Federal Judge Issues History Making Precedent Against CNN Which Also Advances Univision/Gizmodo Case –


Federal Judge Issues History Making Precedent Against CNN Which Also Advances Univision/Gizmodo Case

Feb. 21 – A federal Judge in Georgia threw out CNN’s effort to dismiss a “Fake News” Court Case, as the Judge cites “a Series of False and Defamatory News Reports”

CNN attempted to get the case dismissed involving Davide Carbone, CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach who accused CNN of fabricating a story about his hospital. Federal Judge Orinda Evans cited a “series of false and defamatory news reports” that insinuated St. Mary’s had an infant mortality rate that was 3 times higher than the national average while ignoring information that made the Medical Center look good. The libel lawsuit against CNN seeking $30 million in damages will continue onward thanks to federal district judge Orinda Evans. Because this was a federal ruling, it sets a legal precedent nation wide.

Carbone, who actually lost his job due to the fake news reports “has presented enough evidence at this early stage of the case to suggest that CNN ‘was acting recklessly with regard to the accuracy of its reporting” according to The National Law Journal.

To make matters worse, judge Evans also found evidence of “actual malice” when insisting on reporting the Medical Center was under an official investigation, even after Florida’s Agency for Healthcare administration adamantly denied this was taking place.

Carbone’s lawyer, a famous public rights advocate, describes the ruling as a major victory.

False and defamatory accusations against real people have serious consequences,” he said. “Neither St. Mary’s or Mr. Carbone did anything to deserve being the objects of the heinous accusation that they harmed or put babies and young children at risk for profit.”

The ruling,” he added, “serves as a well-reasoned reminder that the media, its defense lawyers, and its lobbyists do not have a corner on the market of correct interpretation and application of the First Amendment.”

Plaintiffs are now seeking litigation financing for a similar case against Univision. Plaintiffs claim that “Defendants: Univision were hired by political campaign financiers (ie: http://xyzcase.xyz , http://greencorruption.blogspot.com , etc. )to run reprisal character assassinations. Plaintiff’s claim in particular, that Defendants took compensation for, and engaged in, malicious and coordinated tactics to seek to destroy, damage, harm and ruin Plaintiffs via an illicit media “hit-job” service which Defendants regularly offered in covert commerce and engaged in regularly against targets that Defendants were hired to seek to ruin as part of reprisal, vendetta, retribution programs operated for business and political competitors of the targets. Plaintiffs state that historical facts and other history-making lawsuits by third parties, (ie: Hulk Hogan, Carbone, Huon, etc.) has proven Defendants to be the single largest core violator of human rights, in this manner, in the world. Plaintiffs state that Defendants offer the service of creating and publishing contrived “hatchet job” movies, fake news articles, faked comments and repercussion backlinks describing the Plaintiffs in horrific descriptors and that “The attack material is reposted, “impression accelerated”, “click-farm fertilized” and Streisand array reposted by Defendants massive character assassination technology via servers algorithms and technical internet manipulation daily as recently as yesterday. Defendants also embed the article in job hiring databases on Axciom, Palantir, Taleo and other databases used by all hiring and recruiting services in order to prevent Plaintiffs from ever receiving income for W2 or 1099 work ever again. Defendants own staff then post thousands of fake comments, below each attack item, under fake names, designed to make it appear as if a broad consensus of the public agreed with the defamation messages by Defendants. Almost all of the fake comments were created by a handful of Defendants own staff pretending to be a variety of outside voices. Defendants provide the service of delivering “weaponized text and media to corporate clients”. Defendants replicated various versions of these attack items across all of their different brands and facade front publications and added additional fake comments to each on a regular basis.”

Plaintiffs are seeking litigation financing in order to take their case all the way to jury trial.


Leave a Reply