- Forum Clout
- 78,376
- Deleted by N/A
To add further to this. Schulman never looked at the merits of whether the complaint contained prima facie evidence of defamation, because Stein (through the 3 chances he gave Mayr) distilled the quash issue down to "do you have prima facie evidence that John Doe 1 authored any of these statements". So Schulman ruled on that and nothing else. Stein said that some of the comments appear as though they could be construed that way, but that is for a jury to decide. It never went that far. Whether or not there were defamatory statements in the original complaint can only be conjectured as no ruling to the effect was ever made.
It's understandable people would not comprehend this in-depth, as this is a complicated constitutional case, but I don't know where the narrative came from that a judge ruled on the merits of the complaint.