Sandmann Family Has Hired "Attorney For The Damned"

[ZZ PUPPS]

Why does he look so fucked up?
He looks like a homeless person.

I was talking about the kid, not the snaggle toothed indian.

So was Mud.

I dunno what a homeless person "looks like" but we were just noting that the kid looks like he's really REALLY stoned. And that could be all it was.

What indication was there that he was stoned? Do you know what stoned people even look like?

What indication? Holding this pose for several minutes?

I gives you a hint: it's not the hat.

Have you ever smoked weed before? "Holding poses" is definitely not something that happens. You are very ignorant.

After 5, dude would've grabbed the drum and launched into the drum solo of In A Gadda Di Vida.

 

[mudwhistle]

Quote:

"The family of 16-year-old Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann has hired a high-powered lawyer who specializes in going after media organizations for libel and slander.

WCPO reports that the family has hired L. Lin Wood, whom disgraced former journalist Dan Rather described as the "attorney for the damned," and who is known for "aggressive libel and slander suits against media organizations."

Nicholas Sandmann's Family Makes Major Move Against Media After Being Smeared

Quote:

L. Lin Wood is not a man to be messed with.

Take a look at Wood’s firm’s credentials, according to their site:

• “lead civil attorney for the late Richard Jewell in all matters arising out of reporting about Mr. Jewell in connection with the 1996 bombing of Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta
• lead civil attorney in False Claim Act/Whistleblower cases alleging Medicare fraud against DaVita, Inc. in federal court in Atlanta and against Halifax Hospital Medical Center in federal court in Florida
• lead attorney for John and the late Patsy Ramsey and their son in matters relating to the 1996 murder of JonBenét Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado
• lead civil attorney for Jeff Greene in libel litigation against The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald related to Mr. Greene’s 2010 campaign for the Democratic Nomination for the U.S. Senate from Florida
• attorney for Dr. Phil McGraw in connection with false and defamatory articles published by Newsweek, the Daily Beast and the National Enquirer
• attorney for Herman Cain, 2012 candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States
• attorney for Sheldon Adelson in defamation litigation in New York and Florida
• lead attorney for the victim in the Colorado civil case against NBA star Kobe Bryant
• lead civil attorney for Beth Holloway, mother of Natalee Holloway
• lead civil attorney for Howard K. Stern, lawyer and companion to the late Anna Nicole Smith in defamation litigation in Texas, Florida and New York
• lead trial counsel for the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith in federal action for misappropriation and theft of estate property
• lead counsel for The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. in connection with claims related to corporate governance
• lead counsel for SunTrust Bank in fiduciary litigation involving Coca Cola heirs
• lead civil attorney for former U.S. Congressman Gary Condit in defamation litigation against Dominick Dunne, American Media and National Enquirer related to false accusations related to Chandra Levy”

BREAKING: Sandmann Family Hires Top Libel Lawyer L. Lin Wood - Big League Politics


GOOD. I hope they take all these pricks to the cleaners. The media has been shamelessly spreading utter bullshit for far too long.

His face has been plastered on every nedia site. At this moment, hes one of the most recognizable people in the US.

Why does he look so fucked up?
He looks like a homeless person.

I was talking about the kid, not the snaggle toothed indian.

But only when he's wearing a MAGA hat.

 

[Denizen]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

You sound like you are still a child, yourself, by the puerility of your views and so are probably not old enough to have children. I imagine you would not be so stupid and glib, however, if it was YOUR kid who was receiving death threats for merely smiling as a lying, toothless bully was banging his fucking little drum in your kid's face.

Don't adjust your MAGA hat. The problem is in your head.

 

[Denizen]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

The kid's name did not come up until much later. But with or without a name, the story was that a video had gone viral, and that is true. And they showed the video, and that is also true. There's nothing in the world "libelous" about that.

Dean RD reported that Donald Trump is the person who outed the child by publishing his name.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

You sound like you are still a child, yourself, by the puerility of your views and so are probably not old enough to have children. I imagine you would not be so stupid and glib, however, if it was YOUR kid who was receiving death threats for merely smiling as a lying, toothless bully was banging his fucking little drum in your kid's face.

