Dateline: Fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada!
In today’s rapidly changing world, political hacks appear almost every day with some new promotional device.
But some of these devices have been known to leave irreparable scars on the minds of foolish young consumers!
One such case is now seated before you.
Ultimately, YOU must decide.
Is STEVE SANSON telling the TRUTH?
The WHOLE TRUTH? And NOTHING BUT?
SANSON vs. ABRAMS (DEUX!)
Below, we see the caption page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), from STEVE SANSON’S defamation lawsuit, Sanson v. Schoen, [Clark County No. A-23-884249-C].
In the next panel, we see the Verification page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at p. 11), in which STEVE SANSON — under PENALITIES of PERJURY — verifies the facts of his complaint —
In the next panel, we see STEVE SANSON, under penalties of perjury, make the remarkable allegation that he is NOT a PUBLIC FIGURE! 😮
The next panels (below) are from SANSON’S Facebook pages, in which he openly and notoriously ADMITS he *IS* a PUBLIC FIGURE — thus contradicting his sworn statements to the Court — and thus impeaching his already dubious credibility!
Srsly! Folks!– you can’t make th*s shit up! See for yourself! —
In the next panel, we see SANSON’S First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at ¶ 21), in which SANSON makes the rather spurious allegation that he cannot be deemed a “limited purpose” public figure because (get this) SANSON claims he has not thrust himself into a public controversy or public concern —
In this next panel, we see STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —
Again, here’s STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —
Remember, in defamation cases, the “public figure” allegation is an element of plaintiff’s case-in-chief; in other words, it’s a “material” allegation. And thus, it would appear SANSON is affirmatively misleading the court concerning a “material” allegation.
Even viewed in a favorable light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, lacks evidentiary support, which constitutes a violation of the statewide certification requirement at Rule 11, [see NRCP, Rule 11(b)(3)].
Viewed in a critical light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, carries an audible ring of preposterousness! SANSON impeaches his own credibility — which is now irretrievably shot.
To provide deeper insight into these scandalous developments, Our I-Team met-up with legendary civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., at Jimmy John’s, a sandwich shop situated in Boca Park.
Our I-Team sought to speak with T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. because, as our readers know, Phillips is ALSO suing Jennifer Abrams and her crew for defamation.
We asked Mr. Phillips’ opinion, is Steve Sanson a public figure (or not)? “Duuuh!–of course he’s a public figure!” said Phillips.
Phillips continued, “But, seriously, it would appear Mr. Sanson makes false statements of material fact with specific intent to mislead — and I imagine the Abrams defendants will have no trouble impeaching Sanson’s credibility — with his own Facebook posts — in which Sanson makes public admissions that run directly contrary to the material allegations of his sworn affidavit.“
Our I-Team undertook a 0.29-second Google search — which revealed that perjury, in Nevada, is typically a cat-D felony, [see NRS § 199.120].
Our I-Team asked Mr. Phillips — what’s the best way to handle froggy litigants who play reindeer games in court?
“Hey, I’m NOT a Nevada lawyer! But any fool can see the Abrams defendants are wise to give this prestidigitator an ultimatum — immediately withdraw your glaring misstatements of material fact,” continued Phillips, who added, “and if he persists in playing reindeer games, a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees would do quite nicely.”
Phillips explained the anti-SLAPP dynamic! “Look! It’s mathematically impossible for Sanson to win! C’mon! He already blew the statute of limitations! The only question is WHEN will Sanson tap-out! Asked another way, will Sanson tap-out BEFORE Jenny Abrams goes anti-SLAPP?”
Phillips departed the shallow waters: “Dig it. If Sanson taps-out first, then it’s a simple game over. However, if Jenny goes anti-SLAPP first, then Sanson CANNOT tap-out. Once my girl Jenny goes anti-SLAPP, it effectively precludes Sanson from dismissing his own action — and Sanson would thus remain on-the-hook for potential attorney’s fees PLUS the $10,000 bounty.”
Phillips then went deep: “Remember, this scenario played-out in the landmark case, Willick vs. Sanson! Along with Abrams, Willick also brought a STOOPID defamation lawsuit against Sanson. Then, Willick saw Abrams getting Shaq’d on anti-SLAPP, and Willick soon realized he too would have to pay attorney’s fees, plus a $10,000 bounty, and so, Willick tried to flee the battlefield by dismissing his own case, like the cowardly [expletive deleted] that he is! But Carson City wouldn’t let Willick dismiss!”
“That’s right! Once a defendant files an anti-SLAPP, the plaintiff may no longer dismiss his or her own case! In California, this principle is well-established. In Nevada, my boy Willick had to learn it the hard way!”
“How ironic! First, you got Willick ‘n Abrams, aka “Dumb ‘n Dumber,” who bring their cute, little TWINSIE lawsuits against Sanson, but then, they get banged on anti-SLAPP for attorney’s fees, plus the $10,000 bounty! But now, thanks to the ever-turning Wheel of Fate, the roles have been REVERSED! Now, you got Sanson facing attorney’s fees and FIVE bounties — at $10,000 apiece — for the FIVE Abrams defendants! So, yeah, it’s a RACE to the courthouse — will Sanson dismiss his [expletive deleted] lawsuit BEFORE Jenny brings down the anti-SLAPP thunder!“
Sources close to the investigation reveal the Abrams defendants have until Apr. 18, 2024 to file a responsive pleading.
Our I-Team checked the sporting odds at Caesar’s. Apparently, it’s a bullish bettor’s market. They’re giving 5:4 odds that the Abrams defendants will go full anti-SLAPP.
So, that’s our report from UFC APEX! And, yeah, we’re expecting a Freaky, Fast, Finish for Sanson and his bogus FLAWSUIT. 😀
EDITORIAL STAFF
ATOMIC COURT WATCHERS ~ “I” TEAM
Next Week’s Cliffhanger Episode
Will the ABRAMS defendants move to declare SANSON vexatious?!
Will they allow FALCONI to submit a media request to broadcast ABRAMS’ highly anticipated 12(b)(5) motion? And, if so, will FALCONI publicly ridicule SANSON in the opening 15-second bumper of the ONJ video?
“If fools did not go to market
cracked pots and false wares would not be sold.”
James M. McGill, Esq.
Atomic Court Watchers!
“Where REAL Change Happens!“
#Atomic City Come Alive!
Atomic Court Watchers 
Leave a comment