INDICTED (INDICATED) #4 - Quadfecta! Perfecta? - Judge Scott McAfee - Georgia v. Trump ET AL - P01135809- Fani Willis

[Foggy]

Hear, hear. He is the Cheese Bro, and of course every truly evil conspiracy requires a cheese Bro, and that face? Fani indited him because he makes evvybuddy look guilty as Hell.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

The phonetic spelling is Cheez Bro.

[Luke]

The Gateway House of Boys won't stop harassing and putting Ruby Freeman and her daughters' life in danger. Ruby and Shaye filed a defamation claim against the Hoft Bros and TGP. But they won't stop.

The demand for retraction is too big to attach (5 pages) but it's here and worth reading: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-con ... 24bb4a616a

The case was Freeman et al. v. Hoft et al., No. 2122-CC09815-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct.). and it's CourtListener page is https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61 ... er_by=desc

But it was remanded and I can't find the docket for the Circuit Court. I'd appreciate it if somebody could find it because I'd like to add it to the Protopage.

41 Jun 6, 2022 OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 13], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 6/6/2022. (certified order and docket sheet sent to St. Louis City Circuit Court 6/6/2022)(JEB) (Entered: 06/06/2022)

The Hoft Bros should be jailed for continuing to peddle this bullshit and keep putting the ladies at risk. In the letter, the attorneys point out that ON THE GATEWAY PUNDIT SITE, in August a Best Comment was to hang them. How can they keep getting away with this?

Attorneys Representing Ruby Freeman And Shaye Moss Attack TGP, Jim And Joe Hoft – Professor And Attorney David Clements Responds
By Guest Contributor Sep. 2, 2023 3:00 pm

Obama attorneys running “Protect Democracy” are using lawfare in Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss’s case against The Gateway Pundit, Jim and Joe Hoft. This case is about eliminating free speech in America. When the Hoft brothers reported on the apparent actions Ruby and Shaye engaged in on Election night in 2020 in Fulton County, Georgia, the Obama gang at “Protect Democracy” was there to back them up and slander the Hoft brothers.

These attorneys are suing The Gateway Pundit, Jim, and Joe Hoft in a St. Louis court. Although Ruby and Shaye are from Georgia, the Obama attorneys at Protect Democracy must have thought the St. Louis court would give them the best chance to push through their BS case. They certainly should have known that Georgia’s Anti-SLAPP law would get in the way of a weak case.

On Thursday, the attorneys representing Ruby and Shaye sent a letter to Hofts’ attorneys complaining that Jim Hoft discussed the actions that Ruby and Shaye committed in Georgia on election night when Jim was recently on the War Room with Steve Bannon. These attorneys claim that only they own the truth. They base this on the corrupt Secretary of State in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, and his reports that Ruby and Shaye did nothing wrong. This is their reasoning for claiming the Hofts must be incorrect when reporting on Ruby and Shaye’s actions. They seem to believe that the only authority that we are permitted to rely on is an authority figure approved by “Protect Democracy.”

However, Raffensperger has no claim to the truth either. In fact, he lied to President Trump in a phone call after the election and then his team cut out pieces of the call to slander President Trump in the press. Raffensperger was the one who lied on the call with President Trump because he never shared with President Trump the hundreds of thousands of ballots identified in a Georgia Senate hearing led by a Georgia judge and Senator. He also never honestly addressed the tens of thousands of issues raised by President Trump’s auditor. He also never shared with the President the report from Fulton County that he obtained from a person he hired on election night confirming that the operations there were in total disarray.

The truth doesn’t matter to Raffensperger or the Obama gang. The letter from the attorneys representing Ruby and Shaye was discussed on Friday’s Joe Hoft Show on TNTRadio.

Here is the letter: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-con ... 24bb4a616a

At the 49:00 minute mark in the audio below from Friday’s Joe Hoft Show professor and attorney David Clements shared his response to the letter that Joe Hoft received from the gang of attorneys representing Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.

Joe Hoft shared:

Related to that I received a letter today from the attorneys representing Ruby and Shaye. And so what I am aware of was there were three cases that Ruby and Shaye filed claiming defamation. One was with OAN who settled in DC and can you blame them, it’s a DC court? They’re going to get an Obama judge and they’re going to lose. I mean, you might as well settle now, and that’s what they did.

Then you’re got Rudy’s case that I just mentioned and he’s now going to, I guess, some process where they’re going to decide how much of Rudy’s wealth he needs to give to Ruby and Shaye. And the third group is The Gateway Pundit and Jim and Joe Hoft.

And we received this letter from these attorneys today. They’re complaining that Jim had said a couple things about Ruby and Shaye and about the incident and that happened when he was on with Bannon recently and they’re asking that that stop. And, they claim that…it’s irresponsible, it’s defamation because it’s clearly been proven basically that Ruby and Shaye did nothing wrong. And that this is a disregard for the truth, and it’s a knowing publication of lies and its inflicting significant damage.

