Dominion Inc wins BIGLY -Powell, Giuliani et al MTD DENIED ENTIRELY
Defendants have since moved to dismiss all of Dominion’s claims. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES their MOTIONS in FULL. A brutal and total evisceration. It’s long pace yourselves ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
….did you really think I had forgotten about these three Dominion cases? I didn’t. Sometimes I pretend to act like I’m not paying attention. And occasionally I provide timely updates. On August 11, 2021 shortly before 8PM -DC local time an unexpected DDC Court Ruling was docketed. Thereby necessitating an update on Dominion’s DDC-Case. Finally, I’d encourage you to reread this six month old article. I embedded a panoply of Court Documents.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss -DENIED in its entirety
before we start, I should warn you this is a very long and detailed article. And I was incredibly busy with my actual job that I wanted to give yesterday’s ruling the due care it should be given. Versus letting expediency replace substance and materiality of this hefty Memorandum/Opinion. For a lack of better term, I didn’t want to half-ass this article because there’s a ton to unpack in the 44 page Memo… and I would certainly encourage you to take the necessary breaks because I am fully aware of the heft and depth of information I’m about to walk you through. And as always if you have questions, please feel free to leave a comment and I’ll do my level best to provide you a factual and timely response…and off we go:
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Carl J. Nichols on August 11, 2021. See DDC-ECF —or via my Scribd link —and when I say you really should take the time to read the full 44-page Memorandum and Opinion, you really should. Judge Nichols’ writing style, has an elegance to it and it allows readers to fully understand the totality of this case and far reaching ramifications.
Although the three lawsuits have not been consolidated, they were designated as related pursuant to Local Rule 40.5(b)(2) and assigned to this Court. The Defendants have since moved to dismiss all of Dominion’s claims. For the following reasons, the Court denies their Motions in full.
This is some low-key jurisprudence shade…the “media figure” assignment is just spectacular and yes I know you might not understand that joke but it’s pretty stupendous and glorious to read.
I am pretty confident that I captured the various TV appearances the Court noted in its Memorandum. For the record Judge Nichols was nominated 1 by President Trump. On May 22, 2019 the Senate by a vote of: Yeas 55, Nays 49 and NV 2 confirmed the lifetime appointment of Carl J. Nichols, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia. Senate Roll Call Vote # 125 -so the fact a “Trump Judge 2” —I guess you could say this ruling is completely satisfying or perhaps it’s better to actually read the substance of the Memorandum/Opinion because this is a well articulated and substantial Memo..
Read the last paragraph on page 4… the level of you need to cut the malarkey is absolutely sublime. Given the preceding paragraphs referred to the Big-Lie-Trifecta aka trés amigos as “made numerous media appearances in which he discussed the election and Dominion.”
also (whispers) did you know that on August 10, 2021 Dominion Inc filed a separate action against Herring Networks 3 — and seeing Channel Ryan listed as a defendant —reminded me of her “exclusive investigation” propaganda nonsense. I still can’t believe that YouTube hasn’t taken any meaningful action to combat the massive disinformation and misinformation echo chamber. Because this is still live on YouTube 👇🏻 and if one of you could please tweet this article to @OANN and specifically ask @ChanelRion about being served yesterday I’d be deeply appreciative <snort>
…too numerous to summarize in their entirety…
…Powell also appeared as counsel of record in election-related lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona filed by various parties.
Giuliani has also represented the Trump campaign, including in its lawsuit challenging mail-in ballots and the conduct of election officials in Pennsylvania. Like Powell, Giuliani made numerous media appearances in which he discussed the election and Dominion.
MyPillow sponsored several rallies in support of President Trump.. offered discounts on its products using discount codes such as “FightforTrump,” “45,” and “PROOF.” … Like Powell and Giuliani, Lindell has made numerous media appearances in which he discussed the election and Dominion.
