....no proof.....



Judge throws out Palin libel case against New York Times

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

....A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly towards indications it was false.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable.....


failed.....to prove.....?!

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Makes my day.

This ought to bring out the Palin whine in stereo.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

that was such a long shot, but I was still worried. REALLY glad that she wasted piles of money on lawyers and travel for this nothingburger.

Well, I doubt it's over, even though it was thrown out by the judge. Conservative cultural issues like this have infinite funding, so I would imagine it's going to be appealed at least.

Unless the appeal goes to some Trump appointee, Palin won't do any better there. At the worst, the appeals judge could say it should have been given to the jury. Not sure if that means a new trial, but I doubt a jury will come to a different conclusion than the current judge.

If, however, it gets dragged to the Supremes eventually, they could just make something up to give Palin the win. I mean, that's the level they've descended to.

“ The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff Monday came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable. The judge’s decision came after a trial that lasted a little more than a week and as the jury was in its second day of deliberations. “

---

=wr=

Activist Judge.

yes, by all means... appeal... that will cost you more lawyer $

A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false.
. . .

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable. The judge’s decision came after a trial that lasted a little more than a week and as the jury was in its second day of deliberations. “


This is a wrinkle I'm not familiar with, particularly the should be thrown out part.

So did he throw out/dismiss the case?

And if so, why let the jury continue to deliberate?

Is this just to see what they would have decided if the suit were valid, as if the plaintiffs team actually did their job?

Veddy intrestink.

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
RAMd®d
A judge has ruled that a libel lawsuit former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed against the New York Times over a 2017 editorial should be thrown out because her lawyers failed to produce adequate evidence that the newspaper knew what it wrote about her was false or acted recklessly toward indications it was false.
. . .

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable. The judge’s decision came after a trial that lasted a little more than a week and as the jury was in its second day of deliberations. “


This is a wrinkle I'm not familiar with, particularly the should be thrown out part.

So did he throw out/dismiss the case?

And if so, why let the jury continue to deliberate?

Is this just to see what they would have decided if the suit were valid, as if the plaintiffs team actually did their job?

Veddy intrestink.

I think he's allowing for the possibility that the jury will find against Palin and in favor of the Times. If that happens, then maybe there would be no/little basis for an appeal?

“But they are really mean to me !”

Yeah… not.

Quote
btfc
“ The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff Monday came as a Manhattan jury was deliberating on Palin’s suit, which claimed the Times and former editorial page editor James Bennet defamed her by unfairly linking her to a 2011 shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and gravely wounded then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Rakoff said he would continue to allow the jury to deliberate to a verdict and added that he considers an appeal in the case to be inevitable. The judge’s decision came after a trial that lasted a little more than a week and as the jury was in its second day of deliberations. “

If the jury is not sequestered and has access to their cell phones it seems very likely that they will become aware of what the judge has said while they're still deliberating. Wouldn't that taint the jury and be the basis of an appeal if they find against Palin?

Quote
Michael

If the jury is not sequestered and has access to their cell phones it seems very likely that they will become aware of what the judge has said while they're still deliberating. Wouldn't that taint the jury and be the basis of an appeal if they find against Palin?

Yeah, that possibility has already been floated in the news coverage. But I’m betting this gets appealed anyway, regardless of the jury decision. Again, these politically-linked conservative cases tend to have unlimited funding from rich old dudes who are intent on getting a decision that confirms their worldview. (Looking (down) at you, RM Scaife)

Jury members are quizzed everyday on whether they have read or heard anything regarding the case. As long as they say they have not, and no evidence is presented to the contrary, the jury is regarded as pure.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Jury rejected Palin's claim - if she wants to appeal, it'll cost her some serious $ - I doubt she follows through... unless she goes full MAGA and goes on a fundraising stint off this... But I have a feeling she's had enough of the limelight.

I heard on NPR that the jury knew nothing of the dismissal and that the jury finding, if guilty, would be a hedge against an appeal.