Don't adjust your MAGA hat. The problem is in your head.

I don't have a mega and I did not vote for Trump you retarded child .

 

[Denizen]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

Wood doesn't lose. He most likely sought this case out. There's no way the family could afford his retainer. You are WRONG.


I PREDICT AT LEAST $100M.

JO

Agreed. I'd bet this lawyer contacted the family and is only getting paid if he wins. This is a winner and he knows it.

Even if he doesn't win with this particular case, this is a spectacular opportunity to shift the laws in this attorney's primary field of interest, which means vastly more opportunities in the future. So yeah, for him this case is a winner, no matter what happens.

Depending on what the family actually wants out of the experience, could be for them, too.

He'll be unemployable because he will be a magnet for targeting by zealots.

 

[Denizen]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

You could just give him one of yours.

After you return the ones you borrowed.

 

[Denizen]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

You sound like you are still a child, yourself, by the puerility of your views and so are probably not old enough to have children. I imagine you would not be so stupid and glib, however, if it was YOUR kid who was receiving death threats for merely smiling as a lying, toothless bully was banging his fucking little drum in your kid's face.

Don't adjust your MAGA hat. The problem is in your head.

I don't have a mega and I did not vote for Trump you retarded child .

You're just deluded?

 

[Pogo]

Why does he look so fucked up?
He looks like a homeless person.

I was talking about the kid, not the snaggle toothed indian.

So was Mud.

I dunno what a homeless person "looks like" but we were just noting that the kid looks like he's really REALLY stoned. And that could be all it was.

What indication was there that he was stoned? Do you know what stoned people even look like?

What indication? Holding this pose for several minutes?

I gives you a hint: it's not the hat.

Have you ever smoked weed before? "Holding poses" is definitely not something that happens. You are very ignorant.

Ummmmm yeah it is something that happens. Not that the stoner is "holding" something, more that he's so lost in other thoughts that he loses touch with what he's projecting to the outside world.

Mind you I'm not saying that's what's going on and I don't think it is, but it does LOOK a lot more like that than it looks like a "homeless person", as if that has a "look".

 

[Pogo]

I was talking about the kid, not the snaggle toothed indian.

So was Mud.

I dunno what a homeless person "looks like" but we were just noting that the kid looks like he's really REALLY stoned. And that could be all it was.

What indication was there that he was stoned? Do you know what stoned people even look like?

You shouldn't expect Pogo to know things like that, Dude.

Being 100 % free of knowledge has served him well up to now, and I'm sure being 100% get of knowledge will continue to serve him well into the future .

Here's the thing about "libel suits".

In order to pursue a charge of "libel" you have to have actual evidence of........... wait for it................. libel.

Yes .Of course.

Let's check off the boxes, though, shall we. Promoting a story that is demonstrably untrue .Check

Actual, what I just axed for there is, once again, "evidence". Go ahead and read up to check on that.

Whelp --- "evidence" means citing actual examples. Quotes. Links. That sort of thing. I'm afraid empty ipse dixit doesn't even nearly qualify.

Promoting a story knowing it will cause harm to the target. Check

Again, displaying a video of someone's behaviour *IS* by definition a record of that behaviour. If said behaviour causes harm to the behaver, whelp that's on him, isn't it.

And we're right back to Sean Spicer threatening to sue the AP for reporting that a heckler heckled him. Which is also recorded on video.

You can't argue that something recorded on video, did not happen. If it's on video, it did. And you can't argue that because it's embarrassing, AP, or "the media" doesn't have a right to report that it happened.

Once again, the MO is to attack the messenger that reported it rather than address the even itself, but again --- I already covered this.

Promoting a story BECAUSE it will harm the target. No in the very most specific sense but very much yes in the general ..it could have been any kids these ruthless hacks libeled .

You don't "promote" a story. You report it. "Promotion" is for products, or special events. "Come to the barbecue, it'll be great". "Four out of five doctors smoke Camels". Once again, the fact that somebody in the public might find out what you did, is YOUR problem, not the messenger's. And again, already covered this directly above. As for motivation ("because it will harm the target"), rotsa ruck making that case when at the time of the video going viral nobody even knew the kid's name.

