1 Burst results for "Abdul Akbar"
"abdul akbar" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"And you know what? Everybody listening, hold us accountable. You know, holistic accountable. That's the only way resolutions get followed. I completely I could not agree more. So for example, this is page 17. This is Ali Alexander. They refer to as Ali Akbar. Ali Abdul Akbar. It is really hard like the copy of this is so faded. I can't read the beginning of it, but it says Tori lindemann is a fraudster, literal fraudster, as in, she stolen money and she can't sue anyone for defamation. One person she defrauded with Sidney Powell. She's now further trying to weaken Sydney's legal battle against dominion. This was all a setup, which is why Sydney's team removed lindemann, lindemann's crazy affidavit from their evidence. Not only did Sydney not ever talk to crazy Tory who has like 12 different names and is a pagan pretending to be a Republican. But her team didn't even review her claims or her background. When they finally ran a background check and saw that she stole valor from and then and then it cuts off. All of that is either provably true, right? She has been adjudicated guilty as we've discussed on this show for literal fraud. That is stealing money earmarked for charity and using it on waxing and like bags of M and ms from target. Or obvious opinion, right? When you say crazy affidavit has like 12 different names, right? Well, again, that's also a fact. Yeah. This is precisely the kind of thing that courts look at and go, yeah, we're going to toss this out. I don't even understand how to parse this sentence. So I invite you to help me do this. Okay, let's do some diagramming, everybody. The defendants. That's all the media. Organizations, right? Have libeled plaintiff in plaintiff's complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia case number one 21 CV dish. Zero zero 40 filed January 8th, 2021, and attached here to is exhibit four. Wait, were they saying they liable her in her own complaint? Is that not what those words mean in that order? Seems like it. Yes. So how could you libel somebody in their own complaint? Begin to know the next sentence the next two sentences are fantastic. The next sentence paragraph 79 says, therefore, the defendants are declaring that the plaintiff is guilty of the crime of perjury by portraying it as false information. What is it? I get a good for you, right? There's nothing you're seeing that tells you that. I am reading it. I assume there was a footnote or a something nothing? No. And then we have paragraph 80, which is now on page 18. Defendants have no applicable privilege or legal authorization to make these false and defamatory and libelous statements about plaintiff. By the way, if a statement is false and defamatory, you don't need to also add that it is libelous. And it's true. It's kind of fun. Clearly, Russ has copied this out of or off of a complaint that a lawyer friend wrote because that is an important element to allege in a defamation lawsuit, but he clearly doesn't know what it is. That there is that the defendants have no applicable privilege for their statements that are allegedly defamatory, right. Okay. That's one of the elements that you must allege when you alleged defamation. And you're saying you're thinking, what counts as an applicable privilege? Well, for example, what are the things that counts as an applicable privilege is the absolute privilege of making statements in a more proceeding, right? Yeah, we talked about this. Yep. So to the extent that this is cognizable, and I don't claim that it is, right? That you could parse what the hell this means. The very next statement, which they've just copied over is boilerplate, right? And I can get it while you sort of toned tuned out. You're like, defendants have no applicable privilege or legal authorization to make these false and defamatory and libelous statements about the plaintiff. It's kind of sounds like in perpetuity throughout the universe. But it really, like when you're a lawyer, those boilerplate weren't like you should know what those words mean because that's your job as the lawyer. And they have a real meaning, right? You have to allege that they have no privilege and in fact you just gave them the privilege in the previous paragraph, which is they said it allegedly in your company. You might as well have said, so in their privileged context, they said, in the sense earlier, you basically declared their privilege earlier, right? Yep, exactly right. The media matters is, and I am not kidding. One paragraph on page 15, they include a copy of the headline, which is defendant media matters defamed plaintiff in its article entitled right wing media feud erupts over Trump lawyers Sidney Powell's bonkers election conspiracy theories. That's it. That is substance of the article. They do not. They provide a link to the article. They provide a screenshot of the headline of the article, but in terms of is there would you expect a following sentence that says this is how media matters defamed turkey? You would expect that you will not find that's funny as a noob here. I wasn't really, I guess I've never thought about it. Are you required to just put the actual sentences or can you be like, here's a link to it. Go look at it on your own. No, that's a great question. Never thought about it. And it's why I'm glad in addition to entertainment that we're sort of going through this. Yes, like the core elements of a defamation claim is that you must identify the statements that were published with specificity. Yeah, and like now that I think about when we went through that dominion complaint, wasn't that like 9000 pages detailing all the absurd lies that all these people told about them on TV and all that? Yeah. And in fact, the text in there. You actually do the work. And spoiler, we're going to talk about another defamation lawsuit later on in the show. But yeah, that's the way you do it. You say, Thomas Smith said, Andrew Torres was dishonorably discharged from the military. That's the defamatory statement. And then I say, this statement is objectively false as Andrew Torres was never in the military. Here's, you know, the damages that I claim result as you come from that. But yeah, you have to identify the statement that was made. And all of these are. They're like, there's like 40 paragraphs in which they're basically like, well, every time you make fun of Sydney Powell for sucking, you're really making fun of me. Right. Because I'm the secret witness and like this is in here, for example, you can't disprove my affidavit that I filed. And it's like, again, you know, I just want that Facebook meme of like, that's not how any of this works. Right. It's crazy. This sounds like a complaint that was written by a law firm whose greatest achievement was they helped pay $15,000 to the settlement. Whatever that was. Oh, yeah, undermining confidence in the election process is dominion defaming plaintiff. No, no, no, no, no, that isn't that. That's pretty much what we were going for with that. So it says that in talking about, again, this is dominion posted a demand letter to Sidney Powell that says, hey, we want you to retract your baseless and false accusations about us that you've made.