Gawking teen sues Washington Post

by Original Quill Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:37 pm

Possibly enjoying the publicity, Nicholas Sandmann has sought more by suing the Washington Post:

Politico wrote:Teen in video face-off with Native American sues Washington Post for $250 million

Quint Forgey

The Kentucky teenager at the center of a confrontation last month with a Native American man at the Lincoln Memorial has sued The Washington Post, alleging that the newspaper made “false and defamatory accusations” against him in its coverage of the episode.

Nicholas Sandmann, 16, a student at Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Ky., is seeking $250 million in damages from The Post — the same amount Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos paid for ownership of the paper in 2013, according to a copy of the suit Sandmann’s attorneys posted on their website.

Among various complaints, the suit alleges that The Post “engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism” to target Sandmann “because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against” Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon.

In video accounts of the Jan. 18 encounter, a grinning Sandmann is depicted wearing a red Make America Great Again baseball cap as he stares down Nathan Phillips, an Omaha elder and Vietnam veteran who sings and beats a drum as Covington students laugh and jeer around him.

“The Post’s campaign to target Nicholas in furtherance of its political agenda,” the suit alleges, “was carried out by using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles which effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to Phillips and other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the President.”

Sandmann’s attorneys, Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry, filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Covington, and suggested in a statement that additional litigation would be forthcoming.

“Lin and Todd will continue to bring wrongdoers before the court to seek damages in compensation for the harm so many have done to the Sandmann family,” they said. “This is only the beginning.”

The Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A team of private investigators retained by the Covington Diocese concluded last week that the students did not instigate the confrontation and found no evidence that they made “racist or offensive statements” to Phillips.

Widespread backlash against the Covington students abated after reports surfaced of a third group, known as the Black Hebrew Israelites, antagonizing both Native Americans demonstrating as part of the Indigenous Peoples March as well as the Covington students and other participants in the anti-abortion March for Life protest.

Trump throughout his presidency has attacked The Post for its White House coverage, and singled out Bezos, the world’s richest man, for ridicule on Twitter in January by calling him “Jeff Bozo.”

Tensions between the two billionaires ratcheted up earlier this month after Bezos accused accused the National Enquirer of “extortion and blackmail.” The tabloid’s owner, American Media, threatened that it would publish compromising photos of Bezos and his mistress if he did not publicly affirm that the Enquirer’s coverage was not “politically motivated or influenced by political forces,” according to an email from an AMI lawyer that Bezos published in a blog post.

AMI‘s CEO, David Pecker, is a longtime friend of the president‘s who helped facilitate “catch and kill” deals to buy the rights to damaging stories about Trump and then make sure they were not published.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:50 pm

So this was all about money then?

How is saying someone is smirking defamation?

One could easily argue, that because he has had media sources play into a sympathy vote, what harm has actually come to him?

He is now no doubt set for life, with conservatives

Even the bias investigation that was used by the catholic organisation. Admitted some students used racist tomahawk gestures

That was never an independent investigation

It was damage limitation

So what defamation case do his lawyers have here?

I mean 250 million?

That mount speaks volumes about what is really behind this lawsuit

From the word go, the conservative machinary was behind damage limiations

So I will ask again

Why would anyone wear such a hat? As can they explain what point in history where American was greater in the past?

I would also ask, how does this excuse the clear racism by some against the Native Ameican Indian

Whilst I certainly recognise the media is biased on the left. So it is on the right

This kid was cocky and within a short time, had the backing of the full conservative machinary behind him.

When someone is honesty, they will admit, their actions could have been perceived the wrong way. He never did that, but had himself cast as innocent

His parents went into overdrive to blame the Black Israelites, for the actions of the kids to the native Indian

Sorry, but that does not hold water.

Its saying their hate, excuse their hate

That is simple bullshit

I am center right, but can see past a political driven camapaign by conservatives. As they did here to down play the actual racism. This kid may not have acted racially, but others did and that is appalling how that is excused

I see the same bullshit now in the Uk, with how people on the left support Corbyn and are and act antisemitic

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:51 pm

The Post might throw him a little cash to make him go away. The initial reports about this event were somewhat slanderous. Maybe not in a legal sense though.

