Why doesn't Rafael Edward Cruz sue the National Enquirer?

[FSSL]

When you sue you open yourself up to discovery by the defendants lawyers.

That can be more dangerous than most anything else that might happen in an actual trial.

If you aren't 100% squeaky clean you may be asked about something you have forgotten and find yourself in an unwinnable situation.

Don't sue if you're not ready to have your life opened up and laid bare.

Besides... With only 7 months of campaigning left, I wouldn't lose traction to start a lawsuit.

 

[Ransom]

What's the statute of limitations on libel?

I imagine it's somewhat longer than less than a week.

 

[Mr. Hall]

...of course there was a "Ted" I admired greatly, Theodore Roosevelt...

You do know that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive I presume?

"In his landmark ?New Nationalism? speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one?s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men ?possess more than they have earned,? while others ?have earned more than they possess.?  The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about ?social justice? through redistribution."

Do you still admire him?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/theodore-roosevelt-progressive-crusader

$

 

[T-Bone]

...of course there was a "Ted" I admired greatly, Theodore Roosevelt...

You do know that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive I presume?

"In his landmark ?New Nationalism? speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one?s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men ?possess more than they have earned,? while others ?have earned more than they possess.?  The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about ?social justice? through redistribution."

Do you still admire him?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/theodore-roosevelt-progressive-crusader

$

I admire anyone who laces them up & fights for our country...I don't have to agree with every political stand they take?

 

[Agent P]

Shocking!

Oh, wait, lots of people go by their middle names, and "Ted" is a common diminutive of Edward.

True.  Just ask the late Edward "Chappaquidick Ted" Kennedy.

 

[Just John]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

1. Read the article

2. Its not about winning..... and Ted is SO smart...

3. See #2

4. Who is Ted Cruz? A liar at least....

 

[Ransom]

You said... Ted" is a common diminutive of Edward.

"Ted" is more commonly derived from other names.

You seem to be labouring under the hilarious misapprehension that one contradicts the other.

 

[Ransom]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

Has Mr. Trumpf volunteered his opinion about the middle-name scandal yet?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You said... Ted" is a common diminutive of Edward.

"Ted" is more commonly derived from other names.

You seem to be labouring under the hilarious misapprehension that one contradicts the other.

Nope. You seem to laboring under the hilarious misapprehension that I'm not "yanking your chain"...

 

[praise_yeshua]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

Has Mr. Trumpf volunteered his opinion about the middle-name scandal yet?

Trump likes to call him "Lyin Ted". "Lyin Rafael" just doesn't sound the same...

 

[Just John]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

1. Read the article - It's  not available free online as far as I can tell and I wouldn't pay the couple bucks or whatever to put $ in their coffers. I will rely on what my fellow alum Shannon Bream has to say about it.

2. Its not about winning..... and Ted is SO smart... - He appears quite a bit smarter than you as he isn't spending money on a suit he can't win. See #1.

3. See #2 - See #1 and #2

4. Who is Ted Cruz? A liar at least.... - Oh the irony. You are cheap entertainment.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

1. Read the article - It's  not available free online as far as I can tell and I would pay the couple bucks or whatever to put $ in their coffers. I will rely on what my fellow alum Shannon Bream has to say about it.

2. Its not about winning..... and Ted is SO smart... - He appears quite a bit smarter than you as he isn't spending money on a suit he can't win. See #1.

3. See #2 - See #1 and #2

4. Who is Ted Cruz? A liar at least.... - Oh the irony. You are cheap entertainment.

You're not smart enough to fix your quotes....  8)

Talk about cheap entertainment....

 

[Just John]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

1. Read the article - It's  not available free online as far as I can tell and I would pay the couple bucks or whatever to put $ in their coffers. I will rely on what my fellow alum Shannon Bream has to say about it.

2. Its not about winning..... and Ted is SO smart... - He appears quite a bit smarter than you as he isn't spending money on a suit he can't win. See #1.

3. See #2 - See #1 and #2

4. Who is Ted Cruz? A liar at least.... - Oh the irony. You are cheap entertainment.

You're not smart enough to fix your quotes....  8)

Talk about cheap entertainment....

You of all people pointing out one typo...which was already corrected before you posted again. Hahahahahahahahaha! 

 

[praise_yeshua]

So was JFK "John" or "Jack"? What a stupid thing to make an issue of.

As for a suit against the National Enquirer...

1. I haven't read the "article" but understand it was filled with words like "alleged" and "said to have". Words that would allow them to avoid a lawsuit. Also the "mistresses" were not named so there claims can't be proved or not proved.

2. Very few celebs have sued NE successfully for the false articles written about them. There have been a couple of exceptions (IIRC Carol Burnett was one) but it took several years and lot's of money.

3. Malice or libel towards a public figure if different than you or I.  In the 1964 landmark case NY Times v. Sullivan (not that it makes any difference but in recent years after I have become a close friend with one of Mr. Sullivan's son) the Supreme Court ruled that to prove actual malice the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case must prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.  It's very hard to prove intent and why, including the cost and devotion of time, it seldom happens.

4. Who is Roger Stone? That's for a following post.

1. Read the article - It's  not available free online as far as I can tell and I would pay the couple bucks or whatever to put $ in their coffers. I will rely on what my fellow alum Shannon Bream has to say about it.

2. Its not about winning..... and Ted is SO smart... - He appears quite a bit smarter than you as he isn't spending money on a suit he can't win. See #1.

3. See #2 - See #1 and #2

4. Who is Ted Cruz? A liar at least.... - Oh the irony. You are cheap entertainment.

You're not smart enough to fix your quotes....  8)

Talk about cheap entertainment....

You of all people pointing out one typo...which was already corrected before you posted again. Hahahahahahahahaha!

Just point out the obvious. We all are cheap entertainment at times. You happen to think you're not.

 

[subllibrm]

...of course there was a "Ted" I admired greatly, Theodore Roosevelt...

You do know that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive I presume?

"In his landmark ?New Nationalism? speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one?s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men ?possess more than they have earned,? while others ?have earned more than they possess.?  The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about ?social justice? through redistribution."

Do you still admire him?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/theodore-roosevelt-progressive-crusader

$

I admire anyone who laces them up & fights for our country...I don't have to agree with every political stand they take?

By lacing them up are you referring to his starting an unnecessary  war with Spain?

 

[prophet]

...of course there was a "Ted" I admired greatly, Theodore Roosevelt...

You do know that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive I presume?

"In his landmark ?New Nationalism? speech, delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas, in 1910, TR explained what this meant for property rights. In contrast to the Founders, who believed that the right to property was rooted in the natural right to the fruits of one?s labor, Roosevelt argued that the right to property could be justified only if it benefited the community, and the only way to benefit the community was to redistribute the wealth. As things stood now, some men ?possess more than they have earned,? while others ?have earned more than they possess.?  The task of government was not simply to enforce the rule of law, but to bring about ?social justice? through redistribution."

Do you still admire him?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/theodore-roosevelt-progressive-crusader

$

I admire anyone who laces them up & fights for our country...I don't have to agree with every political stand they take?

By lacing them up are you referring to his starting an unnecessary  war with Spain?

There is no such thing as an unnecessary war with Spain!!!!

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk