Revenge of the Covington Catholics

Now that we’ve swung into a new controversy surrounding the baby killing, blackface wearing Governor of Virginia. The twitterverse has moved on from the Covington Catholic video, probably hoping that whole thing will end up down the rat hole of everyone’s memory. Well the internet is forever, and there is a thing called Screen shots, so whatever tweet you think you may have deleted are preserved forever for a nice liable suit. Looks like the lawyers for the Nick Sandmann, the Covington student who was unexpectedly made famous a few weeks ago have been sending out letters to some of those elite blue check marks on twitter. Who, for some bizarre reason, wanted to destroy a 16 year old’s life for smiling.

This couldn’t have happened to a better group of people

Here Are the 50 Celebs, Reporters, & Others Covington Kids’ Lawyers Just Officially Targeted

11+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

60 thoughts on “Revenge of the Covington Catholics”

  1. I will go on record as saying I do not think this is a good  idea.   I mean, it’s ok if the threat forces apologies; it just isn’t a good  idea  to actually sue.

    My personal motto: neither a plaintiff nor a defendant be!  The life of a party to litigation is exposed  from daycare to dementia.  Each one of the minor plaintiffs will be deposed, investigated.   It will be worse for many of them than if they just moved on from the damage the incident has already done them.

    Remember the trial of Oscar Wilde.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  2. Hypatia:
    I will go on record as saying I do not think this is a good  idea.   I mean, it’s ok if the threat forces apologies; it just isn’t a good  idea  to actually sue.

    My personal motto: neither a plaintiff nor a defendant be!  The life of a party to litigation is exposed  from daycare to dementia.  Each one of the minor plaintiffs will be deposed, investigated.   It will be worse for many of them than if they just moved on from the damage the incident has already done them.

    Remember the trial of Oscar Wilde.

    Not sure I disagree, but how else do we ensure that these evil people pay some price for their actions?  Is being deposed worse than living with unanswered calumny?

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. “They know they crossed the line,” McMurtry told the Enquirer. “Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

    Kentucky jury, kids as plaintiffs. If we do not win on this one we will never win.

    10+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Discovery goes two ways. None of this will ever get to court but the settlements will be significant.

    About time we learned to play on home legal turf.

    9+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. What I want to see is discovery on the “Israelites” who taunted the boys. They set up shop every Friday in Philly, blocking entrance to a large mall, yelling obscenities.  Does progressive Mayor Jim Kenney do squat about them? Naaaah.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. ctlaw:

    “They know they crossed the line,” McMurtry told the Enquirer. “Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

    Kentucky jury, kids as plaintiffs. If we do not win on this one we will never win.

    There were liberal Lefty locals outside Covington “protesting”, even after it came out that the kids hadn’t done anything, except be white and male.  And you can bet some of those people will be on the jury.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. Hypatia:

    ctlaw:

    “They know they crossed the line,” McMurtry told the Enquirer. “Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

    Kentucky jury, kids as plaintiffs. If we do not win on this one we will never win.

    There were liberal Lefty locals outside Covington “protesting”, even after it came out that the kids hadn’t done anything, except be white and male.  And you can bet some of those people will be on the jury.

    How many? KY does not require unanimous civil verdict. The evidence preservation letter identifies Kenton County Circuit Court. In a KY circuit court, it seems 9 of 12 jurors are required for a verdict.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. Phil Turmel:
    The left has been using process as punishment for ever.  I’m all for this.

    Yes.   The Left excel at lawfare.   It is long past the time for conservatives to drag them into court for slander, libel and defamation.   In this case they were aware for several days that statements they had published about the Covington Catholic high school boys were untrue, and, though some withdrew stories, deleted posts, posted apologies or corrections, a few others are recalcitrant and their lies remain on the world wild web.

    Some of the lies were particularly eggregious, and had led to doxxing, and serious threats of violence, to the extent that the Diocese of Covington and the school both had to close for several days.   There are real damages, not just adverse publicity, which, in the case of innocent juveniles, should be deserving of punitive damages.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  9. TKC 1101:
    Discovery goes two ways. None of this will ever get to court but the settlements will be significant.

    About time we learned to play on home legal turf.

    I don’t know what discovery about the kids or their school would make the Covington boys want to settle.   The settlements will have to be significant.

    I don’t know what discovery actually reveals about the media outlets and celebrities who spread lies about those boys.   They lied, they were informed that their statements were untrue, they were notified that the boys were preparing to sue, they were given a grace period to withdraw stories and post corrections, and they allowed their lies to remain as originally posted.   I think it would be great to expose some of the internal communications of the recalcitrants, but I don’t think discovery could reach beyond that.

    I hope the boys, their parents, their school and their priests can withstand the pressure that they will experience from the Leftists within the Roman Catholic Church.   Scripture will be used to bash them as bad people, unloving and unforgiving.   That is a predictable pack of lies.