And then at the end of the article they find one nutjob out there who put a comment on The Gateway Pundit to one of Jim’s posts and the guys says “that that ghetto queen and the equally trashy daughter must hang”. We have no idea who that is. For all we know it’s a representative or an attorney from one of these firms. We just have no idea and Jim gets thousands and thousands of comments daily at The Gateway Pundit and they are suggesting, I guess, because of this one comment from an unknown person who we have no idea who they are or that they are part of the Deep State or part of the legal team that’s coming after us that this is getting dangerous.

This is their technique. I don’t know if they are related to this person or not, but this is the kind of stuff they are doing to us now, claiming this has all been debunked, that Ruby and Shaye clearly did nothing wrong that day (sarcasm). How would you respond to that?

► Show Spoiler

Professor Clements shared:

I love your instincts because they’ve done that same thing against me. What they’ll do is, you don’t know who’s posted the comment, you don’t know when they’d done it. I’ve had stories that were written that have been up for months and nothing can stop someone from even putting up a comment now.

But to somehow suggest that Jim is scouring the comments doing monitoring patrol? I mean the people that leave the comments are answerable for their own comments and that’s not Jim’s responsibility and it’s not yours. Now if you come across it and you can minimize it, you can do that. But you pointed out something, who’s to say that it’s not the legal team? Who’s to say that it’s not Antifa putting in this dangerous invective and then that’s how they go after Jim and Joe Hoft. So I’ve seen that. I think that that’s probably what happened.

But the reality is a settlement is the settlement for someone else’s case.

It has not been established in litigation with Gateway Pundit that Ruby Freeman has been exonerated from anything because they have not come to trial on the matter. They’re just giving their talking points. That has not been adjudicated in a court of law and just because someone settles it to make the headache go away doesn’t mean that Ruby Freeman is innocent. The video shows the exact opposite and I just hope that the Gateway Pundit and the Hoft brothers continue to fight for the truth.

You all have been the source for courage for many people to get the truth out there. The reality is this. No one should be saying anyone should be hung, that’s dangerous. But I will tell you my legal opinion after seeing what Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss did at 10:00 o’clock at night in the State Farm Building was akin to treason.*

When you start undermining our elections to that level, it’s the reason why we are in the hellscape that we are in today and the nation has not healed. So, where is their responsibility? Where is their culpability?

I don’t care about some anonymous comment. I want to talk about what we just mentioned. Why in the world were they resubmitting ballot, after ballot, after ballot in the dark of night? That’s what needs to be discussed. Not some settlement that’s basically deflecting the real issue in this matter and that’s their actions on election night in the dark of night should never happen.

*(Note that these comments are from Professor and attorney David Clements, and are not ours. Readers should make up their own minds, after doing their own research, as to who is being more forthcoming.)

Listen to the entire interview below starting at the 20-minute mark:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... ttack-tgp/

[RTH10260]

comment on Meadows by Michael Popok

[chancery]

Took me about 5 seconds to realize that this commentary on Meadows' testimony was likely to be a rehash of what's been said over the last few days.

Off Topic

Beats me why people think it's a good use of 14 minutes of their precious life to listen to a discussion the gist of which they could absorb in 15 seconds if presented in text.

[New Turtle]

Basically I just read what people post on the fogbow, then when I'm on youtube later that day or the next, I see those videos and 90% of them I already know the gist of what they are gonna be about.

[sugar magnolia]

He's probably sorry he ever heard of Georgia.

Donald Trump’s Mug Shot Merchandise Move May Cost Him His $7 Million Profit

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/ ... right-law/

[Dave from down under]

Copyright infringement

Go directly to court, do not collect $7m

[RTH10260]

While the mug shot may formally be copyright Fultom County cops, they are also a freely available public record. No one ever has charged the many organizations and websites that are collecting and diseminating booking information.

[Dave from down under]

Wouldn’t the decider be “fair use”?

Website that uses picture for public purpose of information as opposed to merchandise such as mugs etc.

And if the county hasn’t considered the distinction before - now would be a good time - even if it requires a court to decide the issue.

[sugar magnolia]

While the mug shot may formally be copyright Fultom County cops, they are also a freely available public record. No one ever has charged the many organizations and websites that are collecting and diseminating booking information.

Mugshots made by federal agencies are in the public domain, but that is not always true of other agencies. And once they "copied" it onto mugs and t-shirts it was infringement.

Where is Mike Dunford when we need him?

[Suranis]

I guess its when people are making money off them or using them for a Political campaign?

I dunno.

[sugar magnolia]

I guess its when people are making money off them or using them for a Political campaign?

I dunno.

Making money off of it, or use in a political campaign has nothing to do with infringement.

[keith]

I guess its when people are making money off them or using them for a Political campaign?

I dunno.

Making money off of it, or use in a political campaign has nothing to do with infringement.

Correct. It's theft of intellectual property.

[Sam the Centipede]

Correct. It's theft of intellectual property.

Hm. Referring to anything involving Donald Trump as "intellectual property" sets alarm bells ringing!

It will be fun if Trump's yeah go after people using the mugshot in a non-complimentary way: does the argument "we stole it first, it's ours now" have legal merit?

