If DOJ is actively investigating Dominion in regards to the Venezuelan connections, which seems to be the case with Maduro's apprehension and questioning, then they legally can't answer questions in an open forum b cause it would taint the investigation and could potentially alert certain actors to what's coming and give them time to cover up or outright eliminate evidence.
Party B legally investigates/prosecutes actual crimes by Party A
Party C blocks evidence from that case from being admissible in court on account of being part of an ongoing investigation / prosecution
Party A sues Party B for defamation, which is a civil matter, where the justification for the statements are not allowed to be admitted into court
Do you just accept the judgment, and wait for the criminal matter to be adjudicated, then file for a reversal or a retrial, or ask for a stay of the trial (not likely to be granted as Party A Is likely to have filed in a controlled/sympathetic court)?
I’m guessing that long-term, the solution is maybe to not allow filing civil defamation cases in a tertiary jurisdiction while a criminal investigation is ongoing?
So how does this work? If I were going to trial for murdering someone, can I ask the judge to ban any questions about where it occurred and what weapon might have been used? Give me a break.
Lance would sue and hammer anyone that would defame him. That was his defense.
The most famous case of a top cyclist using drugs is Lance Armstrong, who admitted in 2013 to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during all seven of his Tour de France wins, leading to him being stripped of titles and banned from the sport for life, a confession that followed years of denial and investigations by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) into what they called the "most sophisticated...doping program that sport has ever seen".
If DOJ is actively investigating Dominion in regards to the Venezuelan connections, which seems to be the case with Maduro's apprehension and questioning, then they legally can't answer questions in an open forum b cause it would taint the investigation and could potentially alert certain actors to what's coming and give them time to cover up or outright eliminate evidence.
That was my thought. How does someone fight that?
Do you just accept the judgment, and wait for the criminal matter to be adjudicated, then file for a reversal or a retrial, or ask for a stay of the trial (not likely to be granted as Party A Is likely to have filed in a controlled/sympathetic court)?
I’m guessing that long-term, the solution is maybe to not allow filing civil defamation cases in a tertiary jurisdiction while a criminal investigation is ongoing?
They've had 5 years to cover it up. I hope it's not too late.
Maduro must have spilled the bean.
So how does this work? If I were going to trial for murdering someone, can I ask the judge to ban any questions about where it occurred and what weapon might have been used? Give me a break.
Of course you can.
Tell me... without telling me...
Fraud for sure.
Lance would sue and hammer anyone that would defame him. That was his defense.
The most famous case of a top cyclist using drugs is Lance Armstrong, who admitted in 2013 to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during all seven of his Tour de France wins, leading to him being stripped of titles and banned from the sport for life, a confession that followed years of denial and investigations by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) into what they called the "most sophisticated...doping program that sport has ever seen".
Oh yeah, I remember that.
Why?
The questions he does not want asked prove they have been manipulating election outcomes for decades!
Hit them before they discover?