Eastside Catholic stuff

https://twitter.com/cfbquotes/status/1250280245992677376
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, CFB should prepare his anus and his wallet. Defending a defamation suit is no joke. Naming names -- minors' names -- under investigation, but not charged, is playing with fire. Plaintiff's attorneys have ways of discovering alt identities.

Buckle up. Either way, it will be interesting.

(not saying the kids will win. Don't twist.)
Click to expand...

Proving a defamation suit is an incredibly high bar legally, I think that’s one of the most common misconceptions people have about the law. I’m not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be nowhere near reaching the standard of defamation. And if you sue and lose, which is the most likely thing in a defamation case by a mile, you often have to pay the attorneys fees (although I’m not sure this is true for Washington and I’m too lazy to look it up).
Click to expand...

Defamation suits are one of the biggest wastes of time. You have to prove negligence, harm, and that the statement was maliciously false.

Also, anytime you file suit on someone it should be because they have assets or insurance worth your time. Suing an 18 year old running a parody twitter account is a waste of time unless you like burning money for no reason.
Click to expand...

Thought the malice part only applies to public figures? Unless you can make the argument prominent high school athletes are public figures (hmm). Moot point though because there is no clear disregard for the truth in publishing/referencing a police report, right? In fact, the opposite.

Studying for the Bar (or should be), but instead am relying on a teen boi recruiting site for legal tidbits. I know I’ll pass..
Click to expand...

If you KNEW it was false and published it resulting in damages it would most likely be defamation. I’ve never seen a defamation suit IRL even while clerking. It’s so rare professors don’t even want to waste time talking about it. And a 4-star recruit definitely qualifies as a public figure, which as you know raises the threshold

Quoting published stories, which quote official police investigations, is pretty safe.
 
When I was a kid, if there was group sex you either partook or hopped out the fucking car, not pull your phone out. What a weird voyeur/cuck/creep move.
 
https://twitter.com/geescottjr/status/1250630127727210498
Click to expand...

Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...odd
Click to expand...
Yep just said the same thing in the Wam.

Something really weird about exonerating one and only one individual.

And the wording is funny too. The police reports explicitly state Scott wasn’t involved? That seems extremely unlikely.
 
https://twitter.com/geescottjr/status/1250630127727210498
Click to expand...

Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...odd
Click to expand...

It would appear he got in touch with his lawyers
Click to expand...

But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."
 
There are two layers. Those who were there at the event, and those who circulated or viewed the video. If the police seized cell phones to check the circulation they may also be privy to text conversations regarding the event.

Some of these convos could be documented? Who knows. Maybe some of these kids lied about or attempted to stonewall investigators, helping a coverrup.

Anyway, there are many ways people could end up looking bad in relation to this case.
 
https://twitter.com/geescottjr/status/1250630127727210498
Click to expand...

Why did King5 make an editor's note clarifying that one random kid wasnt involved. That seems...odd
Click to expand...

It would appear he got in touch with his lawyers
Click to expand...

But there was no mention of him in any actual news reports. I don't think any names were mentioned. It seems odd that you would clarify that a certain student you never explicitly mentioned was not involved in an incident. The only explanation I see is that this is driven by pure narcissism like, "my son is a local celebrity. You need to run an extra story to make sure everyone knows he wasnt involved."
Click to expand...

Pure narcissism is definitely on the table here.

I’m sure Gee’s Involved teammates appreciate him social (media) distancing himself from them so quickly and forcefully.
 
General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
 
General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t disagree
 
General rule ... if somebody works really hard to convince you of something ... probably means that they are in full damage control mode
Click to expand...

Seems like a preemptive strike to soften the blow of news regarding other levels of involvement or culpability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top