• Home
  • BOOM! Georgia Judge REFUSES to Throw out CNN’s Effort to Dismiss a Fake News Court Case –

BOOM! Georgia Judge REFUSES to Throw out CNN’s Effort to Dismiss a Fake News Court Case –

BOOM! Georgia Judge REFUSES to Throw out CNN’s Effort to Dismiss a Fake News Court Case, Cites “a Series of False and Defamatory News Reports”

CNN is now on the verge of being proven a fake news source by Georgia courts! CNN attempted to get the case dismissed involving Davide Carbone, CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach who accused CNN of fabricating a story about his hospital.

Federal Judge Orinda Evans
Zach Porter/Daily Report
02/02/09

Citing a “series of false and defamatory news reports” that insinuated St. Mary’s had an infant mortality rate that was 3 times higher than the national average while ignoring information that made the Medical Center look good. The libel lawsuit against CNN seeking $30 million in damages will continue onward thanks to federal district judge Orinda Evans.

Here is CNNs Fake news report about St. Mary’s they still have on their YouTube Page.

Carbone, who actually lost his job due to the fake news reports “has presented enough evidence at this early stage of the case to suggest that CNN ‘was acting recklessly with regard to the accuracy of its reporting” according to The National Law Journal.

To make matters worse, judge Evans also found evidence of “actual malice” when insisting on reporting the Medical Center was under an official investigation, even after Florida’s Agency for Healthcare administration adamantly denied this was taking place.

Carbone’s lawyer describes the ruling as a major victory.

“False and defamatory accusations against real people have serious consequences,” he said. “Neither St. Mary’s or Mr. Carbone did anything to deserve being the objects of the heinous accusation that they harmed or put babies and young children at risk for profit.”

“The ruling,” he added, “serves as a well-reasoned reminder that the media, its defense lawyers, and its lobbyists do not have a corner on the market of correct interpretation and application of the First Amendment.”