Ari Cohn
speaker
30 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Apr 2025
last heard Apr 2025
Ari Cohn’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
I mean, that's rhetorical hyperbole and opinion, so no.
I mean, it's not just that it reads like an autobiography. It's that on the docket, at least as of, I think, like last weekend, I don't know if this has changed, but there was no lawyer for John Ruiz listed on the docket other than John Ruiz. So he would have filed it by himself, it looks like.
msp recovery or i'm very close it says msp recovery filed on behalf of him which could make sense if they were maybe like listed as his attorney but that would still be a weird way of saying it
But also, let's kind of just get to one of the big picture issues of why none of this makes any sense, is that one of the primary claims here, and we'll get to why it's bullshit in a second, but one of the claims is that the Miami Herald defamed MSP recovery by saying it was the target of federal investigations.
Now, if MSP recovery is the party that was defamed, MSP recovery has to be the party that sued, but the only named plaintiff is John Ruiz. So who is suing what attorneys representing who for what and who are the part? Like it, none of it makes any sense at all. MSP recovery isn't listed as a party. So I don't know how MSP being defamed has anything to do with the price of tea in China.
Yeah, these are mistakes that somebody straight out of law school wouldn't have made. You have to have the proper parties. It's beyond rookie mistake. It's just incomprehensible how somebody could make these mistakes.
Yeah, well, you know, there is such a thing as the defamation proof plaintiff where, you know, their reputation is so shot already that nothing you say could possibly lower their esteem in the eyes of the community anymore. It takes a lot to get there. I don't know necessarily if they're there yet, but yikes.
I mean, what's going on is obviously that John Ruiz doesn't like when people criticize his company. And he seems to think that...
his word should be taken as gospel and anyone who doesn't credit his word um should i guess have to pay him five billion dollars i don't know um even when his word uh appears to be worth very little all things considered over the course of his history um you know it's it's quite bizarre it's really it's a strange lawsuit it doesn't really make any sense um is any of the defamation it reads to me as desperate honestly
I mean, well, he gives the wrong definition for defamation at one point in the claim, so that's not really promising. I assume that maybe he has a vague general idea of what defamation is. I have zero idea. Zero belief, however, that he actually knows the ins and outs of defamation law and how one pleads it and proves it.
I had my suspicions of that a year or whatever ago where he started threatening to sue people for defamation on Twitter and then got mad at me for telling him that he couldn't do that because it wasn't going to stick. And now that this has been filed, I am just absolutely certain that he has no f***ing idea what he's talking about.
You think John Ruiz needs anyone telling him what he does and doesn't know? John Ruiz, discount Dan Donald Trump. You know, he's the greatest you've ever seen. Yeah, he's Dan Trump.
Yeah.
I'm so glad I wasn't aware of that until right now.
He did indeed. A litigator of national magnitude who can't figure out who the proper plaintiff is in a case, I suppose. It's not really, again, not really promising.
Yeah, it's really strange because they acknowledge that there is there are investigations and that they are the ones being investigated. Do not take any issue with that contention.
what they seem to be claiming is that because the department of justice's justice manual in the context of talking about the rights and policies and procedures when someone is called to testify in front of a grand jury call someone a target if they are if there is substantial evidence linking them to the commission of the crime
That because the word target has this specialized use in this one particular case, that it's defamatory to say they are the target of an investigation. That's nonsense for a few reasons, not least of which is because nobody reading the Miami Herald reads the word target and thinks, oh, yeah, you mean the definition in the justice manual, which most people don't even know exists.
Anyone reading this statement in the Miami Herald would know immediately that the meaning is that MSP recovery is the one being investigated. Like that is very clear. It is unreasonable to claim that anyone would think otherwise. Like it is just the worst kinds of like trying to nitpick on formalistic legal technology. And for what it's worth, the courts.
don't hold journalists to the proper use of formal legal terminology, specifically because this could happen, because it would become very dangerous to report on legal proceedings because you say one thing and you take the normal meaning of it rather than the formal legal meaning of it, and somebody sues you for defamation.
Showing 1–20 of 30 · page 1 of 2
Next →