I'll admit to being biased, but they are GOOD. I suspect we've caused the defendants and their expensive legal teams indigestion.
ALEX BERENSON
NOV 2, 2023
Meanwhile, back at the Berenson v Biden ranch…
As you know, I sued White House officials and Pfizer board members in April for their 2021 conspiracy to force Twitter to ban me over my mRNA vaccine reporting.
The suit, Berenson v Biden, was filed in federal court in Manhattan. In August, the defendants, including former senior advisor for Covid response Andy Slavitt, replied with their motions to dismiss the case. Last month, we answered those motions.
I may delve into the nitty-gritty specifics of our (and their) arguments later. But for now better to focus on what lawyers call the overall posture of the case.
Which could fairly be described as coiled.
Motions to dismiss are a standard defense tactic, particularly in federal lawsuits, where the Supreme Court raised pleading standards about 15 years ago. Essentially, defendants claim that because of legal precedents or the case facts or both, the plaintiff has not presented a viable claim and so the judge should end it immediately.
(No paywall this time, but I hope you’ll subscribe. 20 cents a day, cheaper than a gumball and way better for your teeth.) MORE AT Update on Berenson v Biden: our responses to the motions to dismiss are out (substack.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment