A Perture Of Truth

@TweetyChick71 @MakerMade100 @MafiaMasshole Since when is Xanax an opioid?

@MakerMade100 @MafiaMasshole Yep!! It’s a withdrawal symptom from opioids. I went thru it when I went off Xanax some years back.. it’s like your skin’s crawling and you think itching helps… it’s doesn’t…🙄🤦🏼‍♀️lol

Why is ol' boy so itchy and sweaty, I wonder?

@HWOnYourCase @cryptik_imp He seemed to be talking softly and not making a scene on the top of the stairs in the hallway. I’ve been woken up in a stupor before and I 100% sympathize with the position he was in.

Why didn’t he just leave? He’s an adult she asked him to leave 15 plus times over an hour. Instead he went to the hallway of her apartment to loudly make content into his phone speaking to his audience. Sorry, not an ounce of sympathy from me. She was actually too nice by continuously giving him the option to sleep on her couch. 🤷🏻‍♂️

The real story of March 4th - “Are you out of your fucking mind?” Sounds like a question he should be asking himself.

@DoctorTurtleboy @HWOnYourCase Pretty sure the judge said he would be impounding the exhibits until he ruled.

@HWOnYourCase This is one of the exhibits from the RO hearing that is impounded. Did you file a motion to unimpound them?

@HWOnYourCase I thought she told the judge she made up the lie about Aidan hitting her because she wanted him to stop recording her. And I thought I saw some references of her reaching out to a friend via text making the same hitting allegation. It’s all so fucked.

There one of my points sure. The timing of the videos was jumbled when he presented a few of them but what we KNOW is that scene is 15 minutes in real time after Meredith spent less than a minute of discussion where she admitted she’d never call the police and say he hit her because that was the last thing she wanted to do given his situation but that he needed to stop causing a scene in her hallway. Also, I can imagine a scenario where on a busy weekend night a dispatcher or cop would tell him to stop misusing 911 for frivolous nonsense that could cause him to be in fear.

@HWOnYourCase Got it. I can’t imagine he called police and then hit the ground. Something happened in between, but I guess your point is that it’s not on video.

@FakeNewsRuse It was a series of recordings from each of them. The jump is a result of her pulling her phone back out to record, nothing more. What happened in between was Aidan calling the police.

Reciting the definition of per se & declaring victory is a very confident move for a fake lawyer who skipped every other element of the prima facie case—falsity, fault, actual malice, constitutional limits on presumed damages in matters of public concern, and the fact that MA courts have been notably skeptical of presumed damages even in per se cases. A limited-purpose public figure doesn’t waltz to a verdict because the words fall into a historical category. But please, do keep telling people to “look it up”, Plevin. 🤡

@DefectiveMcToof @FrankGloucester @Lindsey06131241 🙄 look it up 🤡

I’m curious to see who Turtleboy can find to represent him in the defamation lawsuit. The claims against him are incredibly strong, and he’s repeatedly proven himself to be the world’s worst client (uncontrollable, disclosing sensitive & privilege conversations, etc.) Good luck!

@justlarry315 @MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns That’s fair. Looking back it was a little harsh. Long day to end a long week. Good on you for winning the 1983. Way too many people let that shite continue unchecked. I think there’s going to be a huge influx of successful 1983 actions over the next decade.

Ok, counselor. First, I’m not an attorney. I’m “Just Larry” speaking in plain terms based on years working for the family law firm that focuses 95% on civil rights law. Also my own federal Section 1983 lawsuit for very similar circumstances as to what Karen is suing for. Mine was successful and the same year we won, I also won my first election to the legislature. But yes, you’re right. I say “at this stage” because a 12(b)(6) motion is highly unlikely in most cases, but especially this one. So my non lawyer mind skipped to summary judgement and, not being a lawyer, you may be technically correct and I was confusing the states. Excuse my layman speak. I’m not a mechanic either but I can generally discuss cars with people. Hope it made you feel inferior though. But I’d say I did ok for a non lawyer. I’m sure you couldn’t hold the same conversation with me regarding investment banking and the process of American Depositary Receipts. But I still wouldn’t talk down to you, I’d respectfully try educating you. God bless.

What this likely means: as the plaintiffs, the Alberts, McCabes, & Higgins will have to prove that they do not seem suspicious in the death of Officer John O’Keefe, or have to prove in court that the evidence does not implicate them for any involvement. They will also have to show that Karen knowingly and deliberately lied about the optics of this case. #KarenRead #KarenReadFreed

You’ve now merged three different procedural stages into one sentence. And you keep confidently stating the opposite of the actual standard. For a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true — not legal conclusions, and actual malice has to be plead with specificity anyway. At summary judgment, the court does the opposite: it requires the plaintiff to come forward with admissible evidence and will views that evidence through the clear-and-convincing lens. Bare allegations in the complaint are worthless at summary judgment. Also, “we’re at that stage” — no. The complaint was filed yesterday. Summary judgment is many many months and a lot of discovery away, assuming the case even survives the anti-SLAPP motion and motion to dismiss first. In public-figure defamation cases, defendants routinely win at summary judgment because the clear-and-convincing standard is so protective. So making it past summary judgment will not be easy.

