Federal Judge Signals the End of the Palin Defamation Suit


Image result for sarah palin frown

The Palin defamation suit against the New York Times isn’t over yet…but the end is in sight.  A hearing has been set for next week by the Federal Judge, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who is presiding over the case.  The judge has ordered testimony of the writer of the editorial to determine if the judge would grant the Times’ request to reject the lawsuit before the newspaper is required to turn over documents such as email records that could be used by Palin’s lawyers to develop evidence.  Remember, Palin’s attorneys must prove malice, and the writer of the op-ed would be the only person who could testify about her state of mind when writing the article.

The fact that the judge has ordered the testimony of the writer, BEFORE, documents would have to be produced by the Times is an indication that the Judge is likely going to use this opportunity to establish unequivocally that there was no malice.

Federal Judges often have little patience with frivolous lawsuits, so a disinterested observer might conclude that the judge was actually helping the Times by creating a record that would be upheld on appeal that there was no malice!

Image result for federal court palin defamation

6 thoughts on “Federal Judge Signals the End of the Palin Defamation Suit

Add yours

  1. Thanks for your explanation. I was hoping – and sure that – you would provide a deciphered translation of the online articles about this for us blue-collar hunter-gatherers. I believe Wednesday August 16 is the date; of course Sarah won’t take the hint that the problem is in her mind – in Sarah’s mind – for the mind of any person cannot separately produce an independent opinion of itself, as it is generated from that same mind. It’s a kind of impossible conflict of interest.

    And here’s my translation: Back To The Pipe, “Governot.”

    Like

  2. Sorry for my ignorance, but de-fam(as in fame)-ation implies fame. It also would mean the victim carries some level of honor or righteousness. So how do you defame a lying grifter who has had her 15 minutes of fame?

    Like

    1. aj,
      That’s a good point. If the jury should decide that “defamation” occurred,than they would assess damages. If Sarah already had a reputation for being a stupid, lying, grifter who inspired violence, she wouldn’t be awarded much of anything by a jury.

      Like

  3. So now we will have to listen to the original victim scream victim hood over and over and over and over and over and over and I’ll have to slaughter my auditory nerve in my right ear. Anyone need a well worn hearing aid for sale cheap?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: