt blogparrot chose to plug in meanings of his own choosing is HIS problem, not the newspaper's.

Reality is what it is. You have fires and a fireground. You have men who run into a building fully involved in fire. You have men outside not entering the fire building. Many have done it and have moved up in rank. But some have moved up in rank without any experience. That is you in your level of living. You get to call people all names we have. I have a brother in law with the air force named Crippled Kenny in both military and then civilian his whole career. Always behind the scenes. Never putting his life on the line. But he has an ego. That is you. Now give me evidence otherwise.

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing, Evelyn Wood.

In order to establish 'libel" you need evidence of somebody making assertions they know are not true. For instance the way you just did above:

"Phillips is a well known bum, a man who pretends to be a combat veteran and all around shady character."
​

In this lawsuit however there is no such evidence of the WaPo (or anyone else) making ass-sertions about Smirk-Boi. The articles say there's video, and quotes several witnesses' comments. **ALL** of that is true. A clusterfuck of vague mythologies whined out by blogs and radio talking heads DOES NOT make some other entity "responsible" for it. Because it CAN'T.

Which means, that you're closer to "libel" here than the WaPo was.

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

 

[candycorn]

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

This is a case that will open up the worm can on the need for new Libel guidance in the NEW AGE MEDIA COMPLEX.....the end result may be something that none of us like. But I'll tell you one thing for sure....WAPO is going to pay out some bucks.

JO

I think it gets thrown out myself. But this is how the system is supposed to work. If you think someone did you wrong, you sue them.

 

[Polishprince]

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

If I was Sandmann's lawyer, I'd enter Bezos' dick pics into evidence. Sandmann is basically on trial for his life, I think any judge is going to have to give a minor child some flexibility.

 

[justoffal]

We do not listen to your excuses anymore. Unfortunatly to many others do. To watch someone go into CNN or MSNBC and do major damage or a McVeigh result would bring laughter throughout the land. They have gotten people hurt and killed. There is no sympathy for them.

More than anything else I believe the judicial community will be anxious to see some modern rulings that will focus the now archaic Libel laws into the new age media complex. They are fifty years behind and need to be updated. By focusing on Sandmann's Smirk and also inferring that they knew for sure that the high school kids were the instigators

There's your problem right there. A newspaper cannot "infer". The READER infers. That's not the paper's doing -- that's YOUR responsibility.

Bwahahaha.....that's your legal opinion? Well then kindly explain all of the big ticket libel awards over the years based on the printed word dude.

JO

The fact that Sandmann is a minor child and not a public figure at all, is going to hurt the Washington Post in front of 12 angry men. And when the jury hear about Bezos' dick pics on his phone, he will get no sympathy from 12 Southern men.

LOL….someone has a vivid imagination.

Nah...he's spot on. WAPO is not alone in their abuse of the SULLIVAN versus NY TIMES ruling....it has become a hiding place for vile defamation proceedings in the past fifty years. There is an awareness of this in the Judicial community and THAT alone is something that WAPO should be afraid of. To be fair to WAPO they should not stand alone in this spotlight....but then again they were unlucky enough to stumble into the gaze of the nation's most capable libel outfit. I suspect that Lin Wood went for this one because he knows that somewhere in the background Jeff Bezo's pockets are available.

JO