It is that latter fact that should be argued by the prosecuter while the defense will try to argue the former.

Exactly --- the "prosecutor" in this hypothetical suit, has nothing to work with, QED. Nothing to "argue". And any attorney will gather that evidence before filing anything, otherwise they're going into battle unarmed -- a battle which he just started with nothing in his quiver. Which returns us right back to the point I made in the post above that you quoted, that being: in order to bring a libel suit, you must have actual evidence of libel. You can't just trot out Abigail Williams to whoop "he's a witch".

How much does it say about this lack of evidence that, after a full week of a wide-open challenge to find evidence of a supposed libel, which means somebody's reputation is tarnished in the PUBLIC mind, that no member of the public can think of any example thereof?

If I were the prosecuter, I would also argue that such an obviously corrupt press damages our democracy as well .

You actually think an attorney can sue, or even define, "the media". That's so cute in its cluelessness.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So was Mud.

I dunno what a homeless person "looks like" but we were just noting that the kid looks like he's really REALLY stoned. And that could be all it was.

What indication was there that he was stoned? Do you know what stoned people even look like?

You shouldn't expect Pogo to know things like that, Dude.

Being 100 % free of knowledge has served him well up to now, and I'm sure being 100% get of knowledge will continue to serve him well into the future .

Here's the thing about "libel suits".

In order to pursue a charge of "libel" you have to have actual evidence of........... wait for it................. libel.

Yes .Of course.

Let's check off the boxes, though, shall we. Promoting a story that is demonstrably untrue .Check

Actual, what I just axed for there is, once again, "evidence". Go ahead and read up to check on that.

Whelp --- "evidence" means citing actual examples. Quotes. Links. That sort of thing. I'm afraid empty ipse dixit doesn't even nearly qualify.

Promoting a story knowing it will cause harm to the target. Check

Again, displaying a video of someone's behaviour *IS* by definition a record of that behaviour. If said behaviour causes harm to the behaver, whelp that's on him, isn't it.

And we're right back to Sean Spicer threatening to sue the AP for reporting that a heckler heckled him. Which is also recorded on video.

You can't argue that something recorded on video, did not happen. If it's on video, it did. And you can't argue that because it's embarrassing, AP, or "the media" doesn't have a right to report that it happened.

Once again, the MO is to attack the messenger that reported it rather than address the even itself, but again --- I already covered this.

Promoting a story BECAUSE it will harm the target. No in the very most specific sense but very much yes in the general ..it could have been any kids these ruthless hacks libeled .

You don't "promote" a story. You report it. "Promotion" is for products, or special events. "Come to the barbecue, it'll be great". "Four out of five doctors smoke Camels". Once again, the fact that somebody in the public might find out what you did, is YOUR problem, not the messenger's. And again, already covered this directly above. As for motivation ("because it will harm the target"), rotsa ruck making that case when at the time of the video going viral nobody even knew the kid's name.

It is that latter fact that should be argued by the prosecuter while the defense will try to argue the former.

Exactly --- the "prosecutor" in this hypothetical suit, has nothing to work with, QED. Nothing to "argue". And any attorney will gather that evidence before filing anything, otherwise they're going into battle unarmed. Which returns us right back to the point I made in the post above that you quoted, that being: in order to bring a libel suit, you must have actual evidence of libel. You can't just trot out Abigail Williams to whoop "he's a witch".

How much does it say about this lack of evidence that, after a full week of a wide-open challenge to find evidence of a supposed libel, which means somebody's reputation is tarnished in the PUBLIC mind, that no member of the public can think of any example thereof?

If I were the prosecuter, I would also argue that such an obviously corrupt press damages our democracy as well .

You actually think an attorney can sue, or even define, "the media". That's so cute in its cluelessness.

Pogo, honey, would you please let me know when you finally determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

TIA

 

[Pogo]

What indication was there that he was stoned? Do you know what stoned people even look like?

You shouldn't expect Pogo to know things like that, Dude.

Being 100 % free of knowledge has served him well up to now, and I'm sure being 100% get of knowledge will continue to serve him well into the future .

