Free wrote:The initial complaint should be made available from the Courthouse at some point. I would like to see what ACA came up with to tell the judge they had a case to begin with.
Then two days of badgering depositions? Wow. Why would it take so much time to get to the point? How many ways can a lawyer ask, 'Bob, did you say this bad thing about this fascist corporation that feeds off the public teat with free rent/city collusion?'
I would think to prove libel, what someone says would have to be a lie that they didn't believe to be true, in order for it to be a crime.
We still don't know what ACA lawyers think was offensive. That should have been spelled out in the original complaint and that shouldn't have taken more than a few pages?
The documents are available here:
https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
However, they're not free. You go to that site, agree to their terms, answer an easy "anti-robot" question, and enter the case year (2015) and case number (00015685) as shown here:
That will take you to the Register of Actions (ROA) which contains the various filed documents (including the complaint against Margie):
You can add items to your cart and check the prices. The Second Amended Complaint (now including Margie) was filed on September 4th, 2019 as shown in the middle here:
Free wrote:I would like to see what ACA came up with to tell the judge they had a case to begin with.
They filled their filing with pages and pages of posts from the U.S. Hawks. Among other things, their law suit is an attack on free speech and on our right to document what we've seen at the Gliderport.
Free wrote:Then two days of badgering depositions? Wow. Why would it take so much time to get to the point? How many ways can a lawyer ask, 'Bob, did you say this bad thing about ...
I have estimated that the Torrey concessionaire brings in nearly $2,000,000 every year based on past reported income. That buys a lot of lawyer time to do exactly those things. The costs to defend a case can be prohibitive to anyone with less resources. Just depositions and videos alone can cost many thousands of dollars. Saldana knows this, and that's why he wanted so desperately to keep me from making my own recording. He wanted to either disadvantage me by depriving me of my right to the video evidence of my own deposition or to disadvantage me by forcing me to spend resources on obtaining evidence rather than on other aspects of the case. Fortunately, the Judge was swayed more by the written law than by Saldana's shenanigans.