O'LOOFAH continues his costly Law education, gets "free speech" on his side this time
Even to a layman about the Law, over the years O'LOOFAH's various ravings of outrage over whatever true crime case picks his fancy and how the Law is letting this or that p.o.s. get away free have laughably shown how ignorant of basic Legal concepts he is. Remember how he sued Al FRANKEN and got his suit thrown out because of free speech?!1 Faux keeps sinking pretty pennies for the benefit of his Legal education, whether bailing him out of his sexual harassment case or now defending against the lawsuit in this news item (below). The Faux mole dude has been saying in recent book tour interviews that Faux finds it worthwhile what it spends on him because he makes that much for them as their biggest cash cow.
So here is the mirror image of his suit against Senator FRANKEN. Who knew that O'LOOFAH's speech are "opinion” and can’t “be proven objectively true or false,” the judge wrote. Oh, never mind, I guess we all did.
*************QUOTE*************
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/mad-drummer-suit-bill-o-reilly-tossed-article-1.1364496#ixzz2VXeBE4Jh
[font size=5]Mad drummer's suit against Fox News host Bill O'Reilly tossed[/font]
.... Nash and her company, Drum Cafe, found themselves in Fox’s cross hairs during reports on a lavish conference held by the federal General Services Administration in Arlington, Va. ....
O’Reilly called the expenditures “a con” while one of his guests, Juliet Huddy, referred to Nash as “this little hippie-dippie chick.”
Nash said that implied her “services were worthless, and thus a waste of taxpayer money.”
The TV network called the suit “frivolous” in court papers, and said the comments were constitutionally protected opinion. ....
In a ruling last week, Bronx Supreme Court Justice Alexander Hunter found the “stealing” and “con” cracks were aimed at the GSA’s “lavish use of taxpayer money to entertain and provide gifts to federal employees” and not at Nash.
And while Nash “took offense” at the “hippie-dippie” comment, it’s “an expression of opinion” and can’t “be proven objectively true or false,” the judge wrote.
Nash’s lawyer, Richard Ancowitz, said they're considering an appeal “to vindicate the good name of Ms. Nash.”
*************UNQUOTE*************