Smartmatic $2.7B Lawsuit

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I must be justice-sexual because I have raging clue right now:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/media/re ... index.html

If anyone can link me to the actual 285-page lawsuit I’d be much obliged.

[Jersey Girl]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/media/re ... index.html

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That was my OP link. Is the lawsuit linked from it? I’m on my tablet so I’m not sure if that’s the reason why I can’t click on the image and not scroll through it or not.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

That was my OP link. Is the lawsuit linked from it? I’m on my tablet so I’m not sure if that’s the reason why I can’t click on the image and not scroll through it or not.

- Doc

I don't know nothing about no tablets. All I know is that after the first para: Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit on Thursday against Fox News, some of the network's star hosts, including Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro and pro-Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, alleging the parties worked in concert to wage a "disinformation campaign" about the company. Read the full lawsuit below:


It shows the document below it in Word.

[Jersey Girl]

I'm on a Chrome book right now if it helps to know.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yeah, when I tap on the image I’m unable to get past page #1. It doesn’t scroll for me or open to a linked site with the full report. Are you able to do that?

edit: Here’s Dominion’s lawsuit against Giuliani if anyone is interested. I’m a few pages in and good god it’s awesome.

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A% ... 8083949689

[Jersey Girl]

Yes I can.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes I can.

Ok. I’ll have to get on my pc when I get a chance. Thanks.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

You're welcome. If it the document wasn't so lengthy I'd c/p it here for you. Sorry!

[Jersey Girl]

God, now I feel like a slacker. They're demanding a jury trial. Here's the table of contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 4
JURISDICTION & VENUE ........................................................................................................... 9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................................... 12
I. Smartmatic’s Role as an Election Technology Company ..................................................... 13
A. Smartmatic grew from a small start-up into a successful multi-billion-dollar
enterprise. ....................................................................................................................... 14
B. Smartmatic’s success was built on its reputation for secure, reliable, and auditable
election technology and software. .................................................................................. 18
C. Smartmatic had a relatively small, non-controversial role in the 2020 U.S. election. ... 19
1. Los Angeles County introduced a new Voting Solutions for All People initiative for
the 2020 U.S. election. ............................................................................................... 19
2. Los Angeles County selected Smartmatic to contribute election technology and
software to the Voting Solutions for All People initiative. ....................................... 22
3. Smartmatic’s involvement with Los Angeles County was a success. ....................... 23
D. Smartmatic quietly celebrated its success in Los Angeles without knowing what was
coming from Defendants. ............................................................................................... 25
II. Defendants’ Disinformation Campaign Against Smartmatic ................................................ 27
A. Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell created a story about Smartmatic. ................................... 30
B. Fox Defendants joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its
election technology and software. .................................................................................. 32
C. Defendants engaged in a widespread disinformation campaign against Smartmatic and
its election technology and software. ............................................................................. 34
D. Defendants used multiple platforms to spread disinformation ....................................... 57
E. Defendants presented their statements about Smartmatic as facts, not opinions ........... 67
III. Defendants’ False Statements and Implications About Smartmatic ...................................... 78
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2021
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 5 of 285
ii
A. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and
software were widely used in the 2020 U.S. election ..................................................... 79
B. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Dominion used Smartmatic’s election
technology and software during the 2020 U.S. election ................................................. 84
C. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic fixed, rigged, and stole the 2020
U.S. election for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. ............................................................. 92
D. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic sent votes to foreign countries
for tabulation during the 2020 U.S. election. ............................................................... 102
E. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and
software were compromised or hacked during the 2020 U.S. election. ....................... 106
F. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic was previously banned from
providing election technology and software in the United States. ............................... 112
G. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic is a Venezuelan company
founded and funded by corrupt dictators from socialist and communist countries. ..... 115
H. Defendants falsely stated and implied that Smartmatic’s election technology and
software were designed to fix, rig, and steal elections. ................................................ 122
IV. Defendants Acted with Actual Malice and Ill Will Towards Smartmatic ........................... 132
A. Defendants had no support for their statements and implications regarding
Smartmatic. ................................................................................................................... 133
1. Defendants did not have sources to prove something that did not happen. ............. 134
2. Fox Defendants eventually admitted they had no basis for their statements and
implications about Smartmatic. ............................................................................... 135
3. Fox News knew its anchors and guests lacked a basis for their statements and
implications about Smartmatic. ............................................................................... 143
4. Defendants purposefully avoided learning the truth about Smartmatic and its election
technology and software. ......................................................................................... 147
B. Defendants had access to information showing their statements and implications about
Smartmatic and its technology and software were factually inaccurate. ...................... 148
1. Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not widely
used in the 2020 U.S. election (and were not used in contested states). ................. 149
2. Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not used to
fix, rig, or steal the 2020 U.S. election. ................................................................... 160
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2021
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))
which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and
approved by the County Clerk. Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject
filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been
accepted for filing by the County Clerk. 6 of 285
iii
3. Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology and software did not, and does
not, send votes cast in the United States to foreign countries. ................................ 169
4. Defendants knew that Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not
compromised or hacked during the 2020 U.S. election. .......................................... 171
5. Defendants knew that Smartmatic’s election technology and software were not used
by Dominion during the 2020 U.S. election. ........................................................... 175
6. Defendants knew that Smartmatic had not been banned in the United States (or any
individual state). ...................................................................................................... 178
7. Defendants knew that Smartmatic was not a Venezuelan company and that corrupt
dictators did not control Smartmatic. ....................................................................... 180
8. Defendants knew Smartmatic’s election technology has not been designed and used
to fix, rig, or steal elections. .................................................................................... 182
C. Fox Defendants had obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of Mr. Giuliani and Ms.
Powell. .......................................................................................................................... 183
D. Ms. Powell filed sham lawsuits with unsubstantiated and gratuitous allegations about
Smartmatic. ................................................................................................................... 191
1. Ms. Powell filed the lawsuits in bad faith. ............................................................... 191
2. Ms. Powell included irrelevant and gratuitous allegations about Smartmatic in her
lawsuits. ................................................................................................................... 196
3. Ms. Powell had obvious reasons to doubt the credibility of the “witnesses” she
used in the lawsuits. ................................................................................................. 201
E. Defendants used their disinformation campaign against Smartmatic for financial gain
and acted with ill-will and improper motives. .............................................................. 208
1. The Fox Defendants sought to solidify their position with viewers and readers who
supported President Trump. ..................................................................................... 208
2. Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell used the disinformation campaign to further their
personal and financial interests. ............................................................................... 213
F. Fox Defendants knowingly violated generally accepted journalistic standards when
publishing the reports. .................................................................................................. 215
V. Defendants’ disinformation campaign irreparably harmed Smartmatic and its election
technology and software. ..................................................................................................... 220
A. Defendants’ disinformation campaign created a public backlash against Smartmatic. 222
CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.) INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/04/2021
This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i))