slug.com slug.com

3 15

Sidney Powell Responds to The Fake News
“The #FakeNews is lying to everyone about our filing in the Dominion case. My position has not changed. We will be taking them to the mat.” - Sidney
Dominion v. FREE SPEECH
This lawsuit is yet another attempt to silence critics and citizens who want to investigate voter fraud. The statements Dominion claims are defamatory are actually protected speech under the First Amendment because they deal with matters of public concern, i.e., election integrity. The Fake News media and their allies are spinning meritless claims because their arguments have neither the facts nor the law needed to hold up in a courtroom.

The statements complained of are also protected because Dominion is a public figure and must prove that Ms. Powell acted with malice. This is impossible, as Ms. Powell’s lawyer has explained, because Ms. Powell’s statements were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence. She presented this evidence for all to see in four court filings and on her website.

FAKE NEWS v. Reality
Contrary to what the Fake News is pushing, Sidney did NOT claim in court that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’. The press is using twisted legalese and manipulating the legal standard to confuse the issue, as they have done before in other high-profile cases. Ms. Powell’s statements were legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence.

Dominion claims that the evidence Ms. Powell relied upon to assert her claims concerning the lack of election integrity is incredible and not believable. Ms. Powell responded by pointing out that her assertions were her legal opinions based on the evidence she presented to four different courts. Accordingly, her statements are not subject to challenge under defamation law.

Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

ajhilder 7 Mar 24
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Thanks Sydney Powell Australia Australia in god we trust President trump is still your President

2

The courts can’t allow the truth of the election fraud to come out as a legal decision because

  1. It would cause the ignorant masses to lose faith in the political leadership that are in place due to the fraud.
  2. The loss of faith in our election systems would lead to anarchy.
  3. It would serve no purpose to expose the fraud as there is no acceptable recourse possible.

This is of course complete nonsense. Fraud is a crime and requires an investigation, a grand jury to bring indictments against the alleged perpetrators and a court hearing so the alleged perpetrators have their day in court or can be brought to justice. None of this information was ever provided in any of the 50 or so court cases brought by the Trump Campaign or its allies. It is incumbent on the plaintiffs to show as part of a conspiracy: “You’re going to suggest part of them are in a conspiracy? How does that work?” Aronchick asked. “Who? Where? When? How?” The Trump Campaign wanted to disenfranchise millions of voters, who at the time believed and did cast a legal vote according to the laws of their State. The courts simply would not do that and rightly so. There is no maleficence here of the kind you suggest.

[apnews.com]

0

Her lawyers are practicing the same deceit as they are accusing the media of doing. She is only protected against defamation as an officer of the court. If she made false public statements that damaged the company's reputation, those are not protected under the "officer of the court" law. Although it will be hard to prove "intent" as it always is.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:202463
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.