Sandmann Loses
-
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
-
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
-
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:
@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:
People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.
The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.
If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.
This is bad.
I don't see this as about Sandmann at all. If I break into your house and steal your vinyl, then you call the police, and I get prosecuted. If I gin up a mob with lies, get you fired from your job, make you unemployable, and make your home unsafe, that's far worse. Yet nothing happens to me.
Legally, we need to do something about doxxing and cancel culture. Apply what we currently have, write new ones, something. Because right now, destroying lives is completely legal. And the more you've accomplished, the bigger a target you make.
-
-
It's helpful when one can prove damages. He's made millions - more than he might have expected to make in a lifetime with normal earnings.
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
-
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
I feel your pain, Kimosabe.
-
@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:
@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:
@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol
Harrumph....
No.
I feel your pain, Kimosabe.
