Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Central Park Five SUE Donald Trump For DEFAMATION" video.

  1. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. (Watch The Confessions, about four sailors in Norfolk, Virginia who confessed to a crime they had nothing to do with.) You cannot bring a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient.
    6
  2. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. Watch The Confessions, about four sailors in Norfolk, Virginia, who confessed to a crime they had nothing to do with.
    4
  3. @petebondurant58  They settled a civil rights case for $41 million against the city and others. Know this: in New York at the time, vacating a conviction was insufficient to maintain a civil rights suit. There had to be evidence of innocence. Otherwise, the suit was dismissed. Cities don't just settle for tens of millions for nothing, and don't believe anyone who tells you they do. It affects property taxes.
    4
  4.  @lmoore6612  Would you trust her on your jury? Who knows what she'd come up with. I thought knowledgeable people knew about false confessions. They are common.
    4
  5. ​ @HLysimon False. If they had not been exonerated, then the suit would have been dismissed outright, without discovery and without a trial.
    3
  6.  @Kehvan  False.
    3
  7. @HLysimon  False. A civil rights suit on these facts will be dismissed outright if the plaintiffs weren't exonerated. It will not settle. Also, a city cannot settle easily, because the taxpayers are ultimately liable. I hope YT lets you see this. Facts are disfavored here.
    3
  8. ​ @jeffreyblack6611 There was no plea bargain. They settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. You cannot maintain a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient. Why are you pretending to be in the know? 😂
    3
  9. So does Amber. She has NO CLUE about the law or this case. They settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. A civil rights suit will be dismissed if there was no prior exoneration. A vacated verdict is not enough.
    3
  10.  @hsmd4533  Try reading the complaint. I found it and read it. I doubt any of these three did. No evidence they bothered. Their job isn't to do real journalism.
    3
  11. ​​ @TC-zf1ji That woman had no memory of who attacked her, severe brain damage, and was barely clinging to life.
    3
  12. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. (Watch The Confessions, about four sailors in Norfolk, Virginia, who confessed to a crime they had nothing to do with -- and Hillary's running mate, then the governor, refused to release them. False confessions are common in adults, nevermind kids.) You cannot bring a viable civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient.
    3
  13. They were fully exonerated and settled a $41 million civil rights suit. A civil rights suit can't be brought unless the plaintiffs were exonerated. It will be dismissed outright.
    3
  14.  @khatdubell  The Norfolk Four confessed, too, and they were grown men in the US Navy. None of them had anything to do with the crime.
    3
  15.  @khatdubell  You don't know who the Norfolk Four were, do you? Adult men in the Navy. Nor do you understand my point about the ubiquity of false confessions.
    3
  16. @khatdubell  You don't know anything about either case. Nor do you understand the point about false confessions. They are common. The Norfolk Four are an a fortiori example.
    3
  17. She has no memory of this event. You don't realize that?
    3
  18.  @petebondurant58  I don't watch Netflix. I know law and stuff.
    3
  19. @petebondurant58  That, I'm sure you're right about. By the way, I found the complaint and read it. Always a good idea. This show doesn't hire competent people, either. I bet none of them found it and read it. (And I tend to doubt Nomiki can, lol.) That's not what they're paid to do. They're paid for what you just saw.
    3
  20.  @stevealves3059  Did you read the complaint, or just believe Amber? After reading it, I see no reason to think any of these three bothered. The facts are more likely to be found in COURT DOCUMENTS than on CNN or Fox.
    3
  21. @stevealves3059  At the time their civil rights case was brought, New York and the Second Circuit required not only a vacated guilty verdict, but also evidence of actual innocence, to avoid dismissal. There is no way the city would have settled had they been factually to blame in the attack. The current Supreme Court relaxed that requirement somewhat just recently -- yeah, the conservative one. But simply vacating a guilty verdict still isn't enough. The case has to be over. The prosecutor can't have the option to retry the person.
    3
  22. A civil rights suit requires prior exoneration.
    2
  23. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and yes they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. In New York, a civil rights suit would be dismissed outright unless there was evidence of actual innocence. A vacated verdict was not enough. Try reading the complaint. I bet these three didn't. I heard nothing from any of them to make me think they did.
    2
  24. @4637jvb  You don't have the complete record of the trial, or any other material from it. You can't even find the complaint.
    2
  25. ​ @LaResistance123  They can't handle the truth.
    1
  26. @Kehvan  False. A civil rights suit on these facts will be dismissed if the plaintiffs were not exonerated. It will not go to trial. Cities cannot settle multi-million dollar cases for political reasons, because the property tax payers are on the hook.