Given the enormous scope of various defamatory statements made by the defendants, the Court opted to select a small sampling. Also you might want to reacquaint yourself with the SCOTUS landmark ruling and the birth of the “actual malice” doctrine because without reading the whole memorandum I already know that “actual malice” will play a central role in the Court’s Memorandum/Opinion
Siri what is the Actual Malice Doctrine …
Fun sidebar -story time; about 4 Trump dog years ago, a group of anonymous trolls, many of whom would later collaborate with one of my most dangerous, pernicious, and deranged stalkers. the troll-crew decided to target me. If you’ll recall Defendant Douglass Mackey created a hit-list. At the time the troll crew said I was wrong about “actual malice” and hilariously they stated that the NYTs v Sullivan was not a Landmark case. And there was no such thing as the Actual Malice Test/Doctrine 3 And after all these years later, I still find hilarious —I’ll betcha they don’t know the difference between defamation v defamation pro se.
Actual Malice doctrine;
When SCOTUS issues a Landmark Ruling —broadly speaking, it is the establishment of precedents that specify a significant brand spanking new legal principle/concept. However this also includes a substantially different interpretation of existing law. The subtext here meant that no public official could be awarded damages for libel, but could be awarded damages if the aggrieved party could prove that the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
SCOTUS purposefully & deliberatively created a much higher standard. one that public officials would have a hard time satisfying, one that required conduct by the news media that went beyond just negligence. SCOTUS also held that a public official suing for damages is required to prove the existence of actual malice and it had to be, “by convincing clarity” and by “clear and convincing evidence,” —the actual malice standard applies to both compensatory and punitive damages.
”New York Times Company v. Sullivan."Oyez,www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39. Accessed 11 Aug. 2021 - which established the “actual malice" doctrine —thereafter SCOTUS
Question:
Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
In an unanimous ruling - SCOTUS held:
To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Brennan used the term "actual malice" to summarize this standard, although he did not intend the usual meaning of a malicious purpose. In libel law, “malice” had meant knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courts found it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent.
Defendants Various defamatory statements;
As you’ll note the Court cites various TV appearances by both Powell, Giuliani and Lindel. the Court referenced numerous TV appearances
To help you better understand the November 19, 2020 RNC Press Conference that the Court cited on page 5, embedded below is an NBC highlight reel of the off the rails RNC press conference - the one where Giuliani’s hair dye dripped down his face…incidentally at no time have the Defendants proffered any evidence or videos that they said they had…
…November 19, Giuliani and Powell appeared together at a press conference at Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. Id. ¶ 62. At that press conference, Giuliani stated that they “represent[ed] President Trump and . . . the Trump campaign,” …Powell repeated her claims about Dominion being a tool created “to make sure [Hugo Chávez] never lost an election” and imported to the United States to flip votes from Trump to Biden in the 2020 election.
Powell stated that the legal team had collected testimony of different workers admitting that they were trained how to dispose of Trump votes and add to Biden votes. The software has a feature pursuant to which you can drag and drop any number of batches of votes to the candidate of your choice or simply throw them away. So, we have mathematical evidence in a number of states of massive quantities of Trump votes being trashed—just simply put in the trash like you would on your computer with any file and Biden votes being injected.
Fox New, OANN, Newmax & a slew of podcast amplified the defamatory claims.
Sydney Powell should be disbarred and never allowed to practice law again because she repeatedly and willfully lies and then pulled off a pretty sizable grift. Which if public reporting is accurate, her grift netted her & her entities hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is textbook defamation…
November 23, Powell again claimed that Dominion had stolen Trump votes “by massive election fraud” and that she was collecting “overwhelming” “evidence” that Dominion “shift[ed] millions of votes from President Trump.” She also served as counsel to plaintiffs in lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona alleging, among other things, that there had been “massive election fraud” and that Dominion was “founded by foreign oligarchs and dictators to ensure computerized ballot-stuffing and vote manipulation to whatever level was needed to make certain Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez never lost another election.”
This is the NewsMax clarification that the Court referenced on page 9 of the Memorandum/Opinion —yet OANN is still pimping, I mean pumping out Trump Big Lie -for the life of me I do not understand why they are allowed to broadcast actual false information
Funny story a while ago some anonymous trolls who later became stalkers said I didn’t know what “actual malice” was and I was incorrect in SCOTUS’s holding in the landmark ruling. So every time I reread NYTs v Sullivan I actually laugh out loud because the absurdity and inanity of those trolls. Because I now refer you to page 19 wait I’m sorry what does Subsection B say? Oh dear that can’t be correct…and yes I understand I’m being redundant but I had a lot to say about the Doctrine.
