JerryM

To say anything I posted was to imply that BBC edited nuthin' is only an interpretation for someone in gotcha mode. BTW the original Trump v BBC complaint contains 28 variations of the word 'malice'.

My words were: what editing the BBC may or may not have done. which to any reasonable person would know, given as you say BBC has already admitted to the editing, in what mode re: malice was the editing done.

They should've filed in the UK but they had only 1 year to do so. Which also means that the Trump media operation was unaware of the faux pas until the internal BBC memo was leaked.

What the BBC may or may not have done is make the edit to the Trump speech with malice which goes to the claim of defamation. But you'll have to argue that with someone else.

It is moot point at this pre-trial motion as far as action in Florida. BTW the Judge on the case is Roy Altman a 2019 Trump first term appointment.

To answer briefly to a few above comments, at this stage of the lawsuit it does not make any difference as to what editing the BBC may or may not have done. Trump team must be able show that the documentary was 'published' in Florida. So far, the best they have shown in filings is that there is an "immense likelihood" that it was seen in Florida. 'Maybe seen' will maybe not cut it. The BBC response says that while Trump contends the doco was available in Florida via VPN, they make no claim that anyone using VPN actually saw it.

AI Gemini: Filing a claim with no legal basis can absolutely be considered malicious, often falling under terms like "frivolous," "vexatious," or "bad faith" litigation, leading to sanctions for the filer, their lawyer, or both, especially if done to harass, delay, or cause harm. Courts have rules (like Rule 11 in the U.S.*) to penalize claims lacking a good faith argument in law or fact, aiming to prevent misuse of the legal system for improper motives, such as intimidation or undue pressure. * Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

(Gemini) Malicious prosecution is a civil tort that occurs when a person initiates an unfounded criminal or civil legal proceeding against another person with malice (an improper purpose or without belief in the claim's merits) In the original complaint Trump v BBC Trump certainly is looking to recover "attorneys fees and such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper." Yesterday's filing was really just a motion to limit plaintiff discovery until after the motion to dismiss has been ruled

The problem here, at least, is that nobody in Florida can be proven to have listened to the specific broadcast.

If the suit is dismissed BBC can recover legal fees and possibly sue Trump for malicious prosecution citing lack of probable cause.

REDUX other topic 1 hour ago Latest filing on Trump v BBC based in part on a prior lawsuits in US. In a nutshell: Saying that someone in Florida MAYBE saw it doesn't count.

Latest filing on Trump v BBC based in part on a prior lawsuits in US. In a nutshell: Saying that someone in Florida MAYBE saw it doesn't count.

This excerpt is from a 'Dear Jerry' letter about 20 years ago after I made the mistake of asking them for a formal volunteer visa. In those days you could get unlimited 30 day entries at Nong Khai no questions asked. This is a large Thai NGO under auspices of the late King Bumiphol. I will daresay such experience gave me insight both good and not so good into Thai culture.

Thursday at 04:59 AM Deja vu all over again maybe: Trump calls Tillerson 'dumb as a rock' and 'lazy as hell' (2018) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/07/trump-tillerson-dumb-lazy-1051485 Rex Tillerson was the former CEO of Exxon. Maybe Trump will see other big oil CEOs the same.

My take on the status quo: Federal indictment against officer Jonathan Ross: Forget about it. State charges against J. Ross per Reuters: If Minnesota charged the agent, he could seek to move the case to federal court and argue he is immune from prosecution. To prevail, the state would have to show the actions were outside his official duties or were objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful. If a judge ruled the officer was immune, the case would be dismissed and the state would not be able to charge him again. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-ice-agent-who-shot-minneapolis-woman-be-prosecuted-2026-01-08/ Could the family sue officer J. Ross for civil damages Federal officers are immune from civil lawsuits unless their conduct clearly violated a clear constitutional right. Besides why sue the officer for damages? Could the family sue DHS and Sec. Noem. My post: The real liability here may lie not with the shooter but with the ICE/DHS supervision entity that may have allowed J. Ross to be on active duty following his dragging incident and should have still been on desk duty. This may explain why an otherwise experienced and well-trained officer made a rookie mistake by standing in front of the car. NB Per Donald J. Trump, civil damages start at $1 billion.

I said on 'Truth Social' and I was responding to the post that said 'When a high-ranking administration official like the President, VP or Noem ...

But most -- if not all -- of these pronouncements on Truth Social etc. to date have been calling people guilty when they might be innocent rather than this case of calling someone innocent when they might be guilty -- and the DoJ is in sole control the federal indictment mechanism.

Even if so -- reasonable officer vs. reasonable person -- it is all moot until DoJ decides to secure a grand jury indictment.

To note however these are both civil cases and not directly related to any potential criminal indictment.

The law and case history at Supreme Court level makes it very difficult to prosecute this type of police action resulting in death.

REDUX For criminal charges, even if the Bondi-DoJ would empanel a grand jury and go for indictment, established case law is highly favorable to those making instantaneous life/death decisions.

REDUX NB 2: The real liability here may lie not with the shooter but with the ICE/DHS supervision entity that may have allowed J. Ross to be on active duty following his dragging incident and should have still been on desk duty. This may explain why an otherwise experienced and well-trained officer made a rookie mistake by standing in front of the car.

As I posted different topic: NB 2: The real liability here may lie not with the shooter but with the ICE/DHS supervision entity that may have allowed J. Ross to be on active duty following his dragging incident and should have still been on desk duty. This may explain why an otherwise experienced and well-trained officer made a rookie mistake by standing in front of the car.

For criminal charges, even if the Bondi-DoJ would empanel a grand jury and go for indictment, established case law is highly favorable to those making instantaneous life/death decisions. For civil action: The new test, as stated earlier, is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” By applying the reasonable person standard, the Supreme Court established, for the first time, a purely objective standard to determine whether granting a government official qualified immunity was appropriate. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers NB In applying the reasonable person standard, the object is to remove, in part, his 'state of mind'. NB 2: The real liability here may lie not with the shooter but with the ICE/DHS supervision entity that may have allowed J. Ross to be on active duty following his dragging incident and should have still been on desk duty. This may explain why an otherwise experienced and well-trained officer made a rookie mistake by standing in front of the car.

Europe '72 Live & Workingman's Dead