Ari Cohn

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.

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.

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.

Yeah.

I'm so glad I wasn't aware of that until right now.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.