This made me wonder whether testimony before Congress is shielded from defamation in the same way as court filings. My searches suggest that something called the "speech and debate clause" specifically protects members of congress while they are performing legislative functions, but I couldn't find anything that protects citizens generally. Can any legal Kiwis weigh in on this issue?
Money talks.
I'm actually a bit disappointed that they're not completely fucking unhinged and willing go full nuclear to the bitter end. Instead they tucked their tail between their legs and start pissing themselves at the first sign or reprisal.
Same here, but I'm also glad Null's lawyer has carefully studied the art of war and knows the value of a "fleet in being" and keeping his powder dry. Unlike certain other lawyers.
“Maddow defense” is merely “no reasonable person would believe this to be a fact rather than opinion” defense. Ignoring that some words have legal meanings for a second, Epik provided the claimed child pornography on Twitter. They knowingly censored out the DoB from the picture that showed that person to have been 20 when they, themselves, posted it on the site. Many people took Epik’s words as fact, which further goes against their defense. They presented this as a fact, and it was taken as a fact.
Could you imagine being a gooner without a penis to jack off with? That would probably be Hell on Earth all day erry day. No wonder Lucas is a junkie.
Don't get me wrong I fully agree that Epik crossed the line, without a doubt the height of unprofessionalism. They deserve a lawsuit and hopefully settle out of court giving Null a fat w.
They're holding it again. It's really annoying. They're actually upset about the smaller dollar transactions because as a law provider they're not used to many payments under $1000 each.
How dare we pollute their coffers with hoi polloi money.
"No rest. No mercy. No matter what."