    1
  27. @Kehvan  Maybe you might read para. 16 through 40 of the Complaint for the actual facts? Or would that hurt your feelings?
    1
  28.  @atomicwedgie8709  Another person who failed to read actual documents pertaining to the case.
    1
  29. @atomicwedgie8709  Complete nonsense. What do you get out of spreading utter lies? At least get your cut, like the Big Guy.
    1
  30. @atomicwedgie8709  I state what the court papers state. Which you can't seem to locate? (In New York, moreover, no Section 1983 case could avoid dismissal, with prejudice, absent exoneration. That rule was relaxed by THIS Supreme Court only recently.)
    1
  31. @atomicwedgie8709  Oh I get it. You didn't get your cut. Yeah, I'd be mad, too. You might still . . .
    1
  32. No they didn't.
    1
  33. False confessions are common.
    1
  34.  @mark7s980  False, you poor thing. Are you campaigning for Kamala?
    1
  35. @mark7s980  Try reading the actual complaint. I did. In stories about the law, you basically have to. No reason to think any of these three did. They each consulted their favorite "news source." 😂
    1
  36. @adams2841  Why? She was wrong. She didn't read the Complaint, nor does she know that in New York at the time, evidence of innocence was needed to maintain a civil rights suit. A vacated conviction was not enough. Try reading actual court documents. This Complaint is easy to find. I don't think Nomiki or Robbie bothered, either.
    1
  37. Read the complaint first. Then you'll have an informed opinion. A lawsuit is not election interference. It is a constitutional right. That was established during Clinton's serial misbehavior with women.
    1
  38. She is clueless. In New York, you couldn't maintain a civil rights suit absent exoneration. It would have been dismissed. Read the complaint. These three obviously didn't. 😂
    1
  39. The Complaint alleges that. "New York Times malice" is a term of art: reckless disregard for the truth is sufficient for "malice." That just means more than negligence or gross negligence, which is fair. I think that any substantial damages in a defamation case should always require that. But on the other hand, why should minors be held to that? They never did anything to become famous. It was foisted on them. The same thing happened to Atlanta Olympics hero Richard Jewell, RIP. He did the right thing and was wronged by everyone, especially the press.
    1
  40. @jmlubecky  I know the law. I clerked at the federal appellate level. Have you read New York Times v. Sullivan? Have you read the complaint in this case? No, and no?
    1
  41. @jmlubecky  It does not matter how old they are now. They did not put themselves in the public eye as adults. It was not their choice to become notorious. As for the actual malice standard, it states that in order to win a defamation lawsuit against a public official or candidate, the plaintiffs must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." This is a TERM OF ART; the definition of "actual malice" is that the defendant either knew the statement was false, or recklessly disregarded whether it was false. LOOK IT UP. Despite the name, it has nothing to do with emotions or ill will. I hope you're not too disappointed about that.
    1
  42. @jmlubecky  Why do you bother, when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?
    1
  43. Too bad. Court documents show she is wrong. If you just read the Complaint, you'd know better, and if you knew New York law, you'd know evidence of actual innocence was necessary to maintain a civil rights case. A vacated verdict was not sufficient, and still isn't. I don't think any of these three read anything. They are there to create drama for clicks.
    1
  44. They are. They needed to be actually innocent to bring the civil rights suit they settled for $41 million. That was the law in New York.
    1
  45. @godismyhero247_  I can see you real actual court documents. /s
    1
  46.  @godismyhero247_  I can see you know how to find public court documents and read them.
    1
  47. @godismyhero247_   At the time their civil rights case was brought, New York and the Second Circuit required not only a vacated guilty verdict, but also evidence of actual innocence, to avoid dismissal. There is no way the city would have settled had they been factually to blame in the attack. The current Supreme Court relaxed that requirement somewhat just recently -- yeah, the conservative one, in an opinion by Kavanaugh. But simply vacating a guilty verdict still isn't enough, of course. The case has to be over. The prosecutor can't have the option to retry the person, and just decide not to. The option has to be off the table.
    1
  48. Well, The Hill fired the only real lawyer. Amber was wrong as well. The CPF settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. A civil rights suit on these facts will be dismissed outright, UNLESS there was an exoneration.
    1
  49.  @cleanup8984  Wanna bet? I'd put money on that. Read the complaint. 😂
    1
  50.  @cleanup8984  How is it that you are allowed to post this, amplifying a libel, but when I cite actual court documents showing you are wrong, it goes straight under the shade tree?
    1
  51. @cleanup8984  What side? There's someone you think I support, like, for president or something? How quaint.