Sidney Powell falsified documents -YES SHE DID
The surgical precision in the Memorandum/Opinion is probably one of the better reads. If you recall in November 2020 Powell was a lead attorney in case:
Pearson v. Kemp NDGA Case No 1:20-cv-04809
Dominion contends it has alleged not only that Powell’s claims are so inherently improbable that only a reckless person could have believed them, but also that she deliberately ignored the truth in favor of relying on facially unreliable sources, intentionally lied about and fabricated evidence to support a preconceived narrative about election fraud, and did so to raise her own public profile and make a profit.
Powell again faces an obvious hurdle in the fact that she has never produced (nor mentioned in any sworn affidavit) the video of Dominion’s founder that she claims to possess… a reasonable juror could conclude that Powell has not produced the video because she doesn’t have it. Dominion also alleges that Powell doctored a certificate from the Georgia Secretary of State to make it appear as though Georgia officials purchased Dominion machines and software on a rushed timeline… 4
…declarations are almost completely identical..
Dominion further alleges that after that source’s recantation, Powell claimed that the declaration was actually from a different anonymous source (instead of investigating whether there was a reason to doubt the truth of the original source’s claims). As for the other anonymous declarations proffered by Powell, Dominion alleges that they bear distinct signs of having been drafted by Powell herself. Indeed, certain sections in two of the declarations are almost completely identical
..Dominion alleges that the declarations provide no facts to support Powell’s claims that Dominion flipped, stole, weighted, or injected any votes into a U.S. election. …one declaration says that “vote counting was abruptly stopped in five states using Dominion software”; that at that time “Donald Trump was significantly ahead in the votes”; and that “[w]hen the vote reporting resumed the very next morning there was a very pronounced change in voting in favor of the opposing candidate, Joe Biden.”
How has Sydney Powell not been disbarred?
She repeatedly perpetrated fraud to the Court, actually to numerous Federal District Courts. Filing false declarations, falsifying “evidence” no really how the hell is she not disbarred and that’s something the Texas Bar needs to be taken to task for. They’ve allowed Powell to retain her license to practice law. Her lies, have resulted in incalculable damage, fear of actual life and inflicted emotional distress on countless Americans…FFS Sydney Powell’s experts are not experts —they are QANON-conspiracy charlatans
“....expert has also publicly claimed that George Soros, President George H.W. Bush’s father, the Muslim Brotherhood, and “leftists” helped form the “Deep State” in Nazi Germany in the 1930s—which would have been a remarkable feat for Soros, who was born in 1930
Powell filed the GA lawsuit on the same day Trump pardoned Flynn..
Note the November 25, 2020 date of Trump pardoning Mike-QANON-Flynn:
Note the November 25, 2020 date in Pearson v Kemp. Of which Sydney Powell was the lead attorney and she filed false declarations, doctored certificates —
When a party moves to transfer a case from one federal district to another, the requesting party is required to prove “private or public interests” by a preponderance of evidence. Both Powell and Liddell failed to meet that burden. The Court evaluated the transfer request vis-a-vis six factors;
the plaintiff’s choice of forum;
the [defendants’] choice of forum;
whether the claim arose elsewhere;
the convenience of the parties;
the convenience of the witnesses; and
the ease of access to sources of proof
The Court then examined the three public interest factors:
the transferee [court’s] familiarity with the governing laws;
the relative congestion of the calendars of the potential transferee and transferor courts; and
the local interest in deciding local controversies at home.
Powell also “failed to provide any conduct in Texas that gave rise to Dominion’s claims”… the Court subsequently her requests. What I do find interesting and it’s more nuanced is each defendant requesting a transfer —my assumption is this was a multi prong attack to usher in the next defense strategy of diversity jurisdiction or at the minimum limit the district court’s scrutiny, because under diversity jurisdiction a district court is empowered to hear civil cases when the monetary damages exceed $75K. Which is why my assumption of transfer would have ultimately lead to the defendants arguing diversity jurisdiction. Given that it requires; individuals that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship and/or state of incorporation.