Here's the thing about "libel suits".

In order to pursue a charge of "libel" you have to have actual evidence of........... wait for it................. libel.

Yes .Of course.

Let's check off the boxes, though, shall we. Promoting a story that is demonstrably untrue .Check

Actual, what I just axed for there is, once again, "evidence". Go ahead and read up to check on that.

Whelp --- "evidence" means citing actual examples. Quotes. Links. That sort of thing. I'm afraid empty ipse dixit doesn't even nearly qualify.

Promoting a story knowing it will cause harm to the target. Check

Again, displaying a video of someone's behaviour *IS* by definition a record of that behaviour. If said behaviour causes harm to the behaver, whelp that's on him, isn't it.

And we're right back to Sean Spicer threatening to sue the AP for reporting that a heckler heckled him. Which is also recorded on video.

You can't argue that something recorded on video, did not happen. If it's on video, it did. And you can't argue that because it's embarrassing, AP, or "the media" doesn't have a right to report that it happened.

Once again, the MO is to attack the messenger that reported it rather than address the even itself, but again --- I already covered this.

Promoting a story BECAUSE it will harm the target. No in the very most specific sense but very much yes in the general ..it could have been any kids these ruthless hacks libeled .

You don't "promote" a story. You report it. "Promotion" is for products, or special events. "Come to the barbecue, it'll be great". "Four out of five doctors smoke Camels". Once again, the fact that somebody in the public might find out what you did, is YOUR problem, not the messenger's. And again, already covered this directly above. As for motivation ("because it will harm the target"), rotsa ruck making that case when at the time of the video going viral nobody even knew the kid's name.

It is that latter fact that should be argued by the prosecuter while the defense will try to argue the former.

Exactly --- the "prosecutor" in this hypothetical suit, has nothing to work with, QED. Nothing to "argue". And any attorney will gather that evidence before filing anything, otherwise they're going into battle unarmed. Which returns us right back to the point I made in the post above that you quoted, that being: in order to bring a libel suit, you must have actual evidence of libel. You can't just trot out Abigail Williams to whoop "he's a witch".

How much does it say about this lack of evidence that, after a full week of a wide-open challenge to find evidence of a supposed libel, which means somebody's reputation is tarnished in the PUBLIC mind, that no member of the public can think of any example thereof?

If I were the prosecuter, I would also argue that such an obviously corrupt press damages our democracy as well .

You actually think an attorney can sue, or even define, "the media". That's so cute in its cluelessness.

Pogo, honey, would you please let me know when you finally determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

TIA

Strangely worded concession speech, that ^^

 

[BlueGin]

They need to ask DC area law enforcement to file charges against Nathan Phillips for intimidation and possible hate crime charges as he targeted a young white boy and tried to incite violence. He wouldn’t have gotten in the face of a grown man in a MAGA hat.

Yep -- the malicious lies he told were quite intentional and intended to cause damage.

I would also like to see them going after that horrid Hollywood producer for inciting violence against a minor by saying it would please him to send the boy head first into a wood chi[p[per.

And the Middle School teacher and Kathy Griffin for encouraging the Mobs to Data Mine ...which led to death threats against a kid that wasn’t even there.

 

[Pogo]

It won't be successful. Most of the initial reports did not name the perpetrator.

He might get a token amount to buy himself a p*ssy hat.

Wood doesn't lose. He most likely sought this case out. There's no way the family could afford his retainer. You are WRONG.


I PREDICT AT LEAST $100M.

JO

Agreed. I'd bet this lawyer contacted the family and is only getting paid if he wins. This is a winner and he knows it.

Even if he doesn't win with this particular case, this is a spectacular opportunity to shift the laws in this attorney's primary field of interest, which means vastly more opportunities in the future. So yeah, for him this case is a winner, no matter what happens.

Depending on what the family actually wants out of the experience, could be for them, too.

He'll be unemployable because he will be a magnet for targeting by zealots.

I could see any number of strangers just walking up to two inches in front of his nose and staring him down with a stupid smirk on their face. When he finally goes "what the fuck dude?" they'd tell him "hey, I'm showing you "respect" --- right?".