    1
  52. @cleanup8984  So, in your world, a post based on court documents is "misinformation" but a right-wing video based on feelings is truth. Glenn Greenwald just took down the woke right.
    1
  53. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. You could not bring a civil rights suit in New York without being exonerated first. A vacated verdict was insufficient. Read the Complaint. All the salient facts are there. No reason to believe any of these three read it. They're just commenting to stir controversy, and you're supposed to take sides in their fact-free drama.
    1
  54. I recommend all three read the Complaint they are supposedly commenting on and getting paid really.
    1
  55. Amber was wrong this time. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. (Watch The Confessions, about four sailors in Norfolk, Virginia, who confessed to a crime they had nothing to do with -- and Hillary's running mate, then the governor of Virginia, refused to release them.) You cannot bring a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient. The real lawyer was Briahna. No wonder she was fired.
    1
  56. Amber was wrong this time. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. You cannot bring a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient. Too bad a real lawyer was fired.
    1
  57. @joedirt6222  Maybe you should read paragraphs 16 to 40 of the Complaint and find out the FACTS. But that wouldn't be fun, huh?
    1
  58.  @jameshoney2506  They are all millionaires. I think they can afford the retainer. The rest is contingent on victory or settlement.
    1
  59.  @kiddada3  This time, Amber was worse. (A first?) If Amber were on your jury, who knows how many years you'd serve?
    1
  60.  @kiddada3  Rising lost audience for firing anyone who didn't toe the billionaire line on Gaza, an actual lawyer being the most recent.
    1
  61. @hsmd4533  Did you look up the complaint? Or any court documents? That's where the facts are. Not here.
    1
  62.  @terryschoenith5249  Agreed.
    1
  63. It's based on something Trump just said a few weeks ago. The ad he bought, backed when everyone still thought they were guilty, was free speech.
    1
  64. False. Read the Complaint. The facts are in court documents, not on YouTube. In New York, you could not maintain a civil rights suit without evidence of actual innocence, much less settle it for $41 million. A vacated verdict was insufficient. That requirement was just relaxed by the Supreme Court very recently, in a case that came out of Brooklyn. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.
    1
  65. Trump made the statements just recently. Nothing weird about it.
    1
  66.  @pierredelecto7069  If you want the news about a case, look up the court documents.
    1
  67. @4637jvb  This is false. Some of them said things suggested to them by police, that ended up inconsistent with actual facts. The indictment was political. Remember how Hillary said they were super predators who needed to be brought to heel?
    1
  68. @Appregator  If you have any interest in facts, try reading the Complaint. I call your attention to paragraphs 16 to 40 in particular.
    1
  69. She's entirely wrong here, as anyone who read the Complaint would know. There's no question. When they settled their civil rights suit for $41m, evidence of innocence was required to avoid dismissal. To be fair, none of these three appears to have so much as glanced at the Complaint. They are all bad.
    1
  70. @marclambert1283  Nope. Amber was wrong. I refer you to the Complaint, paragraphs 16 through 40.
    1
  71. @marclambert1283  I doubt that anyone on the show read the Complaint. I see no reason to think so.
    1
  72.  @alwhite6303  A fact in Newspeak: what I want to hear.
    1
  73. @4637jvb  No. This case had to do with actual innocence. That's what they had to show, to maintain a civil rights suit. That's what the DA stated was the case, that the perpetrator acted entirely alone, when she asked the court to dismiss all charges.
    1
  74. @4637jvb  You seem like someone who doesn't like reading. Pro tip: when you don't read something, you don't know what it says. You get that, right?
    1
  75. @4637jvb  That has no bearing on a case where there was a conviction, and only then was actual innocence proved many years later, and tested in court when they filed a civil rights suit. Someone, somewhere who was guilty was found not guilty. That has zero to do with this case.
    1
  76. @4637jvb  There was no innocent verdict for OJ Simpson. There was a "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal trial, and liability for wrongful death in the civil trial. That means OJ could never sue anyone for calling him a murderer and win a defamation case.
    1
  77.  @4637jvb  Your story is all false. Someone duped you and made money telling you what you prefer to hear. Cha ching.
    1
  78.  @4637jvb  OJ was never found innocent. He could never sue in defamation. You must not know how this works.
    1
  79. The media lied again, lol.
    1
  80. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. You cannot bring a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient.
    1
  81.  @TC-zf1ji  Blocked
    1
  82. @godismyhero247_  Oh I see, you wanted the actual perp to get away with it.
    1
  83. They can easily pay their attorneys' retainer. Most of the fee will be contingent upon winning.
    1
  84.  @4637jvb  That's one of the most prominent lawyers in the country. He has been a visiting professor at Stanford.
