Attorneys for Dominion Voting Systems advised a federal judge on Monday that conservative attorney Sidney Powell has to be held liable for the out-of-court strikes on the voting machine vendor or that the court dangers generating”unprecedented immunity for attorneys to wage televised disinformation campaigns.”
Filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as a reply to Powell’s motion to dismiss against late March, Dominion’s attorneys are pushing against promises made by the attorney that her repetition of false conspiracy theories amounted to secure address with the”attorney-advocate” talking out on behalf of her own”preferred candidate”
Remember: Dominion is suing Powell (along with various other individuals and media outlets) for overdue 2020 attempts to describe former president Donald Trump’s reduction to Joe Biden by repeating baseless and”error-filled” claims made by Powell and her allies who dead Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez had any connection to the vendor as well as rival Smartmatic-among other attacks on the voting machine companies.
Notably, the billion-dollar defamation suit against Powell isn’t premised on her use of those conspiracy in court pleadings but, instead, during numerous television appearances with sympathetic media outlets.
“Attorneys don’t own a license to lie,” Dominion’s attorneys wrote in their 56-page response motion, seemingly referencing Powell’s book. “Although statements created inside the court are subject to specific statements which aren’t appliable [sic] to the out-of-court statements at issue in this situation, Powell asks this Court to make a sweeping and unprecedented immunity for’attorney advocates’ who intentionally or recklessly spread defamatory falsehoods during televised disinformation campaigns involving advocacy because of their’preferred candidate’–i.e., to make a propaganda exclusion to defamation liability. No such immunity has ever been settled and recognized law forecloses this argument.”
The response motion goes on:
[A] law license isn’t a license to lie, and courts regularly permit defamation actions to proceed against attorneys based on claims made outside the courtroom–even when those statements relate to lawsuit. Dominion’s defamation claims aren’t based on the claims Powell produced in court, but on Powell’s monthslong, sustained defamatory effort that she peddled in D.C. and broadcast on television and over the world wide web. Such out-of-court statements aren’t privileged.
Powell’s attorneys assert that her media appearances aren’t actionable statements which could be subject to defamation laws under the country’s free speech regime.
“First Amendment protections aren’t restricted to filing suits; they expand to actions that precede or are concomitant with all the lawsuit, such as soliciting clients, publicizing the possibility of legal treatment, and gaining public assistance,” the motion to dismiss argues.
In their Monday answer, Dominion’s attorneys dismissed this line of thought by stating that Powell was efficiently asking for the invention of an exemption to longstanding defamation law and precedent.
“The law doesn’t confer immunity from defamation liability simply because address could be characterized as’governmental’ or as involving’advocacy,'” the filing from attorney Megan L. Meier reads. “Indeed, courts throughout the country have held that defamation claims predicated on political language could proceed.”
[T]he question isn’t whether the First Amendment protects’advocacy,’ but whether individuals enjoy inherent immunity to release defamatory falsehoods,” Dominion argues. “The response, below settled precedent, is not any. Engaging in’advocacy’ doesn’t alter that.”
Law&Crime reached out to Powell for comment on this story but no response was forthcoming at the time of publication.
Read Dominion’s Most Up-to-date court filing under:
[image via Epoch Times/screengrab]
Have a hint we have to know? [email protected]