TRL, hope Fox News appreciates our warm wishes for Hearing Day. 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busin ... 235354193/So, much of the debate centers on whether Fox News was merely reporting on newsworthy events or if it was endorsing lies about Dominion pushed by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell by continuing to air them after becoming aware that they were false. “The amount of facts that they have that show that Fox executives, producers and hosts all subjectively believed that these claims about Dominion and the election were false — using words like ‘nuts’ — that’s pretty unusual,” says Fallow. “If Fox were to be held liable based on this level of facts I don’t think it would create a bad precedent for other news organizations.”
Media law specialist Daniel Novack isn’t so sure. “As a media lawyer, I’m worried about the neutral report privilege getting stomped on,” he says, pointing to an adage that bad facts create bad law. “It’s extremely irritating to watch Fox cloak itself in neutral reportage and First Amendment protections when this has the potential to destroy those protections because the facts are so bad.”
Loyola Law School professor Aaron Caplan sees it a different way. “There are some cases that are important because they might change the law, and there are others that are important because of what happened,” he says. “I don’t think this Fox case is going to change the law any. What’s important about it is the underlying facts. Getting the truth about the election is tremendously important, getting the information about the machines our country uses for elections is important, whether one of our major news networks routinely lies is important. I think the facts of the case are important and that’s why there’s attention being paid to it.”
But, based on how disputes of this nature usually go, there’s a solid chance there won’t be a definitive finding either way. “Most civil cases between two corporations end up settling before trial,” says Caplan. “Most corporations would rather know for sure it’s going to be X dollars than take the risk that it might be $1.6 billion. It’s a business judgment about how much risk they want to take and how much money they have on hand.”
So, why hasn’t this fight settled? Surmises Fallow, “I assume that it hasn’t settled yet because they’re waiting to see how the judge rules on the motion for summary judgment.” The ruling could give one side or the other more leverage and affect how much money is on the table. Experts think it’s unlikely that either Fox News or Dominion will prevail on its motion for summary judgement, but are eager to see what judge Eric M. Davis says in a Tuesday hearing in Delaware Superior Court. “I don’t think either side is going to win their motion,” says Novack. “I’m expecting this to go to trial if nobody blinks and settles.”
But, Novack thinks ultimately Fox will write a check to avoid a trial, which is currently set to begin April 17. “There is an obvious endgame here,” he says, “and is it to settle for a few hundred million dollars and walk away and never discuss it again.”
s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
When an attorney represents a corporation, the attorney has to speak to corporate employees to learn the facts, but the corporation is the client and has the right to assert or waive the privilege. Before talking to an employee, the lawyer is supposed to inform the employee that: (1) the corporation, not the employee, is represented by the attorney; (2) the employee cannot disclose the communications without the corporation's consent; but (3) the corporation can later choose to disclose the communications without the employee's consent; and (4) the employee is entitled to have their own personal attorney represent them. (When I was in practice, we used to call this speech the "corporate Miranda warning.")p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:47 am So, regarding Fox's TRO aimed at Abby Grossberg and her revalations vis a vis Fox influencing her testimony...
The FOX TRO states this on p. 6:
Screen Shot 2023-03-21 at 10.37.46 AM.png
Can someone please explain what they mean by "They also explained that the sessions were subject to the attorney-client privilege and must be kept confidential."
It has been drilled into we IANALs that 1) it is the client that has the right to a-t privilege, and thus the right to waive it, and 2) they just finished saying that she was not their client. So what is going on?
Thanks! So am I correct in reading this situation that: Fox told Grossberg some things that were privileged (presumably not things about her, but about the running of the company or other personnel?), and Grossberg is telling those things (either to the pulblic or to the court in the Dominion case), and Fox is saying that what she is a violation?Dr. Caligari wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:14 pmWhen an attorney represents a corporation, the attorney has to speak to corporate employees to learn the facts, but the corporation is the client and has the right to assert or waive the privilege. Before talking to an employee, the lawyer is supposed to inform the employee that: (1) the corporation, not the employee, is represented by the attorney; (2) the employee cannot disclose the communications without the corporation's consent; but (3) the corporation can later choose to disclose the communications without the employee's consent; and (4) the employee is entitled to have their own personal attorney represent them. (When I was in practice, we used to call this speech the "corporate Miranda warning.")p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:47 am So, regarding Fox's TRO aimed at Abby Grossberg and her revalations vis a vis Fox influencing her testimony...
