Category Archives: Civil Complaint

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order dated August 19, 2019.

1. On March 21, 2019, this Court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 57), which set forth various deadlines up to an including a Final Pretrial Conference on January 31, 2020. Pending before the Court at that time were Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed on October 16, 2018 (Dkt. # 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on March 15, 2019 (Dkt. 53). On April 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied (Dkt. # 58), and on August 7, 2019, the Court adopted that Report and Recommendation and denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and additionally granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. # 65).

2. The parties have exchanged written discovery, but have mutually agreed that in light of the number of witnesses who must be deposed, several of whom are non-parties outside the control of any party, additional time is necessary for completion of discovery, the deadline to file dispositive motions, and trial. In addition, Plaintiff wishes to further amend his pleadings, based on events which occurred after the current Scheduling Order’s deadline to amend pleadings. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that portions of the March 21, 2019
Scheduling Order be modified, as set forth below.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.68.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint July 31, 2019, Seth Rich leaked DNC emails, Julian Assange told Ellen Ratner who notified Butowsky, Joel Rich revealed Aaron role

Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint July 31, 2019, Seth Rich leaked DNC emails, Julian Assange told Ellen Ratner who notified Butowsky, Joel Rich revealed Aaron role

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky v. Michael Gottlieb et al, Amended Complaint:

“42. The DNC employee responsible for the leaks was Seth Rich, and he was
assisted by his brother Aaron. Mr. Butowsky does not know exactly when the DNC figured out that Mr. Rich was the source of the leak. On July 10, 2016, however, Mr. Rich was fatally shot while walking home in Washington, D.C., and the murder has not been solved. Mr. Butowsky does not know whether the murder is related to Mr. Rich’s role in leaking DNC emails.
43. Shortly after the murder, the interim DNC chair at the time, Donna Brazile,
reached out to Mr. McCabe and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser for help in dealing with the political consequences of the murder. Ms. Brazile knew suspicions would soon arise, fairly or unfairly, that the murder was connected to the email leaks. D.C. police allowed the FBI to unlock Seth Rich’s electronic devices, and the FBI obtained data showing that Mr. Rich had indeed provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. At Mr. McCabe’s direction, however, that information was kept secret with orders that it not be produced in response to any Freedom of Information Act request. For her part, Ms. Bowser directed D.C. police not to pursue any investigative avenues that might connect the murder to the email leaks. At her direction, local police blamed the murder on a “botched robbery” even though Mr. Rich’s watch, wallet, and other belongings were not removed from his body.
44. On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks began publishing thousands of email that had
been downloaded from the DNC’s servers by Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron. Those emails showed how the campaign of Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had corruptly taken control of the DNC for the purpose of sabotaging her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. Per their game plan, the Clinton campaign and the DNC immediately claimed that the emails had been obtained by hackers working for the Russian government.
45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Ratner, a news
analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News,
contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms.
Ratner’s brother, the late Michael Ratner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Ratner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich was responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.
46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Ratner asked Mr. Butowsky to
contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Ratner did not want her involvement to be made public. In the two months that followed, Mr. Butowsky did not attempt to contact the Rich family, but he grew increasingly frustrated as the DNC and #Resistance “journalists” blamed the Russian government for the email leak. On December 16, 2016, Mr. Butowsky sent a text message to Ms. Ratner:”

“Ms. Ratner subsequently told Mr. Butowsky that she had informed Bill Shine, who was then the co-president of Fox News, about her meeting with Mr. Assange in London. Ms. Ratner also informed Fox News producer Malia Zimmerman about her meeting with Mr. Assange.
47. On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Ratner, Mr. Butowsky finally
contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about Ms. Ratner’s meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he and his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to go public with Seth’s and Aaron’s role in leaking the emails because “we don’t want anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected.” Mr. Rich said he
did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.”

