Supreme Court rules Mike Lindell must face $1.3billion Dominion defamation lawsuit as it kicks off new term

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Mike Lindell has said from the beginning of his journey into displacing the vote tabulation machines used in US elections, which have been hated by both Democrats and Republicans for many election cycles, that he would pay any cost and become penniless to get his message out about the dangers he believes he sees in our current election process.

And he may have the opportunity to become a historic martyr for his cause because the US Supreme Court has picked up a massive case against him that could cost him billions of dollars in punishment for altering the nation to what he has discovered.

The AP reported on the court’s Monday action:

“The Supreme Court says it won’t intervene in a lawsuit in which Dominion Voting Systems accused MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell of defamation for allegedly falsely accusing the company of rigging the 2020 presidential election against former President Donald Trump.

No vote count was made public. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not take part in consideration of the case.

As is typical, the high court did not say anything Monday about the case in rejecting it among a host of others. Monday is the first day the high court is hearing arguments after taking a summer break.”

However, Lindell must face charges against Dominion.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  on Monday rejected a last-ditch bid by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to fend off a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit.

A lower court judge in August of last year declined to dismiss the case and instead said it could go forward. Lindell had appealed that determination, but a federal appeals court said his appeal was premature. The Supreme Court declined to take up that issue.

In that ruling, Judge Carl Nichols wrote that “in addition to alleging that Lindell’s claims are inherently improbable, that his sources are unreliable, and that he has failed to acknowledge the validity of countervailing evidence, Dominion has alleged numerous instances in which Lindell told audiences to purchase MyPillow products after making his claims of election fraud and providing MyPillow promotional codes related to those theories.”

The company “has adequately alleged that Lindell made his claims knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth,” Nichols wrote.

The SCOTUS decision to press on- on Lindell will kick off a new term for the high court, which is sure to be heavily scrutinized by both political sides, so the Supreme Court deferred to a lower court decision that allowed the Dominion lawsuit to proceed and made in August 2021.

“Lindell is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for expressing claims that the company’s machines, which were used throughout the country on Election Day 2020, were rigged in favor of President Joe Biden,” the Daily Mail reported, adding:

“Dominion sued Lindell in February 2021, and has lodged similar lawsuits against former lawyers for President Donald J. Trump,  Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell. And the company is suing numerous media outlets as well.

Dominion has claimed in its lawsuit that many of Lindell’s claims have been debunked and he knows that the voter fraud claims against the machine company are false.”

“Lindell asserts today, as he did throughout the relevant period, that his statements regarding Dominion, its voting machines, and the integrity of the tabulation were, and continue to be, valid, accurate, and true,” Lindell’s lawyers wrote in court papers, according to NBC News.

Lindell has denied any wrongdoing

Justices will weigh in on the broad immunity granted to internet companies by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 frees these companies from much of the liability linked to user content and gives them a legal shield for removing content that violates platform policy and guidelines.

The case the Supreme Court agreed to hear on Monday centers on a 23-year-old Mexican-American student from California named Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed by ISIS terrorists while studying abroad in Paris.

Gonzalez was one of 130 who died in the November 2015 Paris terror attacks, the deadliest assault in French peacetime history.

Her family sued Google, alleging that its subsidiary YouTube was partially responsible for Gonzalez’s death due to its algorithm’s promotion of ISIS-made and pro-ISIS videos helping spread the terror group’s message.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Gonzalez v. Google, claim that Google violated the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The high court also dealt a blow to pro-gun groups in upholding a federal law put in place after the deadly 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

It levied a ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to work like machine guns.

A Utah gun lobbyist and other pro-2nd Amendment groups challenged Trump’s reclassification of bump stocks under a federal prohibition against owning machine guns in the wake of the 2017 shooting.

In turning down the gun groups’ appeal the Supreme Court upheld that the bump stock ban was within that federal statute.

It followed a 6-3 ruling in June that saw the court’s conservative supermajority strike down New York’s strict conceal-carry handgun rules.

 

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend