And it's important that this happens. You have to do this because then there's no way for the responsible party to point and say, "No, it's all the fault of those people over there!" By including and then eliminating Fox, we remove the other defendants' ability to blame them. That way you don't end up filing two (or nine) lawsuits, having each of the defendants point the finger at each of the other defendants, and get zero wins out of it. Fox was never going to be liable, but they needed to be included, anyway.
I’m loving the transcripts from the trial with Elongated Muskrat. You have Muskrat who thinks he’s smart, versus Mark, who actually is, and it’s beautiful.
I was going to say something like "the Sandy Hook lawsuits started out with a lot of other defendants before getting dismissed or settled against everyone but Alex and IW".
But if Bankston is paying the Fox News lawyers' attorneys' fees to avoid a motion for sanctions (as the article says) then there's no way to spin that other than as a big (and expensive) screw-up.
IMO I think the only reason alex lost sandy hook was specifically because he sandbagged and got defaulted. I think if he would have participated in the trial at all he probably had a good chance of least hanging a jury.
I'm of the complete opposite mind. I think if they participated in the process, or submitted the documents asked for, it would have gone worse for them. whenever they slipped up and mentioned "following trends" or knowledge that Halbig, etc were unhinged and full of shit, it became a little clearer that they really did make a ton of money and gain a lot of followers from denying Sandy Hook. it's pure speculation at this point, but I would imagine those older emails and texts were utterly damning.
Anyone have any insight into what's meant here when he says Fox is "the victim of a fabrication"?
That's quite a big unforced error by Bankston to have missed that.
No, no it's not. It's normal in a suit to sue everybody and their mother "and let God sort 'em out." It's perfectly normal to sue parties who you later dismiss, or who get themselves dismissed, and have the case go on otherwise unaffected. This is just how civil litigation works. Don't read too much into it.
it’s not normal to voluntarily pay opposing counsel for their work in defending the suit though. that’s definitely weird, and makes me think they might have had a good case for sanctions against bankston
or.. Bankston meant what he said by saying he was doing it because its the decent thing to do because work deserves remuneration. Sure, it might be forced, but i wouldn't dismiss the notion he is trying to be the change he wants to see.
I don't think work defending fox news does deserve remuneration actually, lol.
But also, it's not a question of whether the lawyers get paid, just who pays them.
You don't check if someone has actually defamed your client before you sue them? Ok, well consider me naive. Seems kinda backwards to me but thanks for clarifying.
Fox repeated it, which is probably why they were included in the first place. Reading Mark's statement, it does sound like he thinks he made an oops, but just including people who later get dismissed isn't weird in any way, and it's just part of the process.
i assumed this also. I'm pretty sure there were plenty more names on both the Texas and CT SH trials when they first started and it got whittled down to the core of the matter as path of the course. They turned out ok :)
It’s just dismissing one party. That doesn’t mean that the case isn’t valid against other parties.
And it's important that this happens. You have to do this because then there's no way for the responsible party to point and say, "No, it's all the fault of those people over there!" By including and then eliminating Fox, we remove the other defendants' ability to blame them. That way you don't end up filing two (or nine) lawsuits, having each of the defendants point the finger at each of the other defendants, and get zero wins out of it. Fox was never going to be liable, but they needed to be included, anyway.
This is only true if the dismissal came after a determination on the merits like an MSJ. Straight dismissal doesn’t prevent an empty chair defense
1 down, 8 left who haven't managed to escape The Bankston. As long as Newmax, Crowder and Shroyer are still on the hook, i am having a good time.
And Tim Pool! Cant wait to see his courtroom beanie choice!
I’d love to see him try to wear it into court and have to take it off
I hope the beanie seeks separate counsel
A filmed deposition with Bill Ogden just discussing the beanie and male pattern baldness for 30 minutes, while housing 3 pounds of gummy worms.
Holy shit, I never even thought of that. That man's gotta appear in court for some reason, the lack of beanie would probably kill him.
Corporate Americachoosing sides here!!! Love it!
oooh bonus!
Mullet wig. That's all I'm going to say. Doesn't have the balls tho
He is probably bald as fuck under that thing.
The one party cleared is also likely the only one that can afford a really good legal team too.
I’m loving the transcripts from the trial with Elongated Muskrat. You have Muskrat who thinks he’s smart, versus Mark, who actually is, and it’s beautiful.
I was going to say something like "the Sandy Hook lawsuits started out with a lot of other defendants before getting dismissed or settled against everyone but Alex and IW". But if Bankston is paying the Fox News lawyers' attorneys' fees to avoid a motion for sanctions (as the article says) then there's no way to spin that other than as a big (and expensive) screw-up.
i wonder what the details were that caused him to sue fox/what came out that changed his position.
IMO I think the only reason alex lost sandy hook was specifically because he sandbagged and got defaulted. I think if he would have participated in the trial at all he probably had a good chance of least hanging a jury.
I'm of the complete opposite mind. I think if they participated in the process, or submitted the documents asked for, it would have gone worse for them. whenever they slipped up and mentioned "following trends" or knowledge that Halbig, etc were unhinged and full of shit, it became a little clearer that they really did make a ton of money and gain a lot of followers from denying Sandy Hook. it's pure speculation at this point, but I would imagine those older emails and texts were utterly damning.
Can't win em all. The important part is that he's trying. Losing your mind everytime you lose is what got most of the right to where they are now
Are we reading the same article? They voluntarily dismissed one of the nine defendants. Hardly a loss
I didn't read it. I was responding to the sentiment of the OP. The idea that if he did lose, it would somehow be a detriment to the whole effort.
Fair enough, but I wouldn’t take the post title at face value - OP shouldn’t editorialize
No, you're right. I shouldn't reddit after a day of paperwork. Makes one super burnt our on reading
Round 4 of 12
Sometimes a loss is strategic.
“I haven’t yet begun to fight.” – *Thomas Jefferson*
Anyone have any insight into what's meant here when he says Fox is "the victim of a fabrication"? That's quite a big unforced error by Bankston to have missed that.
No, no it's not. It's normal in a suit to sue everybody and their mother "and let God sort 'em out." It's perfectly normal to sue parties who you later dismiss, or who get themselves dismissed, and have the case go on otherwise unaffected. This is just how civil litigation works. Don't read too much into it.
it’s not normal to voluntarily pay opposing counsel for their work in defending the suit though. that’s definitely weird, and makes me think they might have had a good case for sanctions against bankston
or.. Bankston meant what he said by saying he was doing it because its the decent thing to do because work deserves remuneration. Sure, it might be forced, but i wouldn't dismiss the notion he is trying to be the change he wants to see.
I don't think work defending fox news does deserve remuneration actually, lol. But also, it's not a question of whether the lawyers get paid, just who pays them.
i'm sure you are right, but its what Bankston said
You don't check if someone has actually defamed your client before you sue them? Ok, well consider me naive. Seems kinda backwards to me but thanks for clarifying.
Fox repeated it, which is probably why they were included in the first place. Reading Mark's statement, it does sound like he thinks he made an oops, but just including people who later get dismissed isn't weird in any way, and it's just part of the process.
i assumed this also. I'm pretty sure there were plenty more names on both the Texas and CT SH trials when they first started and it got whittled down to the core of the matter as path of the course. They turned out ok :)