I strongly urge you to read the entire complaint:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188353/gov.uscourts.txed.188353.101.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Unfounded links between Clinton and the Rich killing predate the July 13, 2016, “bulletin” and coverage of it by a sketchy site called WhatDoesItMean.com. What’s more, the “hit team” story, which Sines says was repeated several weeks later, wasn’t the primary Rich-related conspiracy that gained traction.”…Washington Post July 9, 2019

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.”

“Daniels also dismissed a second and separate lawsuit brought forth by Rod Wheeler, a private detective who was also a Fox News contributor and hired by the Rich family to investigate their son’s death. In it, Wheeler accused Fox News and Zimmerman of misrepresenting his analysis of Rich’s death in their story, and Butowsky of defaming him on Twitter after the story was published, according to reports by The New York Times.

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler was quoted in the Fox News article.”

Read more:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fox-news-wins-seth-rich-lawsuit-judge-dismisses

The appeal.

From Jennifer Taub, law professor and author.

“NEW: I just attended oral argument for the appeal brought by Seth Rich’s parents against Fox News

1/

The Riches sued Fox for intentional inflection of emotional distress. This case is related to a conspiracy theory broadcast by Fox News that in 2016 Seth, a DNC staffer, had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks prior to being shot and killed”

“4/

At oral argument today, Judge Calabresi told Rich’s counsel Arun Subramanian “You have to convince us that this is outrageous to the parents. .not to the son. The defamation case died with the son.” Also that the propensity for parents’ vulnerability and defendants’ awareness

5/

Judge Calabresi suggested that the outrageous conduct here involved interfering with the parents’ investigation including by planting a person from Fox News (Wheeler) to pretend he was working solely for them “

“11/

Judge Calabresi interrupted and said that if Seth Rich were in a coma, then couldn’t a defamation suit brought by Seth proceed regardless of first amendment claims. And then also, couldn’t this separate cause of action be brought by parents?

12/

Judge Calabresi added that the only question then would be whether New York recognizes this separate cause of action — whether there was “outrageous conduct” by Fox with respect to the parents

13/

Attorney Terry says New York Court of Appeals has rejected claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress with more outrageous facts (Note that NY CT App is the highest court in the state of New York and though this case is in federal court, New York law applies)”

“18/

Attorney Terry returned to the main argument he is making on behalf of Fox News “a defamation claim cannot be restyle as an intentional infliction of emotional distress case.” He also said, that the conduct should not be recognized as outrageous as a matter of law

19/

Terry said that NY courts have dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress cases e.g where reporters told rape victims their names would not be published then publishing them. He said that wasn’t treated as outrageous conduct, so this should not

20/

Terry added that Seth’s parent must also prove that Fox’s conduct was INTENDED to cause them harm

21/

Judge Calabresi said that in order to prove intent, “wrecklessness” would suffice. He also suggested that perhaps given this “odd situation” the 2nd circuit could certify to the NY Court of Appeals this question of whether these facts amounted to “outrageous conduct.””

Read more:

https://threader.app/thread/1092478914998484994

It would be nice to have the appeal outcome stated explicitly.

If anyone has this reference, please supply as a comment.

By inference and the fact that it has not been shouted from the rooftops by the fake news media, it could be assumed that the outcome did not favor the Rich Family.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Thrivent fraud allegations and failed appeal, Thrivent fraternal benefit society status immunity?, Fraud must be addressed via dispute resolution? Apparently not

Thrivent fraud allegations and failed appeal, Thrivent fraternal benefit society status immunity?, Fraud must be addressed via dispute resolution? Apparently not

“You don’t need to be Christian to join our team.”…Thrivent job opening ad

“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)”                      “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

Thrivent believes and maintains that they are not subject to the same insurance laws as other insurers.

That is generally true.

That does not mean that they are immune from all insurance laws or other statutes just because they are a fraternal benefit society.

Their contract states that even charges of fraud must go through their mandated MDRP, Member Dispute Resolution Program.

However, the courts have consistently held that fraud, even without proof, can negate mandated arbitration and allow a case to enter litigation.

Charges of fraud against Thrivent are not as rare as they would have you believe.