[much ado]

Correct. It's theft of intellectual property.

Hm. Referring to anything involving Donald Trump as "intellectual property" sets alarm bells ringing!

It will be fun if Trump's yeah go after people using the mugshot in a non-complimentary way: does the argument "we stole it first, it's ours now" have legal merit?

Nope.

[bill_g]

$7M in a week means he had a merch deal going before he stood in front of the camera. He's a pimp and a prostitute too.

[Sam the Centipede]

$7M in a week means he had a merch deal going before he stood in front of the camera. He's a pimp and a prostitute too.

That explains the powerful stare of a ytur Hero Of The People standing defiantly against oppressive dictators. What a guy!

Mohr srsly, it would be karmically comic if Ms Willis's team put a claim into the court along the lines of "that's our copyright, give us the green stuff you orange creeps" so Trump's fans ended up paying directly for his prosecution.

[sugar magnolia]

$7M in a week means he had a merch deal going before he stood in front of the camera. He's a pimp and a prostitute too.

That explains the powerful stare of a ytur Hero Of The People standing defiantly against oppressive dictators. What a guy!

Mohr srsly, it would be karmically comic if Ms Willis's team put a claim into the court along the lines of "that's our copyright, give us the green stuff you orange creeps" so Trump's fans ended up paying directly for his prosecution.

It's actually the sheriff's copyright, but they are under federal investigation for having a shitty jail. $7 million might get some of the more pressing problems taken care of.

[bob]

"Fair use" allows a person to use a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission.

Whether a use is "fair" would be measured by a court using a nebulous four-factor test.

If the use is commercial, that weighs against a fair use, but it isn't dispositive.

[somerset]

"Fair use" allows a person to use a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission.

Whether a use is "fair" would be measured by a court using a nebulous four-factor test.

If the use is commercial, that weighs against a fair use, but it isn't dispositive.

In the case of a photograph or a person (or people), doesn't the subject of the photograph also retain a right to the image? Or would an arrest act as a "model release," giving full copyright ownership to the photographing agency?

[Volkonski]

Fani Willis shoots down Georgia fake elector’s removal motion

https://www.rawstory.com/fani-willis-fake-electors/

Shawn Still, who is among 19 co-defendants along with former President Donald Trump indicted in the Georgia election conspiracy case, has sought to have his case tried in federal court.

Still was among 16 Georgia Republicans who prosecutors allege falsely signed a certificate in which they declared themselves the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors. He was a candidate elected to the state Senate last year.
Still’s lawyers argued in court filings, “In that role, Mr. Still was, or was acting under, an officer of the United States.”



Willis in court filings on Tuesday sought to remand Still to state court, according to court documents obtained by National Public Radio reporter Stephen Fowler.

Willis said: “Defendant Shawn Micah Thresher Still has asked this Court to remove his criminal case from the Superior Court of Fulton County to the Northern District of Georgia based on the improbable theory that he—a private citizen with no federal role, acting at the direction of the losing Trump presidential campaign—is entitled to removal as a 'federal official.'"

Willis explained, Still, "fails to clear even the initial hurdle—establishing that he at any time met the definition of 'federal official.' Defendant and his fellow fraudulent electors conspired in a scheme to impersonate true Georgia presidential electors; their fiction is not entitled to recognition by this Court. Because he cannot meet any of the requirements to achieve removal, the State of Georgia respectfully requests that this Court remand the case to the Superior Court of Fulton County.”

At another point in her Sept. 5 brief, Willis explained "Impersonating certified presidential electors in service to a political campaign cannot be seriously within the scope of any federal role."

[bob]

In the case of a photograph or a person (or people), doesn't the subject of the photograph also retain a right to the image? Or would an arrest act as a "model release," giving full copyright ownership to the photographing agency?

That's different. For photographs, the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph.

The photograph's subject (aka the model) in many jurisdictions has rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right to control how their likeness is used (aka personality rights). These can waived (usually in exchange for compensation).

So this prisoner might be able to go after others who use his likeness without his permission. But being the subject of the photograph doesn't provide any special benefit for copyright purposes.

Given the prevalence of Florida Man articles, I assume those jurisdictions have ruled being arrested is essentially a public act, i.e., no expectation of privacy attaches to it.

[Reality Check]

Hearing today before Judge McAfee on the motions to sever. This calendar entry has the YouTube link:

https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ev ... google.com

[somerset]

In the case of a photograph or a person (or people), doesn't the subject of the photograph also retain a right to the image? Or would an arrest act as a "model release," giving full copyright ownership to the photographing agency?

That's different. For photographs, the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph.

The photograph's subject (aka the model) in many jurisdictions has rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right to control how their likeness is used (aka personality rights). These can waived (usually in exchange for compensation).

So this prisoner might be able to go after others who use his likeness without his permission. But being the subject of the photograph doesn't provide any special benefit for copyright purposes.

Given the prevalence of Florida Man articles, I assume those jurisdictions have ruled being arrested is essentially a public act, i.e., no expectation of privacy attaches to it.

Thanks bob!