Dominion Files Lawsuits
Voting machine manufacturer Dominion sued Sidney Powell, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell for $1.3 billion in damages for repeatedly claiming Dominion rigged voting machines.
The lawsuit against Powell described 40 occasions Powell allegedly made false and defamatory statements about Dominion
According to Forbes, Lindell says he would welcome being sued by Dominion, adding he has “100% proof” they committed election fraud.
No Reasonable Person Defense
Facing defamation, Powell trots out a No Reasonable Person, defense.
Attorneys for Sidney Powell are asking a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against her, claiming that “no reasonable person” thought the pro-Trump lawyer’s statements about the 2020 election results were factual.
In contrast to Lindell, Powell admits she was making things up.
Court Arguments
The word “Reasonable” appeared 10 times in the Request for Dismissal.
The lead image and many similar ones are in the defense filing. Here are some paragraphs from the dismissal plea.
Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication.
Furthermore, it is clear that Powell’s statements were made as an attorney-advocate for her preferred candidate and in support of her legal and political positions.
The highly charged and political nature of the statements likewise underscores their political and hence partisan nature. Powell alleged that “Democrats were trying to ‘steal the vote’ from Trump and that ‘they ha[d] developed a computer system to alter votes electronically.”
She claimed that she had evidence that the election result was the “greatest crime of the century if not the life of the world.” Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes … is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”
Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.
Spotlight Giuliani
In January, a lawyers’ group filed an Ethics Complaint Against Rudy Giuliani with New York’s courts seeking to suspend his license.
In the Defamation Lawsuit against Giuliani, Dominion took aim at the conspiracy theory Giuliani promulgated that Dominion is a Venezuelan company that stole elections for Hugo Chavez.
“After decrying how an American election had been fixed by a Venezuelan-owned company, Giuliani marketed cigars from an ‘American-owned’ company, offering ‘$20 off orders over $100’ if his viewers used the code ‘Rudy20’ when ordering,” the lawsuit said.
“Giuliani’s false tweets about Dominion were liked over 534,000 times and were foreseeably retweeted over 160,000 times. The retweets disseminated Giuliani’s false tweets to over 1.5 million Twitter accounts,” the lawsuit said.
It’s one thing to tell lies about a political opponent. It is another matter to purposely drag private corporations into the mud.
And Dominion even gave Powell a chance to retract her statements.
On that basis, I suspect all of the defendants in the Dominion lawsuits are in deep legal trouble.
Will Dominion go after Trump as well?
Mish
It looks you folks are still reading the fake news. If you go to Sydney’s website https://www.sidneypowell.com/ you will get the real story.
I think she’s sitting on a goldmine of money raised with the promise of the Kraken. Probably sitting in a Cayman account already.
It all seems rather odd to me. They spent all that time trying to get into court to argue the election was rigged and now they’ve got the chance to go to court to put their case they’re trying to avoid it.
Mish releases the kraken on Powell.
Fox News lawyers argued in court that a resonable person would not take Tucker Carlson’s statements as facts and the judge agreed. So there is precedent.
I thought they said they had actual proof???
Fox News lawyers said in court that a reasonable person would not take Tucker Carlson’s statements as factual and the judge agreed. So there is precedent.
For those who want a lawerly opinion on Powell, read the attached complaint from the Michigan Attorney General….
i’m not a lawyer, but if i understand libel, it is about lies. she has admitted to lies about the company. is this her asking for the mercy of the court?
To explain the issue, suppose you said that Amazon is run by a bunch of communists. That would not cause you to lose a lawsuit by Amazon if any of the four following things were true:
Her defense is #4. Without seeing the court filings, she made also have invoked some of the other defenses. Powell would have been fine if she used the words “It is my opinion…” or “I believe..” often. If she didn’t, she’s going to have to show why she thinks a reasonable man would have believed she was stating opinion as opposed to fact.
Put another way, it’s fine to state opinions about companies, even if you are wrong, but you should always make it clear that you are stating opinion, not fact.
I would add that nothing in that post is intended to be legal advice. I’m not an attorney. Before posting things that could be libel, you should consult your own attorney.
I am not sure what to make of this. I am not a lawyer specialized in slander and libel law and consequently I have no idea whether her defence is a good or bad one even if to me, a layman, it seems risky. Perhaps we have a lawyer here specialized in that area who can give us an idea.
I’m not that, but I will say that the defenses you usually see are “What I said is true” or “The person I said this about is a public figure, so you need to prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth”. The “what I said is so absurd that no one could have believed it” is possible, but I would think would be limited to really absurd statements, such as when the National Enquirer printed a picture of Bill Clinton, and then George Bush, meeting with a space alien.
Per the comments by Sechel above, the public figure defense is a part of her strategy. Is a corporation automatically a public figure? Probably, but I don’t know. If Dominion is a “public figure”, they will have to prove actual malice, or reckless disregard for the truth.
I found this summary of defamation law as applied to corporations:
Thus, the “reasonable man” defense would seem to be a claim that a reasonable man would have believed that her statements were her opinion, as opposed to statements of fact.
