davidmcbeth
Banned
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=7353467
Case is about if you can be sued for your testimony before a legislative committee...for defamation.
And this is why I do my own case work. The guy should have motioned to strike these counts of the complaint instead of summary judgment.
The court sidestepped this question altogether in his memo...reconsideration was denied.
I think the judge is wrong ~ why not address a single count via a summary judgment too...but its best to attack through a motion to strike; do it early and do it before you have to file a response to the complaint.
Lazy lawyering is my guess. And not an active defendant ~ he could have filed a co-appearance, pro se and filed the motion to strike on his own. In cases where I did have a lawyer, I was a co-pro se litigant able to make filings. It forces the lawyer to file motions because if he won't file a motion you want filed he knows that you have the ability to do so.
I think it creates an unfair playing field myself ~ companies can claim that they have been injured. But if a company lies - where's your standing to sue?
On the other hand, I don't see any law that does not allow a party to sue another (ya cannot sue actual members of the general assembly-they're special) if their speech at a legislative hearing harms one.
I'll be watching this case closely.
Case is about if you can be sued for your testimony before a legislative committee...for defamation.
And this is why I do my own case work. The guy should have motioned to strike these counts of the complaint instead of summary judgment.
The court sidestepped this question altogether in his memo...reconsideration was denied.
I think the judge is wrong ~ why not address a single count via a summary judgment too...but its best to attack through a motion to strike; do it early and do it before you have to file a response to the complaint.
Lazy lawyering is my guess. And not an active defendant ~ he could have filed a co-appearance, pro se and filed the motion to strike on his own. In cases where I did have a lawyer, I was a co-pro se litigant able to make filings. It forces the lawyer to file motions because if he won't file a motion you want filed he knows that you have the ability to do so.
I think it creates an unfair playing field myself ~ companies can claim that they have been injured. But if a company lies - where's your standing to sue?
On the other hand, I don't see any law that does not allow a party to sue another (ya cannot sue actual members of the general assembly-they're special) if their speech at a legislative hearing harms one.
I'll be watching this case closely.
Last edited:
