No "Verity" -- At Project "Veritas": USDC Judge Dismisses Libel Claim Against CNN. Done.

The ruling specifically holds that O'Keefe and his project failed to state any claim worthy of relief. Perfect. The same result is coming pretty soon, in Manhattan's federal courts -- but as to O'Keefe's silly claims against the New York Times.

This loss was suffered in the federal courts in Atlanta, Georgia, though -- by Project Veritas. Here's the full 23 page opinion, and a bit:

. . .The Court is unable to uphold Project Veritas’s arguments in opposition as to the exhibits at issue. In particular, Exhibit 1, the Twitter privacy policy, was referenced in the Complaint as the initially reported basis for Project Veritas’s ban from Twitter and the policy is also referenced in the Complaint in regard to Project Veritas’s claim that its journalistic integrity and reputation are impugned by an allegation that it was banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation as compared to an allegation that it was banned from Twitter for violating a Twitter policy that prohibits the sharing of private information. Doc. No. [1], ¶¶ 2, 49; see also Lockwood v. Beasley, 211 F. App’x 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that in determining whether a document is central to a plaintiff’s case, the Eleventh Circuit has “considered whether the plaintiff would have to offer the document to prove his case” and also stating that “[a] document is undisputed if its authenticity is not challenged.”). The Court makes no finding as to whether Project Veritas actually violated a Twitter policy, but does consider the Twitter policies for purposes of the reputation claims. . . .

Under the Supreme Court’s holding in New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964) a public figure plaintiff must prove that an allegedly libelous statement was made with actual malice, that is, made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” After review, the Court finds that because its substantial truth analysis, supra, is determinative, an actual malice plausibility ruling is not required at this time. As stated above, Project Veritas’s Complaint is legally insufficient. . . .

See 'ya -- you con man and political spy/hack. Out, grinning with North Carolina hanging on by a thread, for overtime with Baylor. . . .

नमस्ते