Its unfortunate, but most of the media is now trying to create news instead of reporting news.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:53 pm

Maddog wrote:The Post might throw him a little cash to make him go away. The initial reports about this event were somewhat slanderous. Maybe not in a legal sense though.

Its unfortunate, but most of the media is now trying to create news instead of reporting news.

One simple fact

Did some kids make racially mocking views at the native Indian?

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:59 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:The Post might throw him a little cash to make him go away. The initial reports about this event were somewhat slanderous. Maybe not in a legal sense though.

Its unfortunate, but most of the media is now trying to create news instead of reporting news.

One simple fact

Did some kids make racially mocking views at the native Indian?

I dont know.

But this kids life was drastically changed by very poor reporting.

He didnt ask for any of this. He wasn't there that day to make any sort of political statement. He was waiting on a bus while activists approached him and made him part of their story.

He's a minor child and the adults should have left him and all of the minor children alone.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:05 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

One simple fact

Did some kids make racially mocking views at the native Indian?
I dont know.

But this kids life was drastically changed by very poor reporting.

He didnt ask for any of this. He wasn't there that day to make any sort of political statement. He was waiting on a bus while activists approached him and made him part of their story.

He's a minor child and the adults should have left him and all of the minor children alone.

Yeah its changed for the better

He now has a free ride in life from conservatives and can alwways point back to the concept he is viewed as victim

Children can and are responsible for their actions

He made himself a part of this when he joined his class mates.

Why did he simple not walk away?

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:19 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:
I dont know.

But this kids life was drastically changed by very poor reporting.

He didnt ask for any of this. He wasn't there that day to make any sort of political statement. He was waiting on a bus while activists approached him and made him part of their story.

He's a minor child and the adults should have left him and all of the minor children alone.

Yeah its changed for the better

He now has a free ride in life from conservatives and can alwways point back to the concept he is viewed as victim

Children can and are responsible for their actions

He made himself a part of this when he joined his class mates.

Why did he simple not walk away?

He may not get dime.

A great number of people in the media blasted their peers on how this story was handled. The desire for "gotcha" journalism outweighed the need for a little research.

This story should have been about the black hate group and American Indians, but the power of the red hat drove the story.

The press needs to be careful when it puts people on blast.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:22 pm

Maddog wrote:But this kids life was drastically changed by very poor reporting.

"Poor reporting"? Exactly what constitutes 'good reporting' and what should the Washington Post have done differently?

Most of what the kid did was simply in that picture. If it's a picture, I'm bewildered as to how it's "poor reporting". Any commentary would be superfluous.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:22 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Yeah its changed for the better

He now has a free ride in life from conservatives and can alwways point back to the concept he is viewed as victim

Children can and are responsible for their actions

He made himself a part of this when he joined his class mates.

Why did he simple not walk away?

He may not get dime.

A great number of people in the media blasted their peers on how this story was handled. The desire for "gotcha" journalism outweighed the need for a little research.

This story should have been about the black hate group and American Indians, but the power of the red hat drove the story.

The press needs to be careful when it puts people on blast.

He may not, but is already set up for life mate with conservatives

I understand how the story was handled, but again, what has been down played is how there was racism by some of these youths and even in one case sexism

Why should the story only have been about the racist religious black isralites?

I agree the hats drove the story, but why are those kids wearing such hats?

When was America once great before?

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:But this kids life was drastically changed by very poor reporting.

"Poor reporting"? Exactly what constitutes 'good reporting' and what should the Washington Post have done differently?

Most of what the kid did was simply in that picture. If it's a picture, I'm bewildered as to how it's "poor reporting". Any commentary would be superfluous.

Mentioning the hate group would have been helpful.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

"Poor reporting"? Exactly what constitutes 'good reporting' and what should the Washington Post have done differently?

Most of what the kid did was simply in that picture. If it's a picture, I'm bewildered as to how it's "poor reporting". Any commentary would be superfluous.
Mentioning the hate group would have been helpful.

For whom, Mr. Sandmann? My point is that any defamation was brought on by Mr. Sandmann himself. His actions were primarily physical and visual, and all one has to do to understand how he became an object of derision is to view his own picture.

