Oh this is excellent. How have you not joined me on Three Strikes Asshole Island? Before my banishment, you were still posting. Really well done and far zingier than anything I'd done. You bring the logical consequences of the suit to life ... or death, as the case may be.
From the Atone post that Sage linked to today, it seems like he's having a hard time controlling Asshole Island. Among his 10's of 1000's of paid subscribers, there are so many calling him out that he's pegging his en masse reply. Mutiny on the mainland! And now, when I read about his 3:30 am checking on the pregnant mares in the freezing cold, reflecting on the colder interviews, I can't get the song, "Poor, poor pitiful me" out of my head. Lawd have mercy!
That pegged reply from Dr. Malone is most annoying for this statement:
"... the underlying assumption is that the legal case here has merit and will probably prevail, hence it should be dropped? Which is a concession that the repeated, ongoing, malicious defamation in question is real."
Very much to the contrary!! Unless the courts are ready to overturn all relevant case law and precedent, this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever. The Breggins are expressing a constitutionally protected opinion, backed up by undisputed facts about Malone's background. Hopefully the case will be dismissed, but probably not before wasting a seriously damaging amount of money in legal fees.
It's also unfortunate that Mathew Crawford has so much animus against Stew Peters, that he seems to be supporting Malone's lawsuit. Or at least he alludes to some hidden back story.
I reacted the same way to that statement. It's idiotic to think that our animosity against the lawsuit is a tacit admission that it will win. It was interesting that the Breggins noted they had never been served for the suit. So I think he's also aware it's a frivolous filing and is just for show and intimidation. Even the way it's worded: we DEMAND a jury trial, no less than $25M, no less than $350K in mental anguish. Is that how normal filings work? Can you make demands on the court in your filing, that they have to comply with? I just can't imagine that.
I hope that ALU fills us in on what's going on with that. I was following along from Sage Hana, who it turns out is Derrick someone, as revealed by Mathew. It's getting very ugly. Curiously I'd thought that there were a lot of male egos throwing monkey shit around, but that Sage could be as vicious as any of them. I guess s/he's not an exception to the rule. S/he is pretty funny though.
Dec 28, 2022·edited Dec 28, 2022Liked by Air Lift Underground
I'm not an attorney, but unfortunately have some experience as a client. Yes, that's how normal filings work: the plaintiff can demand any crazy amount of money. But normally these defamation lawsuits are pretty difficult to win, unless the defendant is Alex Jones. (I understand that the judge made the Jones case turn on discovery issues, so that the defamation question was never even addressed.)
You have some articles about the Malone v Breggin lawsuit. Do you know if there's any compilation of statements that the Breggins have actually made about Malone? The lawsuit itself just has links to videos and telegram groups. If the Breggins are making claims that Malone is literally taking payments from Big Pharma to this day, thus acting deliberately as a malicious operative; and if they're making those claims without any evidence; then Malone might have some kind of case for defamation (although proving the dollar amount of damages would be another issue.)
From what I've seen, the Breggins' claims are more subtle: that because of his past history as a researcher for Big Pharma, he's inclined to promote the "mass formation psychosis" theory, rather than properly blaming himself and his old friends in the drug business or in big government.
Yes, the situation with 'Sage Hana' vs. 'Mathew Crawford' is getting ugly. Crawford justified doxxing Sage by saying: "I respect a lot of people and their rights. When I see one raise an axe at a family in a park, I'm going to find a clean shot and open fire."
Raising an axe, really? What I saw was Sage asking Crawford what he did when he was working for the Human Genome Project. And a few other nosy questions. Which might have been rude or off-topic, but not really that threatening.
Crawford says that someone ran him off the road, and burned his house down. Which is tragic and appalling and scary. For all we know, there could be a Krystallnacht coming in which each and every Substack author (and for that matter every subscriber) could be targeted similarly.
But how is Sage to blame for what happened to Crawford? It seems to me more likely that the same people who hit Crawford, might be only too happy to do the same to 'Sage Hana'. At any rate, there are often good reasons why authors prefer not to be doxxed; physical safety is one of many reasons.
The latest wrinkle is that 'Sage' is saying that the person in Crawford's you-tube and gofundme links, is not the same person as the "Derrick Blanton" who writes the Substack. Well, I'd be pretty surprised if Crawford got this wrong. But, Sage Hana is giving Crawford a face-saving opportunity to back down from the details of the doxxing, and/or the accusations of criminal behavior. If Crawford presses his attack, I wonder if Sage would sue him? At the very least, I think Crawford deserves a reprimand for violating Substack policies against doxxing.
I suspect you know more about these things than me, but I also find the AJ suit was surprisingly easy to win. I'm going to do an episode on Sandy Hook because a journalist who wrote a book on it happened to sit next to me at a bar, and we exchanged books, and now I'm seeing it come up everywhere (Saga Hana's comment thread to start). I've long thought of AJ as a double propaganda agent, who mixed truth in with crazy theories to discredit it. He never brought up any of the actual evidence about SH. Could it have been a show trial to set a precedent about defamation by journalists being worth big money? Was the $49M even real?