@FakeNewsRuse @MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns And that is the stage we’re at. Assuming the obvious motion for summary judgement is filed, the court must take these allegations as true. Get to a jury and all hell breaks loose. But no defendant ever actually wants to Mae it to a jury.

If you say so. First they have to survive an anti-SLAPP dismissal, which, if granted, sticks them with AK’s attorneys’ fees. Then, they will almost certainly have to prove actual malice by clear & convincing evidence. One of the highest burdens in civil litigation, a step below “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

@FakeNewsRuse @o_ruledonappeal @OliviaLambo_ @DoctorTurtleboy Looks like a slam dunk victory for the McCabes et al, if that’s all they need to win the case. That will be easy to prove, didn’t need a high profile attorney for that standard. Yikes.

John O’Keefe was not hit by a car. This is an indisputable statement of fact. John O’Keefe is a homicide victim, whose body was found on Brian Albert’s front lawn. This is an indisputable statement of fact. John Okeefe hit his head on a rigid surface, causing a 2 inch gash on the back of his head, and his right arm was bit by a dog. These are indisputable facts. The people inside Brian Albert’s house were never treated as potential suspects, and many of them were never even interviewed. Those who were had hours alone together to get their story straight. They never came out of the house to help, and didn’t offer their home up to first responders throughout the day. None of them saw his huge body 10 feet away from the curb when they drove by him. None of them were checked for scratches, bruises, or cuts. They sold the home that was never searched, but only after they were accused of being involved in the murder in court filings. The aggressive dog slept through the whole thing and then they got rid of her. They got rid of their phones the day before a preservation order. They called each other when they were sleeping and blamed it on butt dials. They butt answered during sexual intercourse. They monitored police activity and directed each other to stick to the story that the guy never came in the house. They called and answered calls at 5:07, 6:07, and 6:08 when they were sleeping. They never went to bed and were awake at 4:30 AM after a night of drinking. They moved suspicious bags from car to car at the police station at 2 AM while drunk. They coached Kerry Roberts through a timeline and lied to her so much that she repeated those lies to the grand jury. They explained boxing scars by lying under oath about falling on ice and bracing themselves with fists. Chris Albert’s testimony destroyed his son’s timeline and proved that he lied. They offered bribes to the lead detective who never questioned their son, who was in his sisters wedding party. They never spoke to the most important non-house defendant witness - the plow driver - until I made them. They left the house in a blizzard to do their unrecorded interviews across town. They didn’t find any taillight until 3 guys Lt OHarra didn’t recognize started to help them search. They Googled “how long to die in cold” at 2:27 AM when it made no logical sense to google that unless they were plotting to murder someone, and then erased that google search. They made sure that an innocent woman was arrested, and then they pressured the DA to arrest an innocent man for doing what the police wouldn’t and investigate this murder properly. Karen Read did not and could not have killed John Okeefe, which means someone else did. We all know who did it Steve. The jury that acquitted her knew. We all know.

You’re kidding, right? Alex Jones lost by default judgment because he refused to comply with discovery orders. The court never actually reached the merits of malice. The plaintiffs need to prove actual malice (that Kearney knew his statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for truth). Truth functions as an affirmative defense but isn’t strictly necessary if plaintiffs can’t meet their burden.

@FakeNewsRuse @o_ruledonappeal @OliviaLambo_ @DoctorTurtleboy No, that’s not true. You’re wrong. Just because you believe it doesn’t mean it’s true. Ask the judge in the Sandy Hook VS Alex Jones trial. That’s why he lost $1.5 billion.

@justlarry315 @MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns Why do you keep saying this? For a motion to dismiss, yes. Otherwise, you couldn’t be more wrong.

@MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns Not how it works, but ok. The claims of the plaintiffs must be taken as truth by the court.

I've never really taken a position on whether McCabe, Higgins, and the Alberts were part of the death of John O'Keefe. I don't know, and I don't tremendously care. But this, to me, screams guilt far more loudly than anything I have heard Turtleboy say.

@Dan_Donovan_17 Here you are with the strawman (again). No one believes it was intentional. But that’s all you have so you continue to peddle the bullshit.

The most insane part of the FKR Cult story is that they ACTUALLY believe that there was a plan to Kill John O'Keefe, and that Jen and the others were all in on it. No idea if John will come to the Waterfall or go back to 34 Fairview during a Blizzard. But they have a "plan"

@turnright101 @justlarry315 This is incorrect. An affirmative defense is technically only necessary if the plaintiffs carry their burden on all the necessary elements. Which will likely be one of the highest burdens (clear & convincing) because of the public nature of the Karen Read trial.

Oh yes. You nailed the crux 💯. As for Aidan Kearney, he has to prove the aforementioned he accused are culpable. That’s his own burden 💯 because he alleged and it’s on record because he can’t keep his mouth shut. My focus is on Karen Read part in the lawsuit and I can bet anyone out there that they have NO defamation claim against Karen Read. I can list several reasons why but the one that stands out the most is that Karen Read was the accused that was found not guilty by the jury of the murder of Officer John O’Keefe. The FBI, ARCCA and the Commonwealth own Witness testified that the injuries on Officer John O’Keefe was NOT consistent with being hit or clipped by Karen Read’s SUV. During and after the criminal trials, Karen Read and her Attorneys has 💯 right to communicate with the media including “blogger” and the general public. It is not actionable in any part of the world to claim there is a conspiracy when evidences shown in the court of law stipulated FACTS that Officer John O’Keefe was NOT hit by Karen Read’s SUV. So what the fck is the conspiracy? And Larry, you know what I suspect? Reasons why the McLiars took this route to sue Karen Read for defamation was because they discovered they made a very big mistake by going to the Federal Court. And, the SLAPP argument they argued was a failed attempt as it does NOT apply therein. They went to the wrong court and they are now stalling which would not work. That’s one of the reasons they intentionally merged Aidan and Karen together in their defamation lawsuit thinking it would somehow make Karen Read drop her lawsuit against them. But it’s not gonna work! I can guarantee you this. It’s like you sue me, I’ll sue you, let’s see who blinks first. It’s a legal psychological game.

Breaking News: Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and Brian Higgins filed defamation lawsuits suit against Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. First mistake was to sue Karen Read and Aidan Kearney together. They are not an entity. Secondly, you got to prove a conspiracy which is a fallacy when a body was found on your lawn. Thirdly, Officer John O’Keefe was NOT hit by a car. The onus is now on you to prove otherwise. #karenread #justiceforofficerjohnokeefe #fkr

@justlarry315 @MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns A successful affirmative defense is not required to win a lawsuit. Not even close. The McAlberts need to prove every element of defamation and/or civil conspiracy. The burden is not on Aidan it’s on the McAlberts. And it will likely be a very high burden.

@MrsBhave @BrittHapp3ns Truth is an affirmative defense, so if his defense is that what he’s said is factual and true, the burden is on him to prove that. I hope he can somehow, but it won’t be easy proving the strong statements he’s made.

@o_ruledonappeal @OliviaLambo_ @DoctorTurtleboy You are 100% wrong. The McAlberts NEED to prove Aidan acted with malice (ie, he didn’t believe they were guilty). Truth is an affirmative defense, but it won’t be necessary because the criminals won’t meet their very high burden. And that assumes they get by the anti-SLAPP/MTD.

@OliviaLambo_ @DoctorTurtleboy That’s not the law, Olivia. He has the burden to prove what he’s said was true. He can’t do that. And he did act w malice. 100x over. Bc he did it for the almighty dollar. He knew she was guilty. YOU know she’s guilty. His texts speak for themselves. And they’ll get hers, too.

@justlarry315 You should think twice before posting pure nonsense. Your “all statements must be accepted as true in a civil case” is laughably wrong. That applies in a motion to dismiss—if the McAlberts get by SLAPP and any MTD they still have the burden to prove the necessary elements.

I’m going over the complaint now. I’ll reserve too much judgement but I’ll say this… it’s chickens coming home to roost. This is exactly why people like myself (when I actually supported him and tried helping) would tell him to stop talking so much and being so careless. He’d respond by acting tough and telling us to shut up. Well, judging from your hearing this week and now this, looks like you’re the fucking RETARD. Zero strategy, self control or humility. The entire complaint, if taken as true (which is what the judge must do in a civil case) is 99% Aidan’s fault. Even if you fault Karen for giving him info, it was his dumb ads that had to run to the internet and tell everyone so he could look like a big guy. And then send it to countless third parties. Then get in all kinds of personal trouble leading to his devices being confiscated. And saving this shit too.

Kearney absolutely does NOT have to “prove every claim he made.” He has to show the plaintiffs can’t meet their burden. Big difference, not to mention It its one of the highest burdens in civil law. Plaintiffs are almost certainly going to be treated as limited-purpose public figures. They’ll have to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence — i.e., that Kearney knew his statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. You’ve got the standard completely backwards. On a motion to dismiss, the judge accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as true only to test whether the complaint states a claim — that’s a pleading standard, not a burden of proof. Are you in the habit of asserting the opposite of the actual legal standard? Or is it just because you hate Aidan?

Love ya Britt, but it’s the opposite in a civil case. The judge must view the complaint as true. It will be Aidan and Karen that have to prove that they did in fact kill John O’Keefe as Aidan has stated. Their claims against Karen are nothing I’d worry about. She was smart enough to shut her mouth. Nothing wrong with her sharing info with a journalist. It’s what Aidan said and did after that which will be the problem. He must prove every claim he’s made. While I believe the McAlberts were involved, I’m not sure how he proves that. But despite me disliking TB, I pray to God this does lead to some discovery that finally implicates them. But it’s unlikely. He wasn’t very smart with how tough he acted. There’s a reason real journalists use terms like “allegedly”, “some people say/believe”, “reports show”, etc. He wanted to be tough and flat out say the most vile things and claim 1A. 1A doesn’t protect you from civil liability.

@justlarry315 @BrittHapp3ns Wow. Talk about a confident pile of trash. If you’re a lawyer, clearly you’ve never litigated a defamation case in Mass.