As previously noted the Court also denied Defendant Lindell’s request to transfer the case to Minnesota, largely for the same reasons the Court denied Powell’s request…
Dominion’s concrete and particularized injuries
Before we drill down on Dominion’s injuries, I need to disclose this really bothers me. As someone who’s been targeted via on line and in real life with doxs, failed doxes, unauthorized photos of myself and my children. When a bunch of assholes on Twitter put my PII and that of my children and spouse. These Twitter vigilantes also contacted my employer, my spouses employer, my child’s school, my extended family.
Which untimely resulted in receiving numerous death threats, strangers ringing my doorbell, or sitting in a parked car outside my home for hours, two attempted swattings. The constant fear of looking over my shoulder, or telling my children they can’t play outside because earlier that day the Sheriff called me to inform me they received a credible death threat of me and my children…all because a bunch of assholes and former friends thought they could act with impunity and no regard to the safety of my family. Don’t worry I’m fine now. Largely due to the fact that I know law enforcement and lady justice are coming for these individuals So yes seeing what Dominion Employees had to endure triggered me, a lot.
As the Court notes, Dominion enumerated the injury they and their employees sustained;
…Complaint alleges that each corporate entity was independently exposed to “hatred and contempt,” Giuliani Compl….suffered injuries in the form of stalked and harassed employees, death threats, expenses “to remedy the defamation and to protect the lives of its employees,” lost profits, and damage to reputation,
..Plaintiffs allege a total of $651,735,000 in damages, which obviously means that at least one Plaintiff allegedly suffered more than $75,000 in damages. Giuliani Compl., Prayer for Relief. Thus, even if two of the Dominion Plaintiffs had not individually pleaded that the Court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their claims..
Defamation Per Quod v Defamation Per Se
Many falsely assume that these are one in the same, to be clear no they are not -there are distinguishable factors, for example a “pleading of special damages”
DEFAMATION. The term ‘‘defamation’’means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or condemnation of any person..
Defamation Per Se has four recognized categories;
a person was involved in criminal activity
a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession
Defamation Per Se Damages
General damages: The compensation for the past and future harm sustained to reputation in the community as well as mental or emotional anguish and personal humiliation.
Special damages: The compensation for specific economic loss caused by the defamation. This can include things like loss of profits and loss of a job.
Nominal damages: A nominal sum that can be awarded when defamation per se has occurred but no serious harm to reputation was done.
Punitive or exemplary damages: Additional sums meant to punish or set an example when the defendant's actions were willful or malicious.
Defamation Per Quod tends to be very hard to prove, and typically requires an individual has extrinsic knowledge to understand the subtext of a defamatory statement. See NYTs v Sullivan’s progeny but also a landmark ruling in its own right; “ Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc." via Oyez https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-617 —Accessed 11 Aug. 2021 —SCOTUS held that damages "may not be presumed"
Rudy. Rudy. Rudy. you got schooled
See the footnote, the “a better reading” absolutely savage, but again the Court explains how Rudy’s Rule 9 argument is fatally flawed both in terms of interpretation of the law and the materiality of Rudy’s argument
…Giuliani’s statements accusing Dominion of election fraud constitute defamation per se; if Dominion were an individual, damages would be presumed…Giuliani contends that damages are not presumed for corporate plaintiffs in the defamation per se context. For this proposition, he relies on three cases. The first is Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Evening Star Newspaper, 417 F. Supp. 947 (D.D.C. 1976), in which a corporate plaintiff had sued for libel (but not libel per se) and the court contemplated the standard of fault that should apply.
Here the Court just excoriated Rudy’s wrong interpretation of the three cases he (incorrectly) cited.. largely because he argued that the corporate entity (or more precisely entities) are required to plead “actual damages” —as the court aptly recognized none of the three cases cited articulated the purported requirement that Rudy said it did. Which is why it’s important to read the substance of the Court’s Memo and if possible the case law cited. Here Rudy wasn’t just wrong —he made an assertion out of whole cloth and the Court nailed him on that.
Martin-Marietta certainly stated in dicta that a corporate plaintiff is limited to actual damages in the defamation context, it did not address whether (let alone hold that) such a plaintiff must plead damages if it has alleged defamation per se. The other two cases on which Giuliani relies are Court of Appeals opinions citing Martin-Marietta, which similarly do not address whether (let alone hold that) a corporate plaintiff must plead actual damages if it has alleged defamation per se. Instead, those cases stand, at most, for the proposition that a corporate plaintiff’s recovery is measured in the form of economic loss…
You have to love the footnotes too Gordon v. Boyles, 99 P.3d 75, 79 (Colo. App. 2004) (“If a libelous communication is defamatory per se, damage is presumed, and a plaintiff need not plead special damages.”) -it just gets better and better and better. Because page 43 the Court just drills it home and completely eviscerates Rudy’s arguments…
The Court is not aware of any case requiring a corporate plaintiff alleging defamation per se to plead damages specially, and by its terms Rule 9(g) does not include such a requirement… Dominion has pleaded lost profits with the particularity required by Rule 9(g). Under that rule, a defamation plaintiff must set “forth the precise nature of [its] losses as well as the way in which the special damages resulted from the allegedly false publication.”
Well hello concrete and particularized injury👇🏻
…Dominion alleges that Giuliani made defamatory statements about its involvement in the 2020 election, that the people who believed those statements made threats to Dominion employees and board members, and that those threats required Dominion to spend more than $565,000 on private security to protect its employees.
Just B-R-U-T-A-L
..noting that Dominion has incurred $1,170,000 in expenses to mitigate harm to reputation and business…projecting lost profits of $200 million over the next five years when reduced to present value….The Complaint therefore alleges lost profits with adequate specificity and survives Giuliani’s Motion to Dismiss.
Again you can access yesterday Memorandum/Opinion via my Scribd link, which is embedded below
If you’d like a un-highlighted copy you can obtain it via https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/district-court-opinions (damn I see the Court issued an opinion on the Taylor’s -you know the ones who helped Ghosn escape Japan to evade extradition) or simply click on this direct link
And I make zero apologies for the length of this article - because I’ll take substance over expediency. I do think you should keep your eyes on the look out for an appeal by Giuliani, Powell and Lindell —that’s not me saying the Defendants have a leg to stand on, they don’t. That’s me trying to explain how the Judicial system works. Again if you have any questions please feel free to leave a comment and I’ll do my best to provide you a factual and timely response.
in all actuality there really are no such thing as a <insert president’s name> Judge and it’s entirely frustrating to see so many adopt the “it’s a ___ Judge” meaning all judges shouldn’t be defined by the President who nominated them. This was a phenomenon that started by pissed off Senate Republicans and quickly adopted by the gross Judicial Crisis Network as a way to demonize Obama nominated judges. And in my industry we literally roll our eyes when the screaming political pundit-goats start a debate screaming about a Judge’s ruling solely through the intellectually stunted and myopic lens of which president nominated them. Truly frustrating to see so many blindly accepting this kind of discourse. Do better.
The inanity of it all — watching numerals individuals attempt to make a vast QANON-esq threads that undoubtedly prove (which it never does) ; 1) Mensch was behind Ricky Vaughan Tity Twister Op -googolplex% untrue -she was a targeted & mercilessly harassed, 2) individuals are being paid for “doing an Op” to take down a Garbage Blue-QAnon (shittlestix where is my damn check), 3) that the women who came forward are apparently all working for numerous hostile foreign States & the victims of Garbage and “in violation of FARA”, 4) DARVO -especially the projecting of their own actions like conspiracy to use harass/stalk. You put your own conspiracy in writing vís-a-vís in Twitter DM rooms and in multiple group text. Responsive documents to subpoenas are absolutely the grift, I mean gift that keeps on giving. And I’m here for it, all of it.
Fun fact, MTD is a manufacturer of lawn and garden equipment. Their "MTD" was mowed down by an intelligent member of the legal community who is merely following the Code of Conduct they've all sworn to abide by.
"The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate."
Thank you! Politics and investment biz are a catch basin for crazy folks!!
Fun fact, MTD is a manufacturer of lawn and garden equipment. Their "MTD" was mowed down by an intelligent member of the legal community who is merely following the Code of Conduct they've all sworn to abide by.
"The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate."
Great ruling indeed...