That first post of mine, Who Is RM Really? goes through all of the 'material statements' made by the Breggins et al that RM lists in the suit. You would imagine that he'd put in the most damning statements possible. But they're either things he's said himself--and put in as his credentials to the court--or they're clearly opinions and not factual statements. They're also not clearly attributed as to who said what, which seems very muddy for defamation--can one person be liable for what another person has said? It's all very fishy.
Yeah, I don't know where I stand on 'Sage' v MC but sorting through it seemed unproductive. I was horrified by those things that have happened to Mathew but agree with you that it doesn't seem related to Sage's attacks. Yet I don't know how I feel about SH being just a 'brand' that we were foolish to think of as a name. ALU is a brand. Sage Hana is two women's names put together. It felt less than genuine.
Dropping like flies these reputations are. Next we know ALU will turn out to be Cher and Sonny, who never really died but went Underground.
Priceless, absolutely priceless! You should have continued ! It's Christmas morning and preparing for a family togetherness but this made my Christmas and was a most welcome epiphany! Not much hope for redemption for "Dr. Malevolent" (in spite of his Friday Funnies) but this would hopefully give the Breggins a smile...
I sent the Breggins a note with links to my two episodes, neither done with the aplomb that ALU brings to the matter. Agreed on the Friday Funnies but mostly I'm now subscribed to the cartoonists directly, including one who sent me a note of appreciation for my posts on Atone:
We've been trying unsuccessfully to reach them. If you have a chance to get it to them, we'd love for them to get a kick out this little twist on Dickens.
Yes, I had the same thought. If I can get a response from them, I'd intended to send your link. You really did make me feel like I'm not crazy or overly suspicious or egotistically jumping on a bandwagon. This lawsuit is just wrong. Thank you for that Christmas present!
Thank you for giving the manure pile turn and tossing some of that horse s#!% where it belongs.
Frankly I'm appaled he's gone after the Breggins. Don't know if it's just ego or something worse, but whatever it is, you know this guy will not actually sacrifice for the success of the mission, that seems certain.
I wish he'd learn something from those who have laid the ground before him- time is too short to waste on detractors. Spend your time fighting "the other side," not our side. Let it go, and focus on the mission at hand.
Prove your bona-fides, don't whine that you are unappreciated or maligned, just get on with the damn job!
Oh this is excellent. How have you not joined me on Three Strikes Asshole Island? Before my banishment, you were still posting. Really well done and far zingier than anything I'd done. You bring the logical consequences of the suit to life ... or death, as the case may be.
We're working on it.
From the Atone post that Sage linked to today, it seems like he's having a hard time controlling Asshole Island. Among his 10's of 1000's of paid subscribers, there are so many calling him out that he's pegging his en masse reply. Mutiny on the mainland! And now, when I read about his 3:30 am checking on the pregnant mares in the freezing cold, reflecting on the colder interviews, I can't get the song, "Poor, poor pitiful me" out of my head. Lawd have mercy!
The article referred to in the story above is that one.
That pegged reply from Dr. Malone is most annoying for this statement:
"... the underlying assumption is that the legal case here has merit and will probably prevail, hence it should be dropped? Which is a concession that the repeated, ongoing, malicious defamation in question is real."
Very much to the contrary!! Unless the courts are ready to overturn all relevant case law and precedent, this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever. The Breggins are expressing a constitutionally protected opinion, backed up by undisputed facts about Malone's background. Hopefully the case will be dismissed, but probably not before wasting a seriously damaging amount of money in legal fees.
It's also unfortunate that Mathew Crawford has so much animus against Stew Peters, that he seems to be supporting Malone's lawsuit. Or at least he alludes to some hidden back story.
I reacted the same way to that statement. It's idiotic to think that our animosity against the lawsuit is a tacit admission that it will win. It was interesting that the Breggins noted they had never been served for the suit. So I think he's also aware it's a frivolous filing and is just for show and intimidation. Even the way it's worded: we DEMAND a jury trial, no less than $25M, no less than $350K in mental anguish. Is that how normal filings work? Can you make demands on the court in your filing, that they have to comply with? I just can't imagine that.
I hope that ALU fills us in on what's going on with that. I was following along from Sage Hana, who it turns out is Derrick someone, as revealed by Mathew. It's getting very ugly. Curiously I'd thought that there were a lot of male egos throwing monkey shit around, but that Sage could be as vicious as any of them. I guess s/he's not an exception to the rule. S/he is pretty funny though.
I'm not an attorney, but unfortunately have some experience as a client. Yes, that's how normal filings work: the plaintiff can demand any crazy amount of money. But normally these defamation lawsuits are pretty difficult to win, unless the defendant is Alex Jones. (I understand that the judge made the Jones case turn on discovery issues, so that the defamation question was never even addressed.)