Reasonable man in these times? Thanks for the article. According to Ars Technica the voting machine industry sues a lot compared to its size. Looking back it seems there have been more than a few instances in the last twenty years where voting machines have been found in error so maybe her defence is not as crazy as that but what do I know? Let’s see who wins.
Agreed. Now that I understand her defense, it’s not as crazy as it seems on it’s face. We’ll just have to see how it turns out, but I expect it will end up depending on the specific wording of her claims. Did she include a lot of “I believe…” or “it is my opinion that…” clauses?
When a few thousand lackwits storm the capitol because of what you said, it’s clear they found it believable. The question will be “are trumplings reasonable people”.
Seems like a fairly solid defense. Trumplings are obviously kooks.
You misunderstand the defense. It has nothing to do with whether people believed that the machines switched votes. The legal question that matters is which of the following a reasonable man would have believed:
a. Powell said it was a fact that the machines switched votes
b. Powell believed that the machines switched votes
Powell’s defense is that b. is true, that a reasonable man would have believed she was stating her opinion. We’ll see what the courts think.
I haven’t followed it in detail but thought they all said it and believed it.
If they (meaning Powell, et al) said it, and didn’t believe it, that would show actual malice, and they are toast. If they said it, and believed it, but were just giving an opinion, they may be OK. If they said it, and claimed that it was fact, then they better be able to prove it.
Only my opinion of course but I think they’re on very dodgy ground. Their efforts at the time to get their rigged election claims heard in the courts was clearly intended to make people believe they had strong factual evidence. Didn’t they say as much? I got that impression from reading the news. Oh well, we’ll see, it’ll be interesting to see if the court allows people to make unfounded public accusations with impunity.
I suspect that you are right, but honestly, I really didn’t pay much attention to Powell. It was my impression that she was claiming they had actual evidence that tied Dominion to Venezuela, and actual evidence of vote switching. I did not have the impression that she was claiming to be an opinion.
So my question is do you feel lied to or your not a reasonable person.
Lets you know what these guys think of their base.
She’s a retired federal employee collecting a pension and benefits on taxpayers dime. Taxpayers are the real losers here.
It’s ok. We’re used to it.
Seems incredible, but any good lawyer will populate every defense to asserted claims.
The burden of proof is on the accuser so hopefully Dominion can continue to not produce the machines for inspection.
WOW. would you appreciate the opportunity to walk that statement back??? Waaaaaay back!
Not the slightest bit. People like her, federal employees who con the public, don’t deserve due process or fair treatment under the law.
Those that were concerned that the allegations against Dominion weren’t adequately investigated should now be pleased, as the allegations will be investigated thoroughly. If Lindell or Powell has proof that the machines changed votes, they will get the opportunity to present it. If Lindell and Powell have no evidence, Dominion we be take to take what they own to recoup any financial losses they suffered from false allegations.
The wheels of justice turn slower than some would like, sometimes, but they do turn.
Apparently Powell’s statement means that Republicans are unreasonable. I would go along with that. Her argument might hold water if she wasn’t counsel to Trump and representing him in court. Making false statements in court is against the law and violates the rules of the licensing board. So Powell should be put in jail, lose her license to practice law, and lose the defamation cases.
She is using the same nonsense newspapers say. Both are wrong. Unfortunate that this is happening to this country. Right down the tubes
“It’s one thing to tell lies about a political opponent. It is another matter to purposely drag private corporations into the mud. ” I would say they are equally despicable.
True
Remove her licensce NOW!
The relevant rule from the ABA
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others
Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients
Misrepresentation
[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see Rule 8.4.
Statements of Fact
[2] This Rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party’s intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are ordinarily in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations under applicable law to avoid criminal and tortious misrepresentation.
Crime or Fraud by Client
[3] Under Rule 1.2(d), a lawyer is prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Paragraph (b) states a specific application of the principle set forth in Rule 1.2(d) and addresses the situation where a client’s crime or fraud takes the form of a lie or misrepresentation. Ordinarily, a lawyer can avoid assisting a client’s crime or fraud by withdrawing from the representation. Sometimes it may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm an opinion, document, affirmation or the like. In extreme cases, substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose information relating to the representation to avoid being deemed to have assisted the client’s crime or fraud. If the lawyer can avoid assisting a client’s crime or fraud only by disclosing this information, then under paragraph (b) the lawyer is required to do so, unless the disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
Yes, shut them down. And let’s get started burning books too.
who said she’s not allowed to slander and libel? i expect reasonable people consider the lawsuit as sowing what she reaped.
They can still do it but the owners that support this vitriol should be held to account. The freedom of speech rules have not kept up with the advances of social media
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Sydney Powell always seemed to be a few cards short of a full deck to me. Nothing I ever heard her say made the least bit of sense. I hope they take her to the cleaners.
Couldn’t help but notice that ZH is avoiding this story like the plague. The reaction to Sidney over there has been akin to 1960s schoolgirls attending a Beatles concert. They loved her so much they completely turned on Tucker Carlson for daring to question her lack of evidence.
