Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rktman

Def’s motion is a standard D motion to dismiss.

It has some legal merit in this case.

Def’s are asking court to declare that an act of editing, so as the final broadcast element does not truly reflect events as they occur, so as to make Plaintiffs appear less favorable, does not rise to the same legal statutory standard level under applicable state law as making an actual statement about them that is defamatory and untrue.

As much as I hate what Katie C did, it is a meritorious motion. Whatever the court decides will be appealed.

Remember, never expect the law to be logical.


21 posted on 12/03/2016 12:46:38 PM PST by Strac6 (Sig Sauer, Pilatus, Mrs. Strac... all the fun things in my life are Swiss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Strac6

Here’s the Complaint:
https://www.scribd.com/document/324716805/Virginia-Citizens-Defense-League-v-Katie-Couric-et-al-Defamation-Complaint

I haven’t seen the motion to dismiss but suspect it was a standard allegation that the complaint failed to state grounds upon which relief could be granted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12

From what little I know of the matter, it looks like Kate and her employer and eventually going to cut the plaintiff a nice fat check.
This may be the only way to curb the MSM. Sue the b*******s.


22 posted on 12/03/2016 1:46:29 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers, all arsmed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson