Jew Attorney Sues 19 Ukrainian Women: Defamation

My question is this. I’ve written about the close Ukrainian women association with our top White men. How did the females do it? Now I find a jewess attorney sues 19 Ukrainian women. He called them “cleaning ladies.” Jewish men + Ukrainian women = Close bonds. 

I’m cleaning off my computer desktop and filing the additional documents and pictures into folders. How can I think of helping “organize” Whites when my life is disorganized? Although 200 books of Creative Writing, papers, pictures, blogs, websites, etc. will do that. I do things as fast as I can.
Mama, sisters, and I were all White Polish cleaning ladies for the jewess high priestesses. We wouldn’t dare talk up to them. One thousand years of death by war, alcohol, and starvation trained us well. The Jews named my people “Dumb Polack,” as they named the Germans “Nazis.” Jews thought they were so clever no one would figure out what they did to the two initial parties of World War II. 

Several Ukrainian women sued the Jew attorney Freydin. He called them “cleaning ladies.” 
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511559987-judge-deletes-attempt-by-attorney-to-press-defamation-suit-vs-those-posting-online-reviews-of-his-business

COOK COUNTY RECORD

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Judge deletes attempt by attorney to press defamation suit vs those posting online reviews of his business

LAWSUITS

By Gabriel Neves Sep 14, 2018

CHICAGO – A Chicago federal judge has shut down an attempt by an attorney to sue those who supposedly defamed him in online postings on Yelp and other forums.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a seven-page ruling on Aug. 30 in the lawsuit filed by attorney David Freydin against Victoria Chamara, Tetiana Kravchuk, Anastasia Shmotolokha, Nadia Romenets, and John Does.

Freydin sued the defendants seeking damages and relief in regards to comments made online using platforms such as Facebook and Yelp, purportedly reviewing the services of his law firm.

Freydin’s allegations against the defendants included counts for libel, false light, tortious interference with contractual relationship, tortious interference with prospective business relationship and civil conspiracy.

He stated in the ruling the comments were “salacious, false and libelous,” giving “one-star ratings (out of five), despite, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, not having any business-related contact with him.”

Also stated in the decision, Freydin’s complaint “does not state what Plaintiff allegedly did or said to set off the vituperative comments of the Defendants,” although one post made by Freydin on his Facebook page was viewed as “derogatory” by the defendants, as it joked about “Ukrainian cleaning ladies.”

Using the argument that, to prove defamation the plaintiff “must allege that defendant made a false statement that was published to third parties,” Judge Leinenweber stated in his ruling that the defendants’ comments “were obvious expressions of opinion and are therefore not actionable.”

Leineweber also dismissed Freydin’s claims of false light, stating the plaintiff failed to “allege the requisite special damages,” which include damage to reputation and economic loss, necessary to support that claim.

In the counts of tortious relationships, Leinenweber said he determined Freydin merely alleged that “defendants’ wrongful conduct caused subsequent breaches of parties [sic] to which Plaintiffs were a party by third parties,” and that he “had a reasonable expectation of entering into valid business relationships with third parties, including prospective clients and attorneys who Plaintiffs may have retained or contracted with to represent its clients,” deemed “insufficient” under the law, which requires damages to be proved.