Fast forward a few months and Sidney’s kraken is a joke, while Tucker has been more belligerent than usual in an effort to win his old fans back. This whole charade is pathetic and everyone who was fooled by it should be deeply ashamed!
Trumplings gonna trumple…
ZH is schizoid. They have some complex and high quality in-depth and insightful posts on finance, economics, and the stock and bond market. However, they’re totally bereft of objectivity when it comes to politics, and most of those articles are completely laughable and opposite of what you hear from more objective reality based sources. It’s as telling what they omit as what they include in their political hashslingery.
Unlike Mish, who calls it like he sees it – critiquing both left and right when he thinks they deserve it, and often he’s ahead of the crowd in his insights. One of his many admirable traits.
Ii Concur
Classic case of hero to zero. That would kinda suck going from a millionaire to nothing and no one wants to hire you. Maybe Trump will thank her for the sacrifice on his new media platform. I didn’t vote for either one of the clowns. I’m really getting tired or the choices. Beavis and Butthead.
Powell’s statement would be laughable if it wasn’t an admission that gives the court grounds to hold her in contempt and for Dominion to adk for sanctions and collect attorneys fees from her.
Even as she tried to distance herself from any liability for what she repeatedly said on TV, in public, and in court, Powell also dug in, arguing Dominion couldn’t prove actual malice because “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now”
At least she self-defines as an unreasonable person. That should help the prosecution.
You misunderstand the defense here. The defense here is that a reasonable person would understand that her statements were statements of opinion. She is entitled to have wrong opinions, and to state them publicly, about corporations. What she is not entitled to do is to state that something is fact that is not fact, nor to state incorrect things based on actual malice. Proving actual malice is always hard. An easier route to victory for Dominion will be to prove that she presented the claim about Dominion as a statement of fact, as opposed to presenting it as opinion.
Her best defense would be to prove that the claims were true. Obviously, she can’t do that, so she turns to the next defense. Her claim that she believed, and still believes, the statements to be true goes to show the absence of malice. That leaves us with the question of how she presented her claims. Would a reasonable person have believed she was stating facts, or that she was stating her opinion?
Did she say “Dominion machines did x”, or did she say “I believe Dominion machines did x”?
Prison, mental institution, it don’t matter to me. This one’s too crazy to run loose.
If she still believes it to be true then she cannot be a reasonable person by that standard if her defense is that no reasonable person could believe it to be true. And if she is not a reasonable person then we should not look at what she believes but rather we should look to see if any persons out there believed it to be true. Based on the media reports there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people beleived it to be true, even Trump who brought her to the white house and considered hiring her – and then still promoted her after he did not hire her.
That is not what she said, nor what her defense is. It is irrelevant to her defense whether people believed her statements to be true. The only question is whether they believed she was presented them as “truth”, or she was presenting them as “her opinion”. Her defense claims that since corporations are public figures, people are entitled to make statements about them that turn out to be not true, so long as they believe them to be true (meaning, there is no malice), and so long as they present them as opinion, not as fact.
while I agree with Powell that no reasonable person should accept her claim about Dominion it’s also true that this defense is laughable. The claim went viral yesterday. As soon as Zoe Tillman reported it on twitter dozen of people immediately started retweeting and writing news stories around it
Some rich person out there needs to fund an AM radio station that says the exact same things that Wayne Allyn Root and other conservative radio talk show hosts say but flip it and have the host say it about the Republicans, and then document it. Its no wonder with the fighting words being spewed by Republican talk show hosts everyday that we have such discourse in this country. If I was a foreign actor trying to undermine this country I would support the conservative am radio talk shows, its downright subversive what they are saying everyday on the AM radio. And don’t tell me it is the same as what is being said on MSNBC or CNN, its not the same by any stretch. In comparison, it makes Fox News commentary sound like a Barney show.
“an AM radio station”
I stopped listening to AM radio in 1967 when all the good music appeared on FM radio.
Some people believed it to be fact – about 70 million Trump supporters and about everyone storming the capital on January 6th. Not sure I would call any of those persons reasonable, greedy comes to mind. Sydney should be disbarred over this and bankrupted. By the way many Trump supporters still support armed insurrection. You can listen to AM Radio and hear their plans. Wayne Allyn Root, a deranged AM talk show host has made and continues to make the case for a Republican led coup or some other division – it goes on every day now. Something needs to be done to boycott the owners of these radio stations and their advertisers.
Under the bus with the lot of them…. let them eat federal crimes!
It is way past time for these people to be arrested, tried and executed for treason. When the rest of the traitors see the first couple of hundred swing from the gallows, it might cause the to flee to Russia where they belong.
In a way she’s not wrong. I’m pretty sure no reasonable people did think that what she said was fact.
I guess though, to quote Arthur Fleck, “you get what you f***ing deserve”
I agree that no reasonable people believed her. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people were apparently not reasonable, and did believe her, and in the process, she no doubt caused substantial harm to Dominion.
If they are objectively unreasonable, then legally they would be excluded from the analysis.
A huge judgment against defendants will send the appropriate message to future slanderers.
This is going to be hilarious.