“Illinois Insurance Code did not bar Securities Department from investigating VA sales

By John M. Jascob, J.D., LL.M.

The Illinois Securities Department had authority to investigate allegations that a broker-dealer committed fraud in the sale of variable annuities. The Illinois Securities Law authorizes the Securities Department to investigate whether registered broker-dealers and advisers have committed fraud in any business practice, even if that practice involves insurance products. Accordingly, the Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the broker-dealer’s complaint (Thrivent Investment Management Inc. v. Illinois Securities Department, August 28, 2018, Walker, C.). ”

https://jimhamiltonblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/illinois-insurance-code-did-not-bar.html

From the Thrivent appeal.

“ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department has authority to investigate allegations that a registered securities dealer committed fraud in the sale of variable annuities, even though the Department of Insurance has sole authority to regulate the issuance and sale of variable annuities. Oppressive discovery requests do not violate a respondent’s constitutional rights unless judicial discovery procedures will not adequately protect the respondent’s rights.”

“¶ 3 We hold (1) the Illinois Securities Law (Act) (815 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016)) gives the Securities Department authority to determine whether Thrivent, a registered securities dealer and investment adviser, committed fraud in any of its business practices; (2) the complaint does not allege facts showing judicial processes for discovery will violate Thrivent’s constitutional rights; and (3) the proposed amended complaint does not cure the defects of the dismissed complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint
with prejudice and the denial of the motion for leave to amend.”

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2018/1stDistrict/1171913_R23.pdf

From Thrivent v. Perez.

“28. As a not-for-profit fraternal benefit society, Thrivent is a type of life insurer. It is organized and operating pursuant to Chapter 614 of the Wisconsin statutes, known as the Wisconsin Fraternal Code. The Wisconsin Fraternal Code is a part of the insurance laws of the State of Wisconsin. Section 614.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes specifies that fraternal benefit societies are subject to the requirements of the Fraternal Code, and they are exempt from other Wisconsin insurance laws, except to the extent those other insurance laws are specifically made applicable to fraternal benefit societies.”

“31. A fraternal benefit society’s principal regulator is the insurance regulator for the state of its domicile. Thrivent’s principal regulator is the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (“Commissioner”). The Commissioner is empowered to conduct examinations of Thrivent under Wisconsin Statute Section 601.43 (as Section 614.05 specifies that Chapter 601 applies to fraternal benefit societies to the same extent as mutual insurers). Thrivent’s insurance marketing practices are subject to regulation under Chapter 628 of the Wisconsin statutes and Thrivent is subject to unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes to the same extent as other types of life insurers.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945

 

 

 

Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky et al update June 10, 2019, Rich Statement of Facts, “falsely accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving money from Wikileaks”

Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky et al update June 10, 2019, Rich Statement of Facts, “falsely accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks”

“In August 2017, Defendants Butowsky, Couch, and AFM launched
a relentless social media campaign to insert Aaron Rich into this
already baseless conspiracy theory—they have done so by falsely
accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks into Aaron’s personal bank account in
exchange for the transfer of those emails”…Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky, et al

“Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after he was contacted by a
third party who had recently met with Mr. Assange in London. According to that third party, Mr. Assange said Seth and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. At the instigation of that third party, Mr. Butowsky contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and relayed the information. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak. Mr. Rich said he did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.”… Ed Butowsky v Michael Gottlieb, et al

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizenwells

 

From Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky, et al filing June 10, 2019.

PLAINTIFF’S UPDATE TO RULE 26(F)
CONFERENCE REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN

“Plaintiff Aaron Rich respectfully urges this Court to enter a Scheduling Order without further delay, and additionally to schedule a Status Conference and remove this case from the state of limbo in which it has sat for much of the past year. Mr. Rich filed this action more than a year ago and has litigated the matter in good faith against parties that have effectively opted-out of this matter in the absence of supervision from the Court. The Defendants (and their aligned
third-parties) should not be permitted to disrespect this Court’s jurisdiction. Permitting Defendants to do so is highly prejudicial to Mr. Rich, including because of the serious risk that relevant witnesses (one of whom has passed away since the filing of this case) and evidence will become unavailable to Mr. Rich.”