Ninety-nine percent of Americans didn't even follow the after-story. They just looked at that picture and judged Sandmann on the spot. If he wants redress, change his attitude as reflected in that picture. He has only himself to blame.

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Mentioning the hate group would have been helpful.

For whom, Mr. Sandmann? My point is that any defamation was brought on by Mr. Sandmann himself. His actions were primarily physical and visual, and all one has to do to understand how he became an object of derision is to view his own picture.

Ninety-nine percent of Americans didn't even follow the after-story. They just looked at that picture and judged Sandmann on the spot. If he wants redress, change his attitude as reflected in that picture. He has only himself to blame.

For the truth.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:03 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

For whom, Mr. Sandmann? My point is that any defamation was brought on by Mr. Sandmann himself. His actions were primarily physical and visual, and all one has to do to understand how he became an object of derision is to view his own picture.

Ninety-nine percent of Americans didn't even follow the after-story. They just looked at that picture and judged Sandmann on the spot. If he wants redress, change his attitude as reflected in that picture. He has only himself to blame.
For the truth.

Truth is in the framing. Mr. Sandmann framed his own picture, literally as well as figuratively. Frankly, he looked like he was being an asshole, and he was being an asshole. Someone took a picture, and the story was told.

Nuff said...

by Maddog Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:
For the truth.

Truth is in the framing. Mr. Sandmann framed his own picture, literally as well as figuratively. Frankly, he looked like he was being an asshole, and he was being an asshole. Someone took a picture, and the story was told.

Nuff said...

See, you think he is an asshole based on him doing nothing but standing there.

You are not alone. You just made his case.

A 16 year old, was standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, minding his own business and now many people think he is an asshole based on very unprofessional media coverage. With good media coverage and a little research, no one would even know who this kid was. It's not like there aren't 16 year old boys standing around all day every day smirking at people. But they never make the news. Wonder why?

by 'Wolfie Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:00 am

This case is unlikely to go anywhere really, is it !?!

In the meantime, though, the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party, their lawyers, and various extremist hate and apologist groups, will be making plenty of "political capital" out of the saga.

And if those Trump backers have put up a retainer for that law firm, then they might have considered it well spent, for the amount of publicity and propaganda advertising they generate ?

by Maddog Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:14 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

This case is unlikely to go anywhere really, is it !?!

In the meantime, though, the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party, their lawyers, and various extremist hate and apologist groups, will be making plenty of "political capital" out of the saga.

And if those Trump backers have put up a retainer for that law firm, then they might have considered it well spent, for the amount of publicity and propaganda advertising they generate ?

Plenty of people on the left, at least honest ones, have said this was handled very wrong by the media at first.

The kid has suffered some sort of negative affects. He can't walk down the street without people knowing who he is, so he might get some money, but nowhere near the 250 million.

by 'Wolfie Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:20 am

IF he gets paid for a few television and newspaper interviews in the short term, he might be able to pay for a university course...

Maybe even buy a house, if he keeps his goals modest ?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:14 am

Maddog wrote:See, you think he is an asshole based on him doing nothing but standing there.

Standing there being an asshole. The proof is in the picture.

Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation suit. The picture tells the truth. Take a look at the evidence...opps.

by Maddog Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:33 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:See, you think he is an asshole based on him doing nothing but standing there.

Standing there being an asshole. The proof is in the picture.

Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation suit. The picture tells the truth. Take a look at the evidence...opps.

Yes, he was standing there.

He's off the chain.

by Original Quill Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:50 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Standing there being an asshole. The proof is in the picture.

Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation suit. The picture tells the truth. Take a look at the evidence...opps.

Yes, he was standing there.

He's off the chain.

You can attach whatever meaning you want to Sandmann's actions. You don't realize the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Just standing there does not make a case of defamation.

Sandmann is the one who has to convince a jury of defamation. Any interpretation of that picture constitutes 'fair comment', even if the kid was meditating to god. Frankly, I don't think he will get by a directed verdict by the judge.

by Maddog Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes, he was standing there.

He's off the chain.

You can attach whatever meaning you want to Sandmann's actions. You don't realize the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Just standing there does not make a case of defamation.

Sandmann is the one who has to convince a jury of defamation. Any interpretation of that picture constitutes 'fair comment', even if the kid was meditating to god. Frankly, I don't think he will get by a directed verdict by the judge.

There is more than a picture. There is video, that was very selectively edited.

That's why so many people of every political stripe found the original story so dishonest. The full video paints a much different picture.

I'm sure this gets settled out of court for an amount that sets the kid up pretty good, but probably less than 7 figures.

by Original Quill Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:18 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You can attach whatever meaning you want to Sandmann's actions. You don't realize the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Just standing there does not make a case of defamation.

Sandmann is the one who has to convince a jury of defamation. Any interpretation of that picture constitutes 'fair comment', even if the kid was meditating to god. Frankly, I don't think he will get by a directed verdict by the judge.

There is more than a picture. There is video, that was very selectively edited.

That's why so many people of every political stripe found the original story so dishonest. The full video paints a much different picture.

I'm sure this gets settled out of court for an amount that sets the kid up pretty good, but probably less than 7 figures.

I think the Washington Post would be foolish to settle. It will be difficult for Sandmann to overcome that picture. Sure, he will have his cover story, but that goes to the divide between white supremacists and more moderate member of the public. It will be hard to pack a jury with white supremacists in northern Virginia.

People look at settlement, and they think all lawsuits end with the parties splitting the baby. But sometimes more is at stake than money. The forces for evil are lined up against the Washington Post, including Donald Trump, American Media, Inc., (AMI), and it's owner David J. Pecker. So that lawsuit may be bought out by white supremacists and the Trump, et al, and become a political football.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:30 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You can attach whatever meaning you want to Sandmann's actions. You don't realize the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Just standing there does not make a case of defamation.

Sandmann is the one who has to convince a jury of defamation. Any interpretation of that picture constitutes 'fair comment', even if the kid was meditating to god. Frankly, I don't think he will get by a directed verdict by the judge.

There is more than a picture. There is video, that was very selectively edited.

That's why so many people of every political stripe found the original story so dishonest. The full video paints a much different picture.

I'm sure this gets settled out of court for an amount that sets the kid up pretty good, but probably less than 7 figures.

The full vide still shows white kids racially mocking a native Indian

I love how again this is always excused and this is what is the problem of racism in America

Native Indians are pushed aside and such racism is allowed to exist

How does the racist black israelites excuse the racism towads the native Indian?

Its idiotic to claim anything makes that acceptable and yet constantly we see it being promoted

This kids is going to win fuck all on such a law suit and the law suit shows his family are fuckwits

I bet they have a KKK bedstand, that he masterbates over every night

by Raggamuffin Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:26 am

I can't see the Washington post online, but if the other news sites were anything to go by, they did at least misrepresent what happened, and they were heavily biased towards Phillips. If that has affected the kid's life, they should compensate him.

by Original Quill Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't see the Washington post online, but if the other news sites were anything to go by, they did at least misrepresent what happened, and they were heavily biased towards Phillips. If that has affected the kid's life, they should compensate him.

Well, the prima facie case is that video. Anything said in addition to that picture is 'fair comment'.

I'd bet anything that American Media is funding Sandmann's lawsuit.

by Maddog Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:12 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

There is more than a picture. There is video, that was very selectively edited.

That's why so many people of every political stripe found the original story so dishonest. The full video paints a much different picture.

I'm sure this gets settled out of court for an amount that sets the kid up pretty good, but probably less than 7 figures.

The full vide still shows white kids racially mocking a native Indian

I love how again this is always excused and this is what is the problem of racism in America

Native Indians are pushed aside and such racism is allowed to exist

How does the racist black israelites excuse the racism towads the native Indian?

Its idiotic to claim anything makes that acceptable and yet constantly we see it being promoted

This kids is going to win fuck all on such a law suit and the law suit shows his family are fuckwits

I bet they have a KKK bedstand, that he masterbates over every night

This is about one kid.

He was singled out, named and shamed by the media.

He is no more responsible for the actions of any other kids, than you are.

And remember, the Indian rushed to the defense of the black Israelites. He should choose his allies a bit better next time.

But I will admit the 250 million is crazy talk.

