M
Maximilian75
Guest
Can the legal document that takes up the majority of the space in this article (Yes, Breaking 911 is not a reliable source, but they’re simply repeating the lawyer’s claims) be held as truth?
- Status
Can the legal document that takes up the majority of the space in this article (Yes, Breaking 911 is not a reliable source, but they’re simply repeating the lawyer’s claims) be held as truth?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Here is the same news story as reported by Reuters. Does this answer your question?
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Not really.
I guess my question is
“Is the 213-point legal document quoted verbatim in the Breaking 911 article legal truth? Is every word of that document true from the standpoint of a court of law / the state?”
I guess my question is
“Is the 213-point legal document quoted verbatim in the Breaking 911 article legal truth? Is every word of that document true from the standpoint of a court of law / the state?”
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I think that’s what the court will have to decide.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Are you guessing or do you actually know that? Do you know law well…?
E
ELCore
Guest
The document is a complaint. (That’s actually the legal terminology, complaint, as shown on the first page.) It’s not a judge’s ruling or a jury’s verdict: it’s a series of claims, which may or may not be true, or may be accurate or inaccurate in some respects, to one degree or another. We have trials to determine whether complaints are true and accurate.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Okay.
So, while they aren’t legal truth (yet), we can assume the defense has proof for each of them, yes?
So, while they aren’t legal truth (yet), we can assume the defense has proof for each of them, yes?
E
ELCore
Guest
The legal team seems to have a good reputation, so I think we can assume they at least believe their claims are well founded and can be backed up with testimony and other evidence.
G
GhostOfBBM
Guest
I’m a lawyer and I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by “legal truth”?
D
dochawk
Guest
What in the world its “legal proof”?
A complaint sets forth a party’s claims, which is followed by an answer by the defendant. These will almost always contradict each other.
It is, vaguely, a blueprint for that party’s case at trial down the road.
They are usually organized into a general set of factual allegations, including background, and then “counts”, which include the specific claims needed for that count. Negligence, four example, has the four elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages.
I could file a complaint against you demanding $10M for tying your shoelaces backwards. It wouldn’t win, would be quickly dismissed, and probably get me sanctioned, but there’s nothing stopping me from doing it.
Or I could sue you after you shot my cat, and you could deny that it happened (even though it was true).
The complaint will be followed by “discovery”, a series of depositions, questions, and produced documents.
At that point there will be trial, and what is determined there is legally binding between those parties.
So if you sued Joe and I for beating you half to death, but weren’t able to find me to serve papers, and won against Joe, once you find me, you’d have to do it all again.
hawk, esq.
A complaint sets forth a party’s claims, which is followed by an answer by the defendant. These will almost always contradict each other.
It is, vaguely, a blueprint for that party’s case at trial down the road.
They are usually organized into a general set of factual allegations, including background, and then “counts”, which include the specific claims needed for that count. Negligence, four example, has the four elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages.
I could file a complaint against you demanding $10M for tying your shoelaces backwards. It wouldn’t win, would be quickly dismissed, and probably get me sanctioned, but there’s nothing stopping me from doing it.
Or I could sue you after you shot my cat, and you could deny that it happened (even though it was true).
The complaint will be followed by “discovery”, a series of depositions, questions, and produced documents.
At that point there will be trial, and what is determined there is legally binding between those parties.
So if you sued Joe and I for beating you half to death, but weren’t able to find me to serve papers, and won against Joe, once you find me, you’d have to do it all again.
hawk, esq.
G
GhostOfBBM
Guest
OP, you just got the Cliff’s Notes version of first year CivPro.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
@Dochawk answered my question.
I guess I was comparing it mentally to a deposition or testimony, but it’s apparently not close to that.
I guess I was comparing it mentally to a deposition or testimony, but it’s apparently not close to that.
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, the claims made in the paperwork appear not to have been made under oath (unless there is part of the form indicating that the complaint is a sworn statement, which has not been reproduced for some reason), whereas deposition and testimony are both evidence given under oath.
I am a lawyer, although not American, and I’m sure will be corrected if I’m wrong.
H
Horton
Guest
In a civil suit such as this one, there is a Plaintiff (Sandmann) and Respondent (the WaPo). The Plaintiff makes certain claims and the Respondent, responds. Both sides offer evidence and a judge or jury makes a decision on each claim. This is a very simplistic description of how a civil lawsuit is handled but it is the basics.
D
dochawk
Guest
Tis_Bearself
Patron
He might very well be suing lots of people and media outlets with deep pockets. Things could get quite interesting.
O
otjm
Guest
“Legal truth” is perhaps the wrong question.
Does the pleading state a cause of action? I am not going to take the time to read it as I don’t think you want to pay me several hundred dollars an hour, but it is likely there is a cause of action in there. As to whether or not the plaintiff can succeed is an issue fairly well down the road.
