- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Candace Owen’s sounding scared? Emmanuel Macron & Briggett will face Discovery!!!
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:53 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And she’ll need to show her evidence of this “truth” at the time of the statements
I asked you this earlier
How many times have you stepped into a federal courthouse to argue either facts or law or handle any cases?
The plaintiff has brought a lawsuit it is the plaintiff burden of proof they have to show that the statement was false i
. Only then the defense has to show the statement was true that is how a civil lawsuit works
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 2:54 pm
1
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Then again—she has to show it’s true or that she held a reasonable belief it was true. With what she has. Not a fishing expedition.
There are 2 different defenses.
1. The absolute truth. Which you can ask for discovery to prove. If you ran an article that said Mr X is Baby X’s father and he sued you for defamation, you could get a paternity test.
2. Maybe it’s not true, but I had reason to believe it at the time.
And it’s logical, because defamation only ever exists if the information isn’t true.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:54 pm to AncientTiger
Why would a head of state give a second thought to a story or one pod caster's opinion from another country if there wasn't any truth to it??
Posted on 8/12/25 at 2:57 pm to mtb010
quote:
Why would a head of state give a second thought to a story or one pod caster's opinion from another country if there wasn't any truth to it??
When she wasn’t suing the line was “well if it’s not true why doesn’t she sue for defamation”
Candace Owens has a large following, this has crossed international lines and it’s a fricking horrible thing to say about someone who has children.
Owens was 100% relying on the Macron’s to take the high road.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:10 pm to dafif
quote:There are no federal defamation statutes so this would never be argued in a federal court.
How many times have you stepped into a federal courthouse to argue either facts or law or handle any cases?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:11 pm to 94LSU
you can get into federal court on diversity jurisdiction.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:11 pm to SammyTiger
2 things about this case are fascinating
1. It is either absolutely true or absolutely false
2. Not sure you can make the arguments necessary to avoid a big judgment that you made a mistake . It falls into the per se category of defamation in my opinion
1. It is either absolutely true or absolutely false
2. Not sure you can make the arguments necessary to avoid a big judgment that you made a mistake . It falls into the per se category of defamation in my opinion
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:13 pm to 94LSU
quote:
There are no federal defamation statutes so this would never be argued in a federal court.
Good lord - where are you from? Also I told you this earlier so are you too stupid to read?
They brought suit in federal court and there is common law not statutes - please go to another thread and try and learn something
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:26 pm to mtb010
quote:
Why would a head of state give a second thought to a story or one pod caster's opinion from another country if there wasn't any truth to it??
my take is Brigitte has her feelings hurt and wants her man to stand up for her
I dont think this is going to turn out the way Brigitte wants
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:29 pm to dafif
I think unless Bridgett Macron is actually a man, Candace Owens will absolutely lose.
For starters, it’s a wild claim. The evidence requires you to ignore a lot of information and outright deny it. Macron’s attorney sent her a ton of information that she outright ignored.
For starters, it’s a wild claim. The evidence requires you to ignore a lot of information and outright deny it. Macron’s attorney sent her a ton of information that she outright ignored.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:32 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
Whether she is a man or not, she’s never going to pull her pants down to prove to the world she’s a woman.
A CT scan would do the trick
Posted on 8/12/25 at 3:37 pm to AncientTiger
Posted on 8/12/25 at 5:14 pm to dafif
quote:
They brought suit in federal court and there is common law not statutes - please go to another thread and try and learn something
Errr, Delaware Superior Court is state court not federal. For the third time there are no federal defamation statutes to sue under. Run along back to the children's table, the adults are talking.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 5:49 pm to AncientTiger
Posted on 8/12/25 at 6:39 pm to 94LSU
quote:
Errr, Delaware Superior Court is state court not federal. For the third time there are no federal defamation statutes to sue under. Run along back to the children's table, the adults are talking.
You are beyond retarded...and I've seen some of your posts in other threads.
The original articles discussed filing in federal court. It does not matter if they did file there as I and other posters have repeatedly pointed out. The law is the law.
If you read the complaint, 219 pages and 634 paragraphs you will notice that not one statute is mentioned. Isnt that weird...you mentiioned statutes over and over and yet the lawyers for Macron did not mention a single one.
The Complaint basically alleges defamation and false light - both common law claims.
Now go and leave the adults alone.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:35 pm to dafif
quote:That took a whole lot of words to just say "I was wrong after all."
The original articles discussed filing in federal court.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:48 pm to SammyTiger
So Trump isn’t a Fascist?
He isn’t “literally” Hitler?
He isn’t “literally” Hitler?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:16 pm to jimmy the leg
Jimmy are you stupid?
Trump being a fascist is arguably subjective.
And unfortunate “literally” not literally also means “figuratively” because we use it wrong too much.
If you don’t see the difference between calling Trump a fascist or Obama a communist and saying Bridget Macron is actually a man committing identity fraud and here is exactly who she really is, and here is who actually gave birth to her biological children, and her first husband was never real, then I cant help you.
Trump being a fascist is arguably subjective.
And unfortunate “literally” not literally also means “figuratively” because we use it wrong too much.
If you don’t see the difference between calling Trump a fascist or Obama a communist and saying Bridget Macron is actually a man committing identity fraud and here is exactly who she really is, and here is who actually gave birth to her biological children, and her first husband was never real, then I cant help you.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:22 pm to AncientTiger
“ a mother who podcasts from her basement.”
They always play the victim. Own up to it
They always play the victim. Own up to it
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:32 pm to AncientTiger
Me thinks the French protest too much.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News