Posted on 12/25/2021 10:17:03 AM PST by Navy Patriot
A New York state judge on Friday ordered the New York Times to return internal documents to the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections.
In an unusual written ruling, Justice Charles Wood of the Westchester County Supreme Court directed the New York Times to return to Project Veritas any physical copies of legal memos prepared by one of the group's lawyers, and to destroy electronic versions.
Wood had entered a temporary order against the New York Times last month, drawing criticism from freedom of the press advocates.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Won’t matter..Project Veritas can use this against the NYTIMES in court..They can remind jurors and the judge if they let times get away with this,then it must be okay to do it to them and their families....Bring up the fact they received stolen property and then published it...
How did they get the memos in the first place?
And thw new york times announces it lost the internal memo in 3....2....1....
The Times stole them.
Media: You cannot steal from us what we rightfully stole from others.
There is no deeper, more slimy, or more noxious refuse than a modern journalist.
Zip, zero, nada.
It’s been reported that the fbi leaked the docs to the ny times after their raid on project veritas. We need to reimagine our federal law enforcement agency. Time to defund the fbi
If I’m the jury, the award to Project Veritas will be the business, printing presses and all.
NYT under new management.
I thought the FBI ‘gave’ it to them
Judge shopping on appeal is nearly impossible: Under NY law, any appeal from Judge Wood's decision must go to a randomly appointed, five-judge panel sitting in the Appellate Division Second Department. Although each of the four appellate divisions are mostly filled with libtard judges (thanks to 10 years of Cuomo making the appointments), the 2nd Department, which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, and the Hudson Valley, tends to be slightly less libtard than the First Department, which covers Manhattan and the Bronx.
FYI: I have appeared many times and have tried several cases before Judge Wood. He is an excellent judge, and while he was elected as a Republican-Conservative, his decisions are not blatantly political. The only bias that I have ever observed is that he is, sadly, a rabid Dallas Cowboys fan.
Here is a link to the court’s decision and order:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=SgQ8IEENXxhU2D4NlHEZHw==
History: Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden, kept a diary. In it, she recorded sexual abuse and "inappropriate showers" with Joe Biden.
Ashley also had drug and emotional problems and resided at several locations with friends an acquaintances.
When she moved from one of these locations, she abandoned that diary.
The diary was retrieved from that former residence, not stolen from Ashley.
The contents was revealed and copied.
Project Veritas found out about the diary, it's contents and received a copy.
Upon learning of the disclosure of the diary the Biden machine claimed it was stolen, a forgery, all lies, the usual coverup narrative, and sicced the FBI on everyone.
Project Veritas had some internal discussion with their legal staff regarding their response to FBI accusations.
The Times infiltrated and STOLE the contents of those privileged communications.
Now the Times must return and destroy those copies of Veritas communications.
I slighted the New York Slimes.
Did the judge ask NYT’s lawyers to destroy their digital copies? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The FBI, aka the sword and shield of the democrat party.
They have that now, so returning is irrelevant, although there may be consequences if the NYT tries using the material in the future. (You know they will keep a copy)
I hope that Veritas dusts those memos for fingerprints, hopefully identifying who leaked them in the first place.
re: “any appeal from Judge Wood’s decision must go to a randomly appointed, five-judge panel”
Lots cast or straws drawn?
Or it isn’t random.
a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections?
What about Veritus’ First Amendment protections?
First Amendment applies to ‘prior restraint’. That doesn’t include ‘after the fact’ determinations of impropriety or illegality.
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.