You have some articles about the Malone v Breggin lawsuit. Do you know if there's any compilation of statements that the Breggins have actually made about Malone? The lawsuit itself just has links to videos and telegram groups. If the Breggins are making claims that Malone is literally taking payments from Big Pharma to this day, thus acting deliberately as a malicious operative; and if they're making those claims without any evidence; then Malone might have some kind of case for defamation (although proving the dollar amount of damages would be another issue.)
From what I've seen, the Breggins' claims are more subtle: that because of his past history as a researcher for Big Pharma, he's inclined to promote the "mass formation psychosis" theory, rather than properly blaming himself and his old friends in the drug business or in big government.
Yes, the situation with 'Sage Hana' vs. 'Mathew Crawford' is getting ugly. Crawford justified doxxing Sage by saying: "I respect a lot of people and their rights. When I see one raise an axe at a family in a park, I'm going to find a clean shot and open fire."
Raising an axe, really? What I saw was Sage asking Crawford what he did when he was working for the Human Genome Project. And a few other nosy questions. Which might have been rude or off-topic, but not really that threatening.
Crawford says that someone ran him off the road, and burned his house down. Which is tragic and appalling and scary. For all we know, there could be a Krystallnacht coming in which each and every Substack author (and for that matter every subscriber) could be targeted similarly.
But how is Sage to blame for what happened to Crawford? It seems to me more likely that the same people who hit Crawford, might be only too happy to do the same to 'Sage Hana'. At any rate, there are often good reasons why authors prefer not to be doxxed; physical safety is one of many reasons.
The latest wrinkle is that 'Sage' is saying that the person in Crawford's you-tube and gofundme links, is not the same person as the "Derrick Blanton" who writes the Substack. Well, I'd be pretty surprised if Crawford got this wrong. But, Sage Hana is giving Crawford a face-saving opportunity to back down from the details of the doxxing, and/or the accusations of criminal behavior. If Crawford presses his attack, I wonder if Sage would sue him? At the very least, I think Crawford deserves a reprimand for violating Substack policies against doxxing.
I suspect you know more about these things than me, but I also find the AJ suit was surprisingly easy to win. I'm going to do an episode on Sandy Hook because a journalist who wrote a book on it happened to sit next to me at a bar, and we exchanged books, and now I'm seeing it come up everywhere (Saga Hana's comment thread to start). I've long thought of AJ as a double propaganda agent, who mixed truth in with crazy theories to discredit it. He never brought up any of the actual evidence about SH. Could it have been a show trial to set a precedent about defamation by journalists being worth big money? Was the $49M even real?
That first post of mine, Who Is RM Really? goes through all of the 'material statements' made by the Breggins et al that RM lists in the suit. You would imagine that he'd put in the most damning statements possible. But they're either things he's said himself--and put in as his credentials to the court--or they're clearly opinions and not factual statements. They're also not clearly attributed as to who said what, which seems very muddy for defamation--can one person be liable for what another person has said? It's all very fishy.
Yeah, I don't know where I stand on 'Sage' v MC but sorting through it seemed unproductive. I was horrified by those things that have happened to Mathew but agree with you that it doesn't seem related to Sage's attacks. Yet I don't know how I feel about SH being just a 'brand' that we were foolish to think of as a name. ALU is a brand. Sage Hana is two women's names put together. It felt less than genuine.
Dropping like flies these reputations are. Next we know ALU will turn out to be Cher and Sonny, who never really died but went Underground.
You should see what's going on with that.
Priceless, absolutely priceless! You should have continued ! It's Christmas morning and preparing for a family togetherness but this made my Christmas and was a most welcome epiphany! Not much hope for redemption for "Dr. Malevolent" (in spite of his Friday Funnies) but this would hopefully give the Breggins a smile...
I sent the Breggins a note with links to my two episodes, neither done with the aplomb that ALU brings to the matter. Agreed on the Friday Funnies but mostly I'm now subscribed to the cartoonists directly, including one who sent me a note of appreciation for my posts on Atone:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/who-is-robert-malone-really
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/conspiracy-researchers-and-robert
We've been trying unsuccessfully to reach them. If you have a chance to get it to them, we'd love for them to get a kick out this little twist on Dickens.
Yes, I had the same thought. If I can get a response from them, I'd intended to send your link. You really did make me feel like I'm not crazy or overly suspicious or egotistically jumping on a bandwagon. This lawsuit is just wrong. Thank you for that Christmas present!
Thank you for giving the manure pile turn and tossing some of that horse s#!% where it belongs.
Frankly I'm appaled he's gone after the Breggins. Don't know if it's just ego or something worse, but whatever it is, you know this guy will not actually sacrifice for the success of the mission, that seems certain.
I wish he'd learn something from those who have laid the ground before him- time is too short to waste on detractors. Spend your time fighting "the other side," not our side. Let it go, and focus on the mission at hand.
Prove your bona-fides, don't whine that you are unappreciated or maligned, just get on with the damn job!
; ))
OMG, so amazing! As soon as I read Leo Atone, I knew, LOL.
Your use of allusion to shatter illusions makes this fable fabulous indeed.
Brilliant! It kind of reminds me of someone...
Effing brilliant and biting!
This is 🔥.