Posted on 12/25/2023 12:18:46 PM PST by joesbucks
Kari Lake is now going to have to prove the charges she leveled against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer are true if she wants to avoid being found guilty of defaming him.
In an extensive ruling Wednesday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman said it is clear that the claims made by the failed Republican candidate for governor that Richer had sabotaged the election were not, as her lawyers claim, “mere rhetorical hyperbole.’’
(Excerpt) Read more at azdailysun.com ...
“...going to have to prove the charges she leveled against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer are true if she wants to avoid being found guilty of defaming him...”
I believe the burden of proof is still on those accusing her of committing a crime. She merely has to defend herself against such allegations.
More LAWFARE! It’s never ending.
If you can help secure the steal, Deep State can make you filthy rich when accused.
She has to prove nothing but that there were reasonably credible bits of information, evidence, or reports that could lead a reasonable person to believe what she said (and that she believed it).
I will enjoy it when the tables are turned! The Libs will squeal, but the precedent has been established with cases such as this.
Let the Discovery begin. Be careful the can of worms you open.
Can Trump sue for defamation over the hoaxes that were orchestrated against him?
I absolutely despise media coverage of legal issues. It’s routinely simplified to the point of being false. Thus, among other things, the public fails to grasp the very simple difference between criminal and civil cases. Plus I agree with you that this article inverts the burden of proof. This passage, accurately written, would read like this:
“The official, to prove his claims, will need to demonstrate (1) that the statements were made; (2) that the statement were false and defamatory, and; (3) that he sustained damages as a result, if he is to succeed in having Lake held liable for damages.”
If the comments were against the person in their private life and/or their family then defamation is a real possibility.
To saw that others threatened them based on the comments is not reason to reach a defamation judgment. Instead, those making the threats should be the focus.
“Failed Republican candidate”? Bias much, AZ Sun? That election was stolen, not lost.
This could get interesting. Does she get to depose the people who messed up the paper?
nope...the burden is on her
Who won’t the communists pervert the legal system against? I cannot wait until the tables turn.
She’s actually sued more times than most. Do you think those she sued shouldn’t also have a chance to sue? That’s pretty much how things work.
I think she just has to prove she thinks they are true. He holds a public office. She has a right to her opinion. Say what they want. She does not need to prove it true. Only need to prove it is her opinion.
According to his lawyer on a recent interview somewhere she stated that Trump had won in court against 3 or 4 big names including Hiliary in the last 6 months.
Didn’t work for Guliani
He could and probably will. Will he prevail?
“mere rhetorical hyperbole.’’
It worked for Hunter
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.