“STATEMENT OF FACTS”

Aaron Rich’s younger and only brother Seth was murdered in
Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2016 in what law enforcement have
described as an armed robbery. There later emerged an unfounded
conspiracy theory that Seth was assassinated for stealing emails
from his employer, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”),
and leaking those emails to Wikileaks in the run-up to the 2016
presidential election. Until the summer 2017, this theory did not
claim that Aaron Rich played any role in the purported conspiracy.

In August 2017, Defendants Butowsky, Couch, and AFM launched
a relentless social media campaign to insert Aaron Rich into this
already baseless conspiracy theory—they have done so by falsely
accusing him of: helping Seth steal the DNC’s emails; receiving
money from Wikileaks into Aaron’s personal bank account in
exchange for the transfer of those emails; learning in advance that
Seth was going to be murdered and doing nothing to stop it; and
refusing to cooperate with law enforcement officials investigating
Seth’s murder. In essence, Defendants have accused Aaron of
treason, obstruction of justice, and complicity in his brother’s murder. These defamatory statements have reached tens of thousands of individuals, and Defendants Couch and AFM have used them to raise tens of thousands of dollars for a purported “investigation” into Seth’s murder.

In March 2018, the Washington Times repeated, amplified, and
expanded upon these defamatory statements by publishing an
article, both in print and online, stating that Aaron “downloaded
the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information”
(which is completely false) and implying that Aaron had not “been
interviewed” by law enforcement (when in fact he had been). The
publication’s only named source was Defendant Butowsky. The
Times has since retracted the column, apologized to Mr. Rich, and
been dismissed from the case.

Aaron Rich filed this lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief to
recover for the damage done to his reputation and emotional
wellbeing by Defendants’ false campaign against him.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.61.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Aaron Rich worked with Seth Rich to steal DNC data and give it to Wikileaks allegation maintained by Ed Butowsky in May 28, 2019 answer to Rich legal complaint

Aaron Rich worked with Seth Rich to steal DNC data and give it to Wikileaks allegation maintained by Ed Butowsky in May 28, 2019 answer to Rich legal complaint

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky answer to the Aaron Rich complaint.

Filed May 28, 2019.

“1. Paragraph 1 is denied to the extent that it accuses me of lying about the Plaintiff or calling him a criminal. I admit that I am aware of evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff helped his brother leak emails from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) to the Wikileaks.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.60.0.pdf

From the Aaron Rich complaint against Ed Butowsky, et al filed March 26, 2018.

“1. For close to a year, Defendants Edward “Ed” Butowsky, Matthew “Matt” Couch, and Couch’s organization known as America First Media (“AFM”), have falsely and repeatedly alleged in public statements that Plaintiff Aaron Rich (“Aaron”) is a criminal. Specifically, Defendants have claimed to have “proof” that Aaron (i) worked with his deceased brother Seth Rich to steal data from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), (ii) provided that stolen data to the hostile intelligence service WikiLeaks in exchange for payment into Aaron’s bank
account, and (iii) engaged in deceit and obstruction of justice to cover his tracks after Seth was murdered. There is no proof that Aaron engaged in any of the alleged conduct—nor could there be, because none of it happened. But Defendants are not interested in the truth. Instead,
Defendants are motivated by personal notoriety, financial gain, and naked partisan aims—namely, a desire to discredit allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russian Government in the 2016 hack of the DNC and the subsequent dissemination of DNC documents on WikiLeaks. In their blind pursuit of these objectives, Defendants have willfully trampled
Aaron’s reputation and emotional wellbeing.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.3.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Ed Butowsky v Folkenflik et al plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019, Defamation in Seth Rich reports alleged

Ed Butowsky v Folkenflik et al plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019, Defamation in Seth Rich reports alleged

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE” by Magistrate Craven April 17, 2019.

“Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged conduct on the part of Defendants sufficient to constitute civil conspiracy. The Court recommends this part of Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.58.0.pdf

From Ed Butowsky, plaintiff response to defendant objection to report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craven, May 29, 2019.

“● Plaintiff alleges facts that plausibly show Defendants’ actual malice.
“Putting aside the Court’s above concerns as to the applicability of the common
law and statutory privileges – something Defendants must demonstrate – there are other reasons for recommending Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the common law and statutory privileges and the third-party allegations rule be denied. First, even if the conditional privileges do apply, Plaintiff can overcome the privileges by pleading actual malice … Plaintiff alleges facts which plausibly allege actual malice (that Folkenflik knew the statements were false or did not act for the purpose of protecting the interest for which the privileges exist).”
[R&R, pp. 45-46; id., pp. 78-88 (“Even if the Court were to assume, for purposes of this Report and Recommendation only, that Plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure, the Court would agree with Plaintiff that he has sufficiently alleged actual malice …
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient at this stage to create a ‘plausible inference’ that Folkenflik and NPR published the reports with actual malice … Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently indicate at this stage in the litigation that Folkenflik purposefully avoided learning the truth … Plaintiff plausibly alleges when Folkenflik published the statements, he knew the statements were false, had serious doubts as to their truth, or had a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity … Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff plausibly
alleges Folkenflik and NPR published statements with actual malice.”)].

● Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendants’ reports were not fair,
true, or impartial. “Second, regardless of whether Defendants are seeking to establish the common law or statutory privileges or both, those conditional privileges only protect publications which are fair, true and impartial accounts … The Court finds Plaintiff has alleged facts which plausibly allege the reports were not fair, true, and impartial accounts of the Wheeler Complaint … The Court disagrees with Defendants that they have established their entitlement to dismissal under §73.002(b) (fair report and fair comment privileges) at this stage of the proceedings.”

● Plaintiff sufficiently alleges material falsity.
“Here, as will be discussed in detail below, the Court finds, at this stage of the
case and under the facts as alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged the gist of the publications was not substantially true. The Court is not
convinced the publications place Plaintiff in no worse light than the underlying
allegations contained in the Wheeler Complaint, as urged by Defendants. Thus,
the Court is not convinced the third-party allegations rule codified in Texas Civil
Practices and Remedies Code § 73.005(b) applies, and as a matter of law, bars
Plaintiff’s claims.”
[R&R, pp. 50-51, 52-53; id., p. 74, n. 28 (“At this stage of the case and under the facts as alleged in the Complaint (including that Defendants acted in concert and conspiracy with Wigdor to publish and republish false and defamatory statements), the Court also finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the falsity element of his defamation claim. In addition to [his] allegations that Defendants and Wigdor manufactured the false and ‘preconceived’ story, Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged the gist of the reports was not substantially true – that is, that the reports were not fair, true, and impartial accounts of the Wheeler Complaint.”)].

● NPR’s statements are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning.
“As previously noted, Plaintiff argues the ‘gist’ of the publications is that
Plaintiff, a ‘Dallas investment manager’ and ‘financial talking head,’ concocted,
spearheaded and actively participated with Fox News and the White House in a
concerted scheme to promote ‘fake news.’ … Evaluating the August 1 Report as a
whole, the Court finds because of material additions and misleading
juxtapositions, an objectively reasonable reader could conclude the report
mischaracterized Plaintiff’s role in the Seth Rich investigation and ‘thereby cast
more suspicion on [Plaintiff’s] actions than an accurate account would have
warranted.’ … The August 1 Report as a whole is reasonably capable of a
defamatory meaning because it goes ‘beyond merely reporting materially true
facts.’ … The August 1 Report also juxtaposed facts in a possibly misleading way
… The Court finds the August 1 Report, as a whole, can be reasonably understood
as stating the meaning Plaintiff proposes and is capable of defamatory meaning.””

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.64.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/