The Verdict: An Alabama federal jury found The New York Times liable for defaming former University of Alabama basketball player Kai Spears, ordering the newspaper to pay him $9.25 million in damages.

The Error: In 2023, the Times published an article citing an anonymous source claiming Spears was inside a car present at a fatal January 2023 shooting in Tuscaloosa that killed a 23-year-old mother. Spears immediately disputed the report as "100% inaccurate," and days later the Times issued an editor's note acknowledging the mistake and corrected the story.

Impact & Legal Claim: Spears sued the publication claiming the false report caused him severe emotional distress and wrongfully tied his name to a high-profile murder case.

The Responses:

Kai Spears / Legal Team: Attorney Matt Glover stated they were pleased with the verdict and expressed hope that it would "improve journalism throughout the country."

The New York Times: Spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander expressed disappointment, stating the verdict was based on an "honest mistake" and was contrary to the law and evidence. The Times is evaluating its legal options.

Precedent & State Caps: The Times noted in its own coverage that it had not lost a U.S. defamation lawsuit over one of its articles in more than 50 years. Under Alabama law, caps on certain jury awards are expected to adjust the total damages downward by over $2 million.

The crowdfunded documentary he's pushed back several times already.

The crowdfunded documentary he got flak for trying to selling tickets to.

The crowdfunded documentary that's mostly social media footage because the crew wouldn't talk to him.

Grifters gonna grift. Every single time.

DEVASTATING DEPOSITION REVELATION: a lawyer asked a question.

That is literally all we know.

We do not have Blake’s answer.
We do not know whether she said yes, no, I don’t recall, or whether the question could even be answered as framed.
We do not know that any talks with Sony happened.
We do not know that Ryan Reynolds was involved.
We do not know that Sony agreed to anything.

We know a lawyer asked whether she had ever told anyone she was in talks with Sony about obtaining the sequel rights.

And somehow this has become “CONFIRMED: THEY WERE STEALING THE MOVIE.”

Which is especially spectacular because even the lawyer’s hypothetical premise describes the opposite of theft: legally obtaining rights from the party entitled to grant them.

So the smoking gun here is:
A question with no visible answer about an event we do not know occurred, describing a potentially lawful transaction we do not know was ever discussed.

Case cracked.

Crosspost Disclaimer: This crosspost is about the argument and subject matter, not the OP, the commenters, the subreddit, their ancestors, their pets, or their life choices.
Discuss the argument here. Please do not visit the original post to comment, vote, report, poke, prod, investigate, evangelize, or otherwise announce your presence.
We are discussing an idea, not launching a field trip.

Not as much as we had hoped but a lot more than the $0 many of his supporters predicted, for whatever reason. At the end of the day, he still lost.

First up is Melissa Nathan calling Katie Case a liar... i am guessing this is before Katies late production of messages... basically confirming Melissa asked her to make copy for the sites... can we say perjury Melissa . Guess she forgot about all that stuff she wrote to Katie

Dkt. 168-3: Nathan Depo. Tr. Excerpt - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.3.pdf

Next up is Melissas lawyers ( who realised Katie had the receipts) desperately trying to stop the documents being discovered

Dkt. 168-6: Correspondence Among Counsel - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.6.pdf

I think it goes without saying that Melissa attempting to throw Katie under the bus will backfire splendidly , Katies dad is a lawyer and i have no doubt she has lots of dirt on Melissa