WSJ publishes a dirty letter from TACO to Epstein…

I doubt he will do it. He threatens lots of lawsuits.
He has an army of lawyers on retainer. He weaponizes the law AKA lawfare. SLAPP suits have been his main weapons for decades.

SLAPP suit​

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit) refers to lawsuits brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. By definition, SLAPP suits do not have any true legal claims against the critics. People bring SLAPP suits because they can either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or more commonly to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits. Given their ability to stop individuals from exercising their right to free speech, over 30 states have adopted Anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier for defendants in SLAPP lawsuits to have the case dismissed at the outset, before spending lots of money on attorney fees. In egregious SLAPP cases, an Anti-SLAPP statute may even require the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.
 
He has an army of lawyers on retainer. He weaponizes the law AKA lawfare. SLAPP suits have been his main weapons for decades.

SLAPP suit​

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suit) refers to lawsuits brought by individuals and entities to dissuade their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. By definition, SLAPP suits do not have any true legal claims against the critics. People bring SLAPP suits because they can either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or more commonly to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits. Given their ability to stop individuals from exercising their right to free speech, over 30 states have adopted Anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier for defendants in SLAPP lawsuits to have the case dismissed at the outset, before spending lots of money on attorney fees. In egregious SLAPP cases, an Anti-SLAPP statute may even require the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the defendant.
If he does, he will be forced to prove it is true if he wants to win. The WSJ has deep enough pockets.
 
 
It's a bro-mance!
 
If he does, he will be forced to prove it is true if he wants to win. The WSJ has deep enough pockets.
Let's hope. His lawsuit against CBS was a token win, but still a win even though CBS and Paramount will make more money in the longrun.
 
Back
Top