Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9595885" data-attributes="member: 7038835">They went with the strategy of just pointing out that his initial pleading was completely inadequet, which is why Justin's lawyer then had to spend most of the appeal trying to explain why he thinks that while people get called a Nazi as an insult all the time - for the purposes of this one particular lawsuit the standard should have to be you're a card-carrying member with pictures of various Nazi leaders in your house.Since they were moving to dismiss the argument was "it's not defamation even if everything Justin says is true", with the backup of proving that there was definitely a Nazi involved with nuTSR if the judge decided to let a jury decide was what the facts were.  This is largely because the trial process is 1. decide the questions to be resolved by the court, 2. agree on what the pivotal facts are prove the answer to those questions 3. present arguments to the fact-finder (judge or jury) and 4. let them decide the facts, and the judge apply the law to the answers to the questions from #1.That's why Justin's lawyer was having a rambling meltdown at the end, because he never even got to finish step 1 before getting dismissed and he really wants to set the requirements to be something absurd like "prove someone who worked with Justin has a shrine to Hitler and a membership in the Nazi Party".</blockquote>