OFFICIAL: Power & Light District

[moderne]

What's the crowd estimate under the canopy in KCLive?

[DColeKC]

What's the crowd estimate under the canopy in KCLive?

10,000 total between kc live and grand blvd. If I had to guess, 6,500 inside. It was packed all day. Incredible atmosphere and my liver is still dealing with it.

For the record, those photos are from the facebook page of kc live.

[DColeKC]

Sincere question for anyone more experienced legally. At what point does a company take action against someone who is in the media spreading verifiably false information? I tried to very politely contact Jill Cockson via private message to correct some information she is spreading about developers. Specifically calling for the federal investigation into Cordish for fraud as she keeps claiming they overpromised the tax revenue for Power & Light. I'm strongly considering screenshooting and sending this to my Cordish contacts but I have no idea if they'd care or not. I can't stand to see people lie in an effort to lobby support for their cause. She's got a great case without the need to slander other developers.

[moderne]

Thanks to the MAGA POTUS any sort of lies are OK nowadays.

[DColeKC]

Thanks to the MAGA POTUS any sort of lies are OK nowadays.

Not to get political, but I don't think that's true. Did he come up with the Russia Collusion stuff or was that the democrats? Biden just lied about the documents in his possession being classified a week ago.

Let's not pretend political figures (who are often protected from legal action) lying is exclusive to one side.

Regardless, I'm talking about a private citizen trying to imply that a well respected developer defrauded the tax payers.

It seems she could be sued based on the laws.

1. False Statement: The statement made must be false. True statements, no matter how damaging, are not considered slander.
2. Public Communication: The false statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it's about. It can't be a private conversation.
3. Harm to Reputation: The statement must have caused harm to the person’s reputation. This could be loss of work, personal harm, or other damages.
4. Negligence or Malice: The person who made the statement must have either known it was false (acted with malice) or acted negligently in failing to determine its truthfulness.
5.No Privileged Communication: Some statements are protected under privileged communication, such as those in courtrooms or made during legislative debates.

[Highlander]

Thanks to the MAGA POTUS any sort of lies are OK nowadays.

Not to get political, but I don't think that's true. Did he come up with the Russia Collusion stuff or was that the democrats? Biden just lied about the documents in his possession being classified a week ago.

Let's not pretend political figures (who are often protected from legal action) lying is exclusive to one side.

Regardless, I'm talking about a private citizen trying to imply that a well respected developer defrauded the tax payers.

It seems she could be sued based on the laws.

1. False Statement: The statement made must be false. True statements, no matter how damaging, are not considered slander.
2. Public Communication: The false statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it's about. It can't be a private conversation.
3. Harm to Reputation: The statement must have caused harm to the person’s reputation. This could be loss of work, personal harm, or other damages.
4. Negligence or Malice: The person who made the statement must have either known it was false (acted with malice) or acted negligently in failing to determine its truthfulness.
5.No Privileged Communication: Some statements are protected under privileged communication, such as those in courtrooms or made during legislative debates.

If she made false statements that have caused damage to Cordish they can sue her. Absolutely. Even if they had a strong case, they'd have to weigh that against the possibility of her not having the assets to cover any court ordered compensation and the political fallout from such a move.

[WoodDraw]

So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

[DColeKC]

So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

[taxi]

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

You are a nitwit. Sue me.

[WoodDraw]

So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

[DColeKC]

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

You are a nitwit. Sue me.

You really can't control your emotions can you? It's sad to see someone who's probably smart become so stupid because they have no emotional intelligence.

[DColeKC]

So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

Seems like a text book case of defamation. It's a private citizen, accusing a private company of illegal activity that could in fact cause damage. Agree it's not worth it, but she's only hurting her cause.

[WoodDraw]

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

Seems like a text book case of defamation. It's a private citizen, accusing a private company of illegal activity that could in fact cause damage. Agree it's not worth it, but she's only hurting her cause.

People always want the law to be what they want and not what it is.

[Highlander]

So not really how it works. I wouldn't go with this. The cordish lawyers will laugh you away.

I haven't seen the statements, and I doubt they're actionable, but there are no damages. And they'd get hit hard with the Streisand effect.

Someone was mean to us on the internet cases are never good cases.

Well, it's not just the internet. She's been on local media, press conferences etc saying the same things. I agree that it's highly unlikely they'd do anything about it to avoid the big company vs small biz but hard to imagine she's not doing any damage but implying Cordish did something fraudulent.

"Cordish should be under investigation for fraud, in my opinion. They grossly overpromise what they will deliver in tax revenue in exchange for Cities assisting with building their stupid monstrosities. Every year, Kansas City services 15 Million in tax debt that Cordish falls short of their projections. In order to be $15 Million short in taxes, it means they are $400,000 A DAY short in their projections. That’s not just being overly ambitious, it’s an overpromise of fraudulent levels."

That's all protected speech. It's political hyperbole against a public figure.

Dominion is a public company in the news a lot and they have sued Mike Lindell and others for defamation and will almost certainly be successful. Anyone making public statements accusing Cordish of wrongdoing should be prepared to back them up in court because they absolutely can be sued for such actions. If the accusations are correct, then they have nothing to worry about.

[WoodDraw]

Again, not quite how it works. I can provide case law if you are all super bored and want to read, but it's a Saturday night and I recommend only reading it if you're getting paid lawyer wages to read it.

[missingkc]

"People always want the law to be what they want and not what it is."

And, today, we have a Supreme Court that has no problem making that 'want' come true for themselves.

First political thing I've posted on here in 20+ years. But, these are desperate times.

[DColeKC]

Again, not quite how it works. I can provide case law if you are all super bored and want to read, but it's a Saturday night and I recommend only reading it if you're getting paid lawyer wages to read it.

I’m guessing it’s really hard to prove actual damages?

——-Corporations in Missouri, similar to individuals, can sue for defamation if defamatory statements negatively impact their business reputation. This includes statements that affect a company’s financial soundness or managerial integrity. However, like individuals, corporations must also prove actual damages resulting from the defamation.

[WoodDraw]

I don't think you'd even get that far in this case, but yes, like I said earlier, there are no damages.

She said the magic words, "in my opinion." Opinions on disclosed facts are not defamatory. So you'd have to prove her numbers are wrong and show actual malice.

Even then she'd have a defense that she was just talking and any reasonable audience would understand they were hyperbole.

It would be a nonsense case.

[DColeKC]

I don't think you'd even get that far in this case, but yes, like I said earlier, there are no damages.

She said the magic words, "in my opinion." Opinions on disclosed facts are not defamatory. So you'd have to prove her numbers are wrong and show actual malice.

Even then she'd have a defense that she was just talking and any reasonable audience would understand they were hyperbole.

It would be a nonsense case.

Thanks for the explanation!

[KCPowercat]

Lol what the heck? I thought we may have some real tenant news.