    1
  85.  @4637jvb  Specter is one of the most prominent attorneys in the country. He has been a visiting professor at Stanford.
    1
  86. @4637jvb  He has never chased an ambulance in his life. 😂 He even got an LLM at Cambridge, in addition to his law degree from University of Pennsylvania here. Cambridge, . . . you know. England. He's the late Senator's son.
    1
  87. You could read the complaint and know something about the case. Or you can listen to these three and take sides in their fact-free drama. I see no reason to believe any of them read it.
    1
  88. Trump just made the remarks they are suing on.
    1
  89. You are correct. She didn't bother to read the complaint. If the other two had, they could have told her. I wonder what their salaries are. Is it defamation to call it unearned? 😂
    1
  90. No she's not. They couldn't maintain a civil rights suit without showing evidence of innocence, especially in New York (Second Circuit). Their suit would have been dismissed. Read the complaint. That will put you ahead of these three, who make an easy living. No reason to think any of them took the time.
    1
  91. Actually reading the complaint might give you a better idea. (I see no reason to think any of these three bothered.) They can easily afford this lawsuit themselves. Easily.
    1
  92.  @khatdubell  Nothing to do with that. A civil rights suit will be dismissed UNLESS they were exonerated. But believe some nonsense if you need to. No one is ever paid to tell you the truth.
    1
  93. @khatdubell  "no, they were" -- what does that even mean? Blocked
    1
  94.  @khatdubell  They were what? 🤣
    1
  95. ​@khatdubell They were factually innocent. There is no question about it. Why don't you read the Complaint? The basic facts are there, paragraphs 16 through 40, in particular. Can't you find it? No? Aww. That's a problem.
    1
  96. ​ @khatdubell  They were factually innocent. There is no question about it. Why don't you read the Complaint? The basic facts are there, in paragraphs 16 through 40, in particular. Can't you find it? No? Aww. That's a problem.
    1
  97.  @4637jvb  The settlement for $41m for a civil rights suit shows their innocence. That suit would have been dismissed had there been no evidence of actual innocence. The complaint cites the words of the DA in asking the court that all charges be dismissed. You didn't read it, huh?
    1
  98. @4637jvb  The five never confessed, and maintained their innocence when going along with this travesty could have shortened some of their sentences.
    1
  99. @4637jvb  That's false. Read the court documents. I found them, no problem.
    1
  100. @4637jvb  What am I saying? I'm saying read the documents. But you prefer videos. The documents are what count.
    1
  101. @atomicwedgie8709  Nothing to do with it. Can't find the documents, huh? How new are you to the Internet? 🤣
    1
  102. ​@lmoore6612 She is wrong about the law. You cannot bring a civil rights suit absent exoneration. A vacated verdict is insufficient. The Hill fired the real lawyer.
    1
  103. ​​ @lmoore6612 Maybe you should read my post for the real facts. A civil rights suit on these facts will be dismissed if the plaintiffs were not exonerated. It WILL NOT settle, for any amount.
    1
  104. One has no bearing on the other. I don't know whether Rittenhouse has filed, or if it's too late. I found this complaint, I'll see whether there's one available for Rittenhouse. Courts with normal, functioning judges treat each case on its own merits.
    1
  105. ​​ @erikprestonTV False. Read the Complaint. The facts are in court documents, not on YouTube. In New York, you could not maintain a civil rights suit without evidence of actual innocence, much less settle for $41 million. A vacated verdict was insufficient. That requirement was just relaxed by the Supreme Court very recently, in a case that came out of Brooklyn. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.
    1
  106. Totally false. In New York, a civil rights suit would be dismissed absent evidence of actual innocence. They were indeed exonerated before settling for $41 million. It's in the complaint. This is who Hillary once called the super predators who needed to be brought to heel. Remember? The laws that caused the prison population to soar were mostly passed under Clinton.
    1
  107. Amber was wrong. Yes they were exonerated, and they settled a civil rights suit for $41 million. You could not bring a civil rights suit in New York unless you were first exonerated, and that had to be based on some evidence of innocence. A vacated verdict was not enough. The Supreme Court just relaxed that requirement somewhat in Thompson v. Clark, a case from Brooklyn. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion. Read the defamation complaint. I bet these three didn't. It's all there.
    1
  108. No they didn't. Read the complaint. These three didn't bother.
    1
  109. Didn't you watch? The defamation is based on something Trump just said a few weeks ago. Before they were exonerated, it wasn't defamation to proclaim they were guilty.
    1