Before it ever gets to trial, there may be several hearings in front of a judge; the essence of which is that the defense will say “well, aside from the facts of the case, this paragraph even if supported by facts does not state a claim in law”, the judge will decide on the pleadings (not the facts) and it is possible that the pleadings will be pared down.
Once the pleadings have been dealt with, then comes a trial. at the trial, the plaintiff will have to show facts which support the pleadings. they may show facts, but if those facts do not support the pleadings, the defense may not have to put on its case. Assuming they do support the pleadings (and there will have been cross examination of the witness(es) to see if their story holds together), then if the judget denies the motion to dismiss, the defense will have to put on its witness(es) to show contrary facts. again, cross examination. the Plaintiff may have an opportunity to submit further evidence. Then, either the judge or a jury will decide who they believe, and based on their belief of the facts, decide if the plaintiff wins or loses.
that is the short of it.
Referring to legal truth is a meaningless question. What you seem to mean is, is there law which backs the plaintiff’s claims, and that takes a fair amount of legal research. Anyone can draw up a pleading; and even assuming they have stated the law correctly, it is still up to them to prove that the plaintiff is right and the defendant is wrong, based on fact. In other words, they could have the law right, but no facts to support their claim.
Or the reverse could be true; they have the facts, but the law does not support that plaintiff would win.
This is a case about libel. What amounts to libel can vary by state; some states may have legal defenses as to what is libelous, and others may have a more liberal law (that is, fewer defenses) as to what is libelous, or a more broad definition of it. So part of the issue may be in what state the case is brought, and that in itself has legal issues. Intent may or may not be an issue (again, depending on the state).
And after all of that, the matter may be settled rather than going to trial and depending on a whole long list of issues separate from the pleadings, the matter could be settled by as little as a public retraction, all the way to a significant dollar settlement. Settlements do not normally indicate the plaintiff is right; they can be settled because the defendant feels it is cheaper to settle than to prove they are right.
Does the pleading state a cause of action? I am not going to take the time to read it as I don’t think you want to pay me several hundred dollars an hour, but it is likely there is a cause of action in there. As to whether or not the plaintiff can succeed is an issue fairly well down the road.
Before it ever gets to trial, there may be several hearings in front of a judge; the essence of which is that the defense will say “well, aside from the facts of the case, this paragraph even if supported by facts does not state a claim in law”, the judge will decide on the pleadings (not the facts) and it is possible that the pleadings will be pared down.
Once the pleadings have been dealt with, then comes a trial. at the trial, the plaintiff will have to show facts which support the pleadings. they may show facts, but if those facts do not support the pleadings, the defense may not have to put on its case. Assuming they do support the pleadings (and there will have been cross examination of the witness(es) to see if their story holds together), then if the judget denies the motion to dismiss, the defense will have to put on its witness(es) to show contrary facts. again, cross examination. the Plaintiff may have an opportunity to submit further evidence. Then, either the judge or a jury will decide who they believe, and based on their belief of the facts, decide if the plaintiff wins or loses.
that is the short of it.
Referring to legal truth is a meaningless question. What you seem to mean is, is there law which backs the plaintiff’s claims, and that takes a fair amount of legal research. Anyone can draw up a pleading; and even assuming they have stated the law correctly, it is still up to them to prove that the plaintiff is right and the defendant is wrong, based on fact. In other words, they could have the law right, but no facts to support their claim.
Or the reverse could be true; they have the facts, but the law does not support that plaintiff would win.
This is a case about libel. What amounts to libel can vary by state; some states may have legal defenses as to what is libelous, and others may have a more liberal law (that is, fewer defenses) as to what is libelous, or a more broad definition of it. So part of the issue may be in what state the case is brought, and that in itself has legal issues. Intent may or may not be an issue (again, depending on the state).
And after all of that, the matter may be settled rather than going to trial and depending on a whole long list of issues separate from the pleadings, the matter could be settled by as little as a public retraction, all the way to a significant dollar settlement. Settlements do not normally indicate the plaintiff is right; they can be settled because the defendant feels it is cheaper to settle than to prove they are right.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You’ve already received many good and correct answers explaining civil procedure.
My comment is simply that I find it odd that anyone would even ask this question. Do people really think that courts and the state are on some kind of a hunt for the “truth”? Especially in a civil lawsuit, where the question is often not “who dunnit” but rather everybody is in agreement as to who dun what and the question is whether the law provides that the plaintiff should receive damages?
There isn’t any absolute truth in law …just my opinion.
Litigation lawyers live in a world of shades of gray and are mostly comfortable with that. They spin things all day long for a living. (Much like journalists, except journalists usually present themselves as always telling the truth rather than admitting that they spin.) It sets them apart from much of the rest of the world who think there’s one truth out there and all you need to do is uncover it.
That’s also why I always appreciate Pontius Pilate asking, “And what is truth?” Pilate was a politician/ administrator. He was no doubt very familiar with Roman law and shades of gray. Jesus of course is the absolute truth and doesn’t have shades of gray. It was probably the one and only time Pilate encountered absolute truth in his life.
Last edited:
- Status