    Hold firm.   Sue the bastards.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sue+the+bastards%22&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS759US759&oq=%22sue+the+bastards%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.5717j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. Hypatia:
    I will go on record as saying I do not think this is a good  idea.   I mean, it’s ok if the threat forces apologies; it just isn’t a good  idea  to actually sue.

    My personal motto: neither a plaintiff nor a defendant be!  The life of a party to litigation is exposed  from daycare to dementia.  Each one of the minor plaintiffs will be deposed, investigated.   It will be worse for many of them than if they just moved on from the damage the incident has already done them.

    Remember the trial of Oscar Wilde.

    Someone must have hacked Hyp’s account. I expected a “scorched earth” comment. (Smile)

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  11. 10 Cents:

    Hypatia:
    I will go on record as saying I do not think this is a good  idea.   I mean, it’s ok if the threat forces apologies; it just isn’t a good  idea  to actually sue.

    My personal motto: neither a plaintiff nor a defendant be!  The life of a party to litigation is exposed  from daycare to dementia.  Each one of the minor plaintiffs will be deposed, investigated.   It will be worse for many of them than if they just moved on from the damage the incident has already done them.

    Remember the trial of Oscar Wilde.

    Someone must have hacked Hyp’s account. I expected a “scorched earth” comment. (Smile)

    Hey, look, I HOPE this turns out to be a rout for the defendants, you all know that.  But did you see my post A Nation of Law(yer)s..?  Do you think these Lefties, especially the “celebrities” (trans: billionaires) are gonna just admit fault?  If they wanted to do that, they’d have apologized and deleted already, as many people did.  No, they’ll double down.  And each separate tweet is s separate case, it’s  not like they all signed on to one statement.   I agree, it feels great!!   Prosper the endeavor!   But this is not Richard Jewell.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  12. ctlaw:

    “They know they crossed the line,” McMurtry told the Enquirer. “Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

    Kentucky jury, kids as plaintiffs. If we do not win on this one we will never win.

    I don’t practice in Ky, but, what about jurisdiction/venue over all these defendants?  Can an actress who never set foot in Ky be personally served in Ca and subject to long arm jurisdiction?  I reckon Twitter constitutes publication in all states, so the cause of action atose in KY where these kids reputations were damaged.   Hoping for vindication!

    0

  13. Hypatia:

    ctlaw:

    “They know they crossed the line,” McMurtry told the Enquirer. “Do they want 12 people in Kentucky to decide their fate? I don’t think so.”

    Kentucky jury, kids as plaintiffs. If we do not win on this one we will never win.

    I don’t practice in Ky, but, what about jurisdiction/venue over all these defendants?  Can an actress who never set foot in Ky be personally served in Ca and subject to long arm jurisdiction?  I reckon Twitter constitutes publication in all states, so the cause of action atose in KY where these kids reputations were damaged.   Hoping for vindication!

    The trend in other states has been toward finding jurisdiction.

    In this case, there are so many defendants that we may see a lot of precedential decisions on jurisdiction slicing the salami fairly thin. They may hinge on the degree to which the defendant targeted Kentucky. For example, did any of them suggest that people in Kentucky take a particular action against the kids? Did they direct tweets at the kids, parents, etc.?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  14. I’m afraid we may see “precedential decisions” on the public figure issue.    Did whoever first distributed the misleading video  make Nick Sandman into an instant public figure?  Within seconds, everybody in the US could recognize him…by the time a lot of these bozos tweeted, he was already famous. Or rather infamous. What do you think?

    and yes: given that the content of each statement is different, and given the jurisdictional issues you mention above, don’t you think it’s going to be difficult to have just one trial for all these defts?

    0

  15. Hypatia:
    I’m afraid we may see “precedential decisions” on the public figure issue.    Did whoever first distributed the misleading video  make Nick Sandman into an instant public figure?  Within seconds, everybody in the US could recognize him…by the time a lot of these bozos tweeted, he was already famous. Or rather infamous. What do you think?

    That should not hold up as a defense.   Though N. Sandman was famous by Sunday, everyone who was piling on knew that he was a nobody kid from a Catholic high school in Covington KY.   They knew nothing other than that about him; he can hardly be said to have had a public persona, even in Covington.

    0

  16. Hypatia:
    I’m afraid we may see “precedential decisions” on the public figure issue.    Did whoever first distributed the misleading video  make Nick Sandman into an instant public figure?  Within seconds, everybody in the US could recognize him…by the time a lot of these bozos tweeted, he was already famous. Or rather infamous. What do you think?

    The “limited purpose public figure”/”involuntary public figure” analysis will be interesting. In the era of doxxing, what is the limit in “limited”? If you are a leftist, you will likely find protection. If Alex Jones or Glenn  Beck, not.

    and yes: given that the content of each statement is different, and given the jurisdictional issues you mention above, don’t you think it’s going to be difficult to have just one trial for all these defts?

