Posted on 01/06/2023 9:53:48 AM PST by Red Badger
Anything goes...Just say whatever ya want and claim it as fact.
A question such as “Were you the spouse or immediate family member of the victim at the time of the incident?” should stop some of these gold-digging lawsuits before they go to court.
Suit was filed in the District of Columbia so this hag and her lawyer are probably counting on some go-away money.
Wonder who’s funding this?
Funding it and put her up to it, telling her that they’d take care of her. She’ll be fine.
How does she have STANDING if she isn’t a wife or blood relative?
They got his taxes and got nothing. Everything they’ve tried has failed.
Well, she might be messing with the wrong bull. This case gets tossed and he drops a $20mil Defamation suit on her. I bet they didn’t tell her about that possibility.
How about Nancy pelosi and Kamala Harris who supported all the killings of the police?
When do they get sued?
There’s a good thread on Twitchy from a reporter who was there throughout and watched Ashley Babbit get murdered
Sheds a whole new light on the chronology and events of that day
And guess what, the Sham Committee refused his testimony
How does a girlfriend have legal standing to bring a lawsuit?
Why doesn’t this broad sue Ray Epps and the rest of the Eff Bee Eye instigators?
I may be wrong on this but I believe under Italian law, if you bring suit against a person or business and lose, you pay all court costs and all legal fees incurred by the person/business you attempted to sue. I would think the purpose of that law is to dissuade frivolous lawsuits. U.S. trial lawyers and the politicians they own would never tolerate anything that gets between them and their lawsuits aka $$$. We in the U.S. can counter-sue but I think anti-frivolous lawsuit laws make more sense. I also know our trial lawyers would never tolerate such a change.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - William Shakespeare
There is no way any court should let this case proceed. Period.
Despite your creative suggestions, nothing short of plaintiff’s and her lawyer public dismemberment would be sufficient…
No, that was when Nancy's police were given instructions to fire tear gas and pepper spray at the peaceful part of the crowd.
I think Sicknick might have been murdered by the deep state. He was falsely reported as having died earlier, these reports were then corrected, and then he died. (”Sorry we jumped the gun on reports of his death.”) The false narrative that he died of injuries ran like wildfire, even despite concurrent stories that he wasn’t injured, including his own tweet. His body was cremated (preventing any future investigation) and then he was given an extremely rare ceremonial burial in the Capitol, under false pretenses. Then, much hay was made of his death, to the detriment of J6 people and Trump, and to the advantage of rats and the deep state, again under false pretenses. It was awfully convenient they had their “victim”. They probably needed that victim.
This kind of crap will continue until the sock merchants (NYC slang for low rent lawyers) that bring these bull shiite cases are disbarred.
Will happen? Not likely everywhere but very possible in some areas.
The Free State of Florida comes to mind.
And the judge who let it go to trial should be disbarred.
Somewhere, the “timeline” of their relationship was released showing they had not been together as “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” since 2019......and he died in 2021. His death was NOT listed as a homicide, it was ruled as the result of a stroke on the death certificate or something similar, I believe......
The rules for Article III standing took their current form in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The case involved a challenge by an environmental organization to federal regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act. In ruling against the plaintiff, the Supreme Court identified a three-part test for establishing standing in federal court. A plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of the test.
1. Injury in Fact
A plaintiff must have suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that meets two additional criteria: (1) it is “concrete and particularized”; and (2) it is “actual or imminent,” as opposed to “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. It does not need to be an economic injury, but it needs to be something that has directly affected the plaintiff.
2. Causation
The plaintiff’s injury must be “fairly traceable” to the conduct that is the subject of the lawsuit. Id. It cannot have resulted from actions by someone who is not a party to the lawsuit.
3. Likelihood of Redress
A decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be likely to provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court specified that “redress[] by a favorable decision” must be “likely,” rather than “merely speculative.” Id. at 561.
She may have standing because if they lived together and he was the breadwinner of the household, she may have suffered a concrete and actual economic injury. I am not saying this because I support her suit (frankly, I believe its crap factually and there is no direct or proximate cause between DJT's actions and the injury complained of)
Women dont like their personal atm’s and security/maintenance people taken away from them.
Will be thrown out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.