Fogbow

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:01 pm Moot means the cows can't make a sound.

I thought that was myoooot

You're right!!!!!

Judge Orders Employees at Devin Nunes Family’s Dairy Farm to Produce Citizenship Documents Following Attorney’s ‘Puzzling and Troubling’ Explanation About Deposition ‘Behavior’

Steven Biss is being a very bad boy.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-o ... -behavior/

woodworker wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:23 pm Judge Orders Employees at Devin Nunes Family’s Dairy Farm to Produce Citizenship Documents Following Attorney’s ‘Puzzling and Troubling’ Explanation About Deposition ‘Behavior’

Steven Biss is being a very bad boy.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-o ... ruling.pdf

What happens if, before the next deposition takes place, all of the witnesses (who are almost certainly undocumented or unauthorized aliens working on the Nunes farm) disappear and are unavailable? I would expect they now know what questions are going to be asked during the depo, and they won't believe Bliss' assurances that they won't be subject to immigration action afterwards. If I were in their shoes, I know I'd be looking at new employment somewhere other than Iowa.

What would happen to the Nunes farm defamation case if this happens? Would it be considered prima facie evidence that the farm does in fact employ undocumented or unauthorized workers, damaging the plaintiff's case? Or would the lack of evidence (since the "evidence" ran away) damage the defense, because they can't show proof that the farm knowingly employed undocumented or unauthorized workers?

somerset wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:41 pmWhat happens if, before the next deposition takes place, all of the witnesses (who are almost certainly undocumented or unauthorized aliens working on the Nunes farm) disappear and are unavailable? I would expect they now know what questions are going to be asked during the depo, and they won't believe Bliss' assurances that they won't be subject to immigration action afterwards. If I were in their shoes, I know I'd be looking at new employment somewhere other than Iowa.

What would happen to the Nunes farm defamation case if this happens? Would it be considered prima facie evidence that the farm does in fact employ undocumented or unauthorized workers, damaging the plaintiff's case? Or would the lack of evidence (since the "evidence" ran away) damage the defense, because they can't show proof that the farm knowingly employed undocumented or unauthorized workers?

As always, "it depends."

There are too many possibilities/tactics to give a tidy answer. But, in general, the burden of proof starts on Nunes because he filed the lawsuit. If Nunes claims that the defendants' reporting on the farm's workers was false, then he has the burden of proving that falsity.*

Now, if the best evidence isn't available, Nunes likely will provide other, less persuasive evidence. How that shakes out, and whether that would be enough to survive the defendants' motion for summary judgment, is difficult to predict without knowing more.

Too also: Nunes is entitled to ask the defendants for the evidence they relied on when they wrote the articles. But, presumably, they have more than the untranscribed word of some unnamed person.


* And, of course, with SLAPP suits the goal isn't to win but to make it too painful for the defendants to defend.

Thanks bob! Always appreciate your insight

Wouldn't it have been something if my friend wasn't excused from jury duty for that Court and managed to sit for that case.

Devin is Judge Shopping. Suing NBC & Rachel Maddow in Texas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... meared-him

Maddow will chew him up and spit him out.

WTF is the basis for jurisdiction and venue in Texas?

notorial dissent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:53 pm Maddow's lawyers will chew him up and spit him out.

FIFY

woodworker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:49 pm WTF is the basis for jurisdiction and venue in Texas?

Pffft! This is all about finding a friendly Judge. Sherman is hard to get to from any of the big cities in Texas so I'm guessing the literal forum non conveniens of Sherman also had a hand in this. Looking for their Andy Hanen, no doubt.

filly wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:29 pmPffft! This is all about finding a friendly Judge. Sherman is hard to get to from any of the big cities in Texas so I'm guessing the literal forum non conveniens of Sherman also had a hand in this. Looking for their Andy Hanen, no doubt.

Mazzant, an Obama nominee, caught the case. (Mazzant also is the only judge stationed in Sherman.)

As for venue, per the complaint:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity). The parties are citizens of different States. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

MSNBC is at home in Texas and is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Texas.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2). MSBNC is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. The Statements were intentionally broadcast and republished throughout Texas, including in the Eastern District, where Plaintiff suffered substantial injury.

"For the record," NBC is incorporated in Deleware and primarily does business in New York.

Thanks bob! So why on earth did it get filed there if the only federal judge in Sherman is an Obama appointee? The stupid , it burns!

filly wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:41 pmSo why on earth did it get filed there if the only federal judge in Sherman is an Obama appointee?

Good question! Mazzant has made some arguably conservative-friendly rulings, but that's a big roll of the dice.

The judge in his defamation case against the Washington Post green-lighted going forward with discovery in the defamation angle of his complaint. I gather that the judge dismissed the negligence angle.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AANfl7N

So, me and Dev are email buddies. He sent an email over the weekend extolling his victory in court. His email read in part, "It's a major victory in my longstanding efforts to hold the mainstream media accountable for spreading false information."

That statement was just a tad too much to leave alone. I responded to him earlier today in an email. I don't know how to paste what I wrote but the gist was as follows:

I started off by saying that if indeed he was defamed then by all means get what is just and proper for not only yourself but also for others in similar situations. Then I went on to point out correctly that he regularly appears on Faux News. Faux News, among others, has been sued for defamation by Dominion and Smartmatic and was primarily responsible for fabricating The Big Lie. I added that he also voted not to certify the Electoral College votes in Arizona and Pennsylvania on January 6. I asked him how he reconciles alleged false information advanced by left-leaning media as opposed to right-leaning media. I stated that at worst his beliefs were hypocritical and at best merely self-serving. I concluded my note to him to start focusing on issues and needs for your constituents and the nation as a whole, and quit griping about petty grievances and clinging rigidly to partisan politics.

It won't gain any traction, but my wife and I felt better!

The shell of the nut:

MSN wrote:A reasonable juror could conclude that there is a material difference between stating that Nunes had made a claim supported by evidence (that the Obama administration had undertaken intelligence activities related to individuals involved in the Trump campaign) and stating that Nunes had made a baseless claim (that the Obama administration had wiretapped Trump Tower). A reasonable juror could therefore conclude that the article was materially false because it stated that Nunes had made such a baseless claim (when he had not).

A poorly redacted court filing this week inadvertently revealed deposition testimony from Rep. Devin Nunes and his family members.

They were questioned about who was funding their lawsuit against Esquire magazine and journalist Ryan Lizza.

using black as colour for highlighting does visually make black text go "invisible" while the source code of the text still remains in the file

Or just copy text and reject all changes in track changes. If posted left track changes on, easy peasy to reverse. Happens all the time with lawyers who are too arrogant (or cheap) to give to a competent word processor. You need to save with track changes off, then save to a new document -- that document will not reverse.

Or just create a PDF and use a good PDF editor (Adobe Pro, Nitro Pro) to redact. They have the real redaction tool.

slq wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:33 am Or just create a PDF and use a good PDF editor (Adobe Pro, Nitro Pro) to redact. They have the real redaction tool.

Even that’s not foolproof. In Acrobat Pro there are specific steps you have to take, and your document might look like it’s fully redacted but it’s not. I get redacted .pdfs fairly frequently, and I can sometimes “see” under the redaction by selecting and copying the redacted text and pasting it to a blank document.

NEW: Appeals court ruling nixes Rep. Nunes’ suit over 2018 Esquire article on his family & Iowa, but says reporter Lizza may be on hook for tweeting out his story after Nunes sued. Anyone RTing any story they know is disputed could be liable, per 8th Cir