    Cuts both ways. If I retweet your tweet and Dime retweets mine and you reply to Dime and we are all defendants, there are common facts that suggest one trial.

    0

  17. ctlaw:

    Hypatia:
    I’m afraid we may see “precedential decisions” on the public figure issue.    Did whoever first distributed the misleading video  make Nick Sandman into an instant public figure?  Within seconds, everybody in the US could recognize him…by the time a lot of these bozos tweeted, he was already famous. Or rather infamous. What do you think?

    The “limited purpose public figure”/”involuntary public figure” analysis will be interesting. In the era of doxxing, what is the limit in “limited”? If you are a leftist, you will likely find protection. If Alex Jones or Glenn  Beck, not.

     

     

    in my opinion, an argument could be made that Sandman had become  notorious  before many of these allegedly  defamatory tweets.   Whether that can happen, someone becoming a “public figure” because of the controversy at issue, is something I’ve always wondered about. Remember when Sharpton accused the DA of raping Tawana Brawley.  The DA was ruled to be a public figure !  He won anyway cuz Sharpton did act with actual malice, but that was an extraordinarily clear case.

    and yes: given that the content of each statement is different, and given the jurisdictional issues you mention above, don’t you think it’s going to be difficult to have just one trial for all these defts?

    Cuts both ways. If I retweet your tweet and Dime retweets mine and you reply to Dime and we are all defendants, there are common facts that suggest one trial.

     

     

    That’s  if there’s only one message.  Here there are a lot of individual allegedly defamatory messages.  Some, like the wood chipper comment, aren’t defamatory although they constitute a terroristic threat.  Some will be argued to be pure opinion, with no defamatory facts necessarily implied.  The point is each o fthese 50+ defendants has the right to have an individual determination made, that’s just due process, doncha think?

    Well–I’m sure the eminent  plaintiffs’ attorneys have anticipated all these obstacles, and will be prepared to deal with them if they do file suit.  As I said, I hope they win!

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  18. WaPo complaint:

    http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/

    One thing I’d add regarding complaints such as this is to address the non-apology apologies that often follow. Often the media will use weasel words like “a more nuanced picture emerged.”  This trying to leave their narrative in tact is evidence of the original malice and continuing malice. The failure of the media to go after the fraudsters like Phillips is similar evidence of malice and suggests an additional conspiracy count.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. Wow.  Well, I’m not that familiar with the federal rules.  There’s a lot of stuff in here that would be stricken as “scandalous and impertinent”in my state.  But of course tnis was drafted as much for the media as for the court.

    im not surprised they didn’t sue all the celebs and other tweeters.  As I predicted this poses problems of jurisdiction and venue.  But, since they’re relying on diversity jurisdiction, why not also sue Phillips?  Doesn’t he live in Nebraska?

    If memory serves, Phillips said he had “gotten between the beasts and their prey”, meaning between the white students and the scurrilous Black Hebrew Israelites.  If he had told the truth about the incident, instead of stoking the anti-white hatred, this thing wouldnta taken off like it did.

    Okay, now if only we could make an argument that Trump supporters constitute a class, and bring a clas action against Jussie Smollett for defaming us!  Maybe everybody who owns a MAGA hat could qualify as a plaintiff.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  20. Hypatia:
    But, since they’re relying on diversity jurisdiction, why not also sue Phillips?  Doesn’t he live in Nebraska?

    WaPo intentionally directed communications to KY. Thus KY personal jurisdiction over it is reasonable. Personal jurisdiction over Phillips in KY is tougher. Nebraska and DC would have clear personal jurisdiction over him.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  21. ctlaw:

    Hypatia:
    But, since they’re relying on diversity jurisdiction, why not also sue Phillips?  Doesn’t he live in Nebraska?

    WaPo intentionally directed communications to KY. Thus KY personal jurisdiction over it is reasonable. Personal jurisdiction over Phillips in KY is tougher. Nebraska and DC would have clear personal jurisdiction over him.

    ctlaw:

    Hypatia:
    But, since they’re relying on diversity jurisdiction, why not also sue Phillips?  Doesn’t he live in Nebraska?

    WaPo intentionally directed communications to KY. Thus KY personal jurisdiction over it is reasonable. Personal jurisdiction over Phillips in KY is tougher. Nebraska and DC would have clear personal jurisdiction over him.

    My point was it wouldn’t destroy diversity jurisdiction to  add Phillips.

    As for personal jurisdiction….in what waydid WaPo direct communications to Ky?  Do they publish an edition there?  I have never researched this, but when Phillips gave an interview on a nationally broadcast TV station, isn’t that comparable?

    0

Leave a Reply