Candace Owens says she will force Brigitte Macron to undergo INDEPENDENT medical exam to prove she's female.

Jarod said:
She is going to pay big buck for lying about Macron.
Click to expand...
you have never been correct on any legal arguments on this forum. Your ignorance on incorporation is hysterical

the defense attorneys will easily show no malice. They are simply repeating the same claims that France tosses out as being free speech rights
 
zymurgy said:
you have never been correct on any legal arguments on this forum. Your ignorance on incorporation is hysterical

the defense attorneys will easily show no malice. They are simply repeating the same claims that France tosses out as being free speech rights
Click to expand...
Untrue as to the first paragraph.

Maybe as to the second paragraph.

One thing for sure, they will not be required to prove she believed the lie.
 
Jarod said:
Untrue as to the first paragraph.

Maybe as to the second paragraph.

One thing for sure, they will not be required to prove she believed the lie.
Click to expand...
they will need to prove actual malice

And you need to understand incorporation if you want to pretend to know the law
 
zymurgy said:
they will need to prove actual malice

And you need to understand incorporation if you want to pretend to know the law
Click to expand...
Haha, I understand incorporation as it relates to the 14th Amendment and the requirement that states follow the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with proving Owens did not know she was lying.

You are grasping
 
Jarod said:
Haha, I understand incorporation as it relates to the 14th Amendment and the requirement that states follow the Constitution.

It has nothing to do with proving Owens did not know she was lying.

You are grasping
Click to expand...
it has to do with how dumb you were needing to know where this is filed. You failed to grasp that actual malice is the high burden here because you were ignorant. You made me prove it. showing you were ignorant.

Here is the bullshit your wrote:.

retard said:
I think they only have to prove.

1. The statement was false.
2. The statement caused damage.
Click to expand...

where is the part about actual malice you gas lighting weasel?
 
actual malice means the defendant made a defamatory statement with actual knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The "reckless disregard" standard requires subjective proof that the defendant had serious doubts about the statement's truth and published it anyway

this is not a slam dunk case. sorry shit stains and retards
 
Jarod said:
Idk, but looks like we will find out. What was E. Jean Carol’s damage?

Make Lying Wrong Again!
Click to expand...
Carroll's accusation was weak even for date rape.

1. She couldn’t even tell us the year the incident happened.

2. She said it was in a busy dept store but she never screamed for help.

3. Carroll never filed a police report till 25 years later

4. The statute of limitations for her suit against trump had expired.

5. She has accused 6 men of assaulting her

6. She had no evidence at all. It was he said she said.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Carroll's accusation was weak even for date rape.

1. She couldn’t even tell us the year the incident happened.

2. She said it was in a busy dept store but she never screamed for help.

3. Carroll never filed a police report till 25 years later

4. The statute of limitations for her suit against trump had expired.

5. She has accused 6 men of assaulting her

6. She had no evidence at all. It was he said she said.
Click to expand...
It was only she said, Trump refused to testify. Testimony of the victim is evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top