Federal Judge in Western District of NC not duped by Rupa Russe. Rupe loses in her attempt to suppress speech.
Here, the Plaintiff, a candidate for public office, alleges that the Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by publishing
negative articles about her.
The Plaintiff chose to run for public office, and a commentator who saw her as unfit wrote disparaging things
If the Plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress could pass muster, every political campaign litigation in perpetuity. from dog catcher to president would generate litigation in perpetuity.
The Plaintiff’s arguments regarding her emotional distress claim reflect a complete misunderstanding of this area of the law.
For example, Plaintiff relies on North Carolina General Statute § 163-274(a)(9)26 to argue that the Defendant’s statements about her were “extreme and outrageous.”
Section 163-274(a)(9) prohibits the publication of “derogatory reports with reference to any candidate in any primary orelection, knowing such report to be false or in reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, when such report is calculated or intended to affect the chances
of such candidate for nomination or election.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-274(a)(9) (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff, however, has failed to present evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the Defendant published any statements about the Plaintiff with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard. Thus, the fact that § 163-274(a)(9) criminalizes certain defamatory conduct is irrelevant to her argument.Judge Martin Reidinger US Western District court of NC
Thank God for our Federal Judge’s diligence in understanding our great constitution. The Federal Courts in this country are doing great work to save our institutions from those who wish to suppress our speech.
BREAKING THIS AFTERNOON
This afternoon Rupa Russe, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for county commissioner and state office, was handed a well-deserved defeat in Federal Court.
Rupa Russe and her attorney classmate, who paraded as her lead attorney -Brooke Nichole Scott, filed a frivolous lawsuit against me and this website back in October 2022; we prevailed today, and Federal Judge Martin Reidinger found in my favor and granted Summary Judgement, and dismissed these two gals actions with prejudice.
When a court dismisses a case “with prejudice,” it means that the court intends for that dismissal to be final in all courts and that res judicata should bar that claim from being reasserted in another court.
For all of you in Marshall, Summary Judgement means:
A summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.
In civil cases, either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment for federal courts. Under Rule 56, in order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, a movant must show 1) that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and 2) that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Material fact” refers to any facts that could allow a fact-finder to decide against the movant.Cornell University
Cornell University is also my go-to for legal definitions. I used their definition for my writings about Rupas Rap Sheet. A definition that these two female attorneys seemed to not comprehend in their legally worthless filings in Federal Court.
It is time these attorneys and prosecutors no longer use the courts to suppress and manipulate Free Speech. These are the same people who scream fire and liar when it is they who are committing perjury and falsehood.
The NC general assembly needs to address the archaic general statutes on the books and protect the public from predatorial litigators in our state.