The FOX TRO states this on p. 6:
Screen Shot 2023-03-21 at 10.37.46 AM.png
Can someone please explain what they mean by "They also explained that the sessions were subject to the attorney-client privilege and must be kept confidential."
It has been drilled into we IANALs that 1) it is the client that has the right to a-t privilege, and thus the right to waive it, and 2) they just finished saying that she was not their client. So what is going on?
Fox News and Dominion face off in $1.6bn defamation fight in court
The voting machine company is suing the news channel over its disingenuous coverage of various outlandish election claims
Sam Levine
Tue 21 Mar 2023 21.32 GMT
Lawyers for Fox News and the voting equipment company Dominion faced off in a Delaware courtroom on Tuesday in the latest phase of Dominion’s closely watched $1.6bn defamation suit against the media company for spreading election lies.
Both sides offered dueling narratives of Fox’s liability for spreading false information. The network presented outlandish claims about Dominion while knowing it was false, lawyers for Dominion said. Fox’s lawyers, by contrast, said that the network was merely airing newsworthy claims by the former president that any reasonable viewer would have understood to be allegations. The judge overseeing the case unexpectedly extended the hearing to Wednesday to give both sides more time to make their case.
Erin Murphy, a lawyer representing Fox, also said that the network would not try and prove that the outlandish claims about Dominion rigging the 2020 were true as part of its defense.
The case has attracted much attention because it represents one of the most aggressive efforts to hold any party accountable for spreading election misinformation in the United States, when Donald Trump attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. His lies included baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines.
Court filings leading up to the hearing have produced stunning internal messages showing that prominent Fox hosts, including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, privately doubted the far-fetched allegations about Dominion even as the network continued to air them.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ ... suit-court
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/20 ... n-lawsuit/Judge sounds skeptical of some Fox arguments in Dominion lawsuit
Judge Eric M. Davis pushed back on assertions from both sides in Dominion’s libel lawsuit against Fox News, but he seemed particularly skeptical of the network’s claims
By Jeremy Barr March 21, 2023 at 7:21 p.m. EDT
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge threw cold water on some arguments made by a lawyer representing Fox News on Tuesday, less than a month before a trial is expected to begin in Dominion Voting System’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the network. As both Fox and Dominion made their arguments for summary judgment and pleaded for an early victory that might preclude a jury trial, Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis pushed back on assertions from both sides during the day-long hearing. But the judge seemed particularly skeptical of Fox’s claims that its hosts were merely voicing opinions — not asserting false facts — when they suggested to viewers that Dominion may have manufactured fraudulent votes for Joe Biden in the 2020 election. “That sounds like a statement of fact, and we know that’s not true,” Davis said at one point during Fox’s presentation, referring to a Nov. 30, 2020, show in which Sean Hannity suggested Democrats and Republicans both agreed Dominion’s voting machines were subpar.
He seemed equally dubious when Fox argued that another host — Jeanine Pirro — did not defame Dominion when she told viewers the same month that “for the sake of our Republic, we have an obligation to get honest and truthful answers” about Dominion, which allies of President Donald Trump were claiming at the time was part of a conspiracy to steal the election. Internal documents revealed during the lawsuit show that Fox’s researchers had concluded such claims were meritless. “How can that be neutral?” the judge asked Fox attorney Erin E. Murphy. “That last statement makes it sound like she [Pirro] has no knowledge one way or the other that Dominion had an algorithm that flipped [votes].” Davis also said during the hearing that Fox has “a Dobbs problem sometimes,”referencing former Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs and his suggestions that Dominion was engaged in mass voter fraud.
Murphy argued to the judge that Fox’s hosts and guests did not originate the allegations of election fraud, while suggesting the network would not focus during the trial on trying to prove they were true. “The media doesn’t want to talk about where these allegations are coming from,” she said. She also argued Fox does not claim to have “scot-free” immunity for comments it broadcast about Dominion. But, she said, a “reasonable viewer” would understand that Fox was simply sharing allegations by newsworthy individuals — not endorsing their accuracy. Davis asked whether she meant “a reasonable viewer of Fox” or a reasonable viewer in general.
The judge’s comments didn’t lean entirely in Dominion’s favor. “People can’t believe opinions? They can only believe facts?” Davis asked skeptically after a company lawyer argued that Fox had misled its viewers into believing false statements of fact that damaged Dominion’s business. The judge did not issue any rulings by the end of the hearing and will take the arguments up again Wednesday. While he is not expected to throw out the case entirely, he could narrow the scope of the lawsuit. A trial is scheduled to begin April 17 and last five or six weeks. The judge also mentioned that he has been assigned a lawsuit that is connected to the case, though he did not divulge any details. On Monday, a Fox News producer, Abby Grossberg, filed a suit in Delaware alleging that Fox lawyers coached her to make misleading statements when she was deposed in the defamation suit to help the company shift blame.
Separately on Monday, Fox filed a motion arguing that top executives Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch, as well as corporate board member and former House speaker Paul D. Ryan, should not have to appear before a potential jury, citing “the hardships on those witnesses” and arguing that such live testimony “will add nothing other than media interest.”
s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAgDoes Fox have any of those?any reasonable viewer would have understood to be allegations.
Rupert may claim age, but what hardship would Lachlan face? Or Ryan?Separately on Monday, Fox filed a motion arguing that top executives Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch, as well as corporate board member and former House speaker Paul D. Ryan, should not have to appear before a potential jury, citing “the hardships on those witnesses” and arguing that such live testimony “will add nothing other than media interest.”
this week. Fox News: The invention of reality
The ultra-conservative media outlet is embroiled in a serious defamation process. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the mentality of its delusional propagandists likely won’t be affected
I have written “genuine North Americans” – but the expression Carlson uses is more interesting: legacy Americans. It will be necessary to see what that means in a country made precisely by people coming from distant lands.
Since the election that Biden won, these opinion-makers – Carlson in the lead – have defended the conspiracy theory of stolen elections on air. On Fox, it was suggested that the company that owns the 2020 election’s vote-counting machines – Dominion – used software that manipulated the count. The company has subsequently sued the outlet for defamation.
Today, as part of the trial, certain text messages – in which journalists say very different things in private from what they say in public – have come to light. The hypocrisy is so flagrant that, just a few days ago – speaking under oath – the big boss, Rupert Murdoch, accepted that his journalists had defended the theory of stolen elections knowing that it was a lie. He also acknowledged that he preferred to do nothing – he didn’t want to lose his pro-Trump audience, which is unappreciative of information that does not coincide with their views.
I don’t know what will be the result of the trial – but the scandal doesn’t seem to have really affected the mindset of Fox News’ delusional propagandists. This month, Carlson pushed the borders of alternate reality: while speaking about the January 6 attack on the Capitol, he reviewed the recordings of the security cameras. He deliberately chose clips where the violent acts were not seen. Rather, he played images of the men and women walking through the corridors and taking photos, concluding that what happened on January 6 was not really an attack – as the lying Democrats would have us believe – but a peaceful demonstration.
We haven’t seen a more cynical attempt to distort the facts since early 2017, when Sean Spicer – the former White House press secretary – claimed that Trump’s inauguration was the most attended in history. The aerial photos made it possible to compare the ceremony with Obama’s and show that this wasn’t true… but it never really mattered. Reality was not what was seen; rather, it was what the Republicans wanted to see.
Why Dominion is already the winner of the $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox News
Sam Levine in Wilmington
Thu 23 Mar 2023 09.00 GMT
As Fox News continued to broadcast lies about Dominion voting systems and the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson, one of its star hosts used one word over and over to describe what the network was doing – “reckless”.
Those messages were the first pieces of evidence Justin Nelson, a lawyer representing Dominion, displayed on Tuesday as he began his argument for why a judge should rule the network defamed his client. “Reckless was a meaningful word” – in order to win the case, Nelson has to prove that Fox acted with “actual malice” – that its hosts, producers and executives knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard to the truth.
“Unlike every other single defamation case, we have in their own words the fact that they knew it was false,” Nelson said.
It was an example that illustrated how the core of Dominion’s $1.6bn case against Fox are the words that came from the mouths of Fox’s employees. Regardless of what happens in the case going forward, Dominion may have already won: the messages offer a significant historical record of how top officials at one of America’s most powerful media organization aired information they knew was false when American democracy was under attack.
The case has received an extraordinary amount of public attention and represents one of the most aggressive efforts to hold a party accountable for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the violent insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... uit-winner
There are more parties than just Fox.orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:45 pm
End of a story in the Hollywood Reporter about Fox and Dominion settling after today (believing nobody will win on Summary Judgment):
I'm skeptical Dominion is playing for a few hundred million in a confidential settlement to "never discuss it again", but anything is possible I guess if enough money is involved. Didn't Stern call that seeing Mr. Green?
Civil courst don't "convict" anyone.
X 4
X 33Philly Boondoggle 