But then again, Kaepernick just got 60-80 million from the NFL. Gawking teen sues Washington Post 2190311264

Gawking teen sues Washington Post 2190311264

by Original Quill Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:21 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

The full vide still shows white kids racially mocking a native Indian

I love how again this is always excused and this is what is the problem of racism in America

Native Indians are pushed aside and such racism is allowed to exist

How does the racist black israelites excuse the racism towads the native Indian?

Its idiotic to claim anything makes that acceptable and yet constantly we see it being promoted

This kids is going to win fuck all on such a law suit and the law suit shows his family are fuckwits

I bet they have a KKK bedstand, that he masterbates over every night

This is about one kid.

He was singled out, named and shamed by the media.

He is no more responsible for the actions of any other kids, than you are.

And remember, the Indian rushed to the defense of the black Israelites. He should choose his allies a bit better next time.

But I will admit the 250 million is crazy talk.

But then again, Kaepernick just got 60-80 million from the NFL.

Sandmann should sue the ones who harmed him. If he thinks the Indian singled him out, sue him. Sandmann was newsworthy, and the Post is in the news business. His own actions shamed him.

I would like to know who is funding the lawsuit...perhaps AMI? The kid's parents could lose their home, and any other assets. Unless they are indemnified by some one.

by Maddog Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

This is about one kid.

He was singled out, named and shamed by the media.

He is no more responsible for the actions of any other kids, than you are.

And remember, the Indian rushed to the defense of the black Israelites. He should choose his allies a bit better next time.

But I will admit the 250 million is crazy talk.

But then again, Kaepernick just got 60-80 million from the NFL.

Sandmann should sue the ones who harmed him. If he thinks the Indian singled him out, sue him. Sandmann was newsworthy, and the Post is in the news business. His own actions shamed him.

I would like to know who is funding the lawsuit...perhaps AMI? The kid's parents could lose their home, and any other assets. Unless they are indemnified by some one.

I think he is suing the Native American.

As an "attorney", you know these lawyers are working on a contingency.

They only get paid if they get a settlement.

by Original Quill Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:29 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sandmann should sue the ones who harmed him. If he thinks the Indian singled him out, sue him. Sandmann was newsworthy, and the Post is in the news business. His own actions shamed him.

I would like to know who is funding the lawsuit...perhaps AMI? The kid's parents could lose their home, and any other assets. Unless they are indemnified by some one.

I think he is suing the Native American.

As an "attorney", you know these lawyers are working on a contingency.

They only get paid if they get a settlement.

Attorneys who work on contingency are investors. The experienced ones only invest in cases that are sure things. A sure thing has two elements: (1) slam-dunk liability; (2) a deep-pocket.

For Sandmann to paint himself a victim deserving of redress, is far, far from a sure bet. So, no thank you. A lawyer is not going to invest in such an "iffy" case. I doubt that this is bankrolled on a contingency basis.

Far more likely is some RW group, or backer, has come along and sees this guy as a publicity puppet, like George Zimmerman, whereby the lawsuit is a way to gin up southerners, get drunk, and cheer the downfall (hopefully) of the Washington Post. They may have got a 'Go-Fund-Me' account, with an angel starting it. But, anyway, it's far more likely that the motor for this is not contingency fees, but politics.

I'm still betting on American Media.

by Maddog Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:06 pm

The family of a Catholic school student at the center of a confrontation with a Native American elder in Washington, DC, has hired a high-profile attorney, according to a report.

L. Lin Wood, who is known for aggressively pursuing libel and slander lawsuits against media outlets, “is committed to bringing justice to 16-year-old Nick Sandmann and his family,” the family’s other lawyer, Todd McMurtry, said in a statement, according to WCPO.

The Atlanta-based Wood represented JonBenet Ramsey’s brother in a $750 million defamation suit that accused CBS of ruining Burke Ramsey’s reputation after a TV series suggested he killed his 6-year-old sister.

The terms of the settlement reached this month were not disclosed.

Wood also represented the family of Richard Jewell — who was wrongly accused after the 1996 Olympic park bombing — in a libel case against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/25/maga-teens-family-hires-high-profile-libel-attorney/

These guys do this for a living. It will be on a contingency basis "counselor". Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content

Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post

Re: Gawking teen sues Washington Post