Posts: 38,441
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55241
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
We have lots of example of people not even getting settlements when they were clearly the victim.
How much should a person get if the police destroy their home when they went to the wrong address, for example?
On the other hand we've seen settlements that forced people to pay for medical care for life for their victims.
You can't put a price on a life or a reputation in my book. Determine future earnings and possible needs and then, once found guilty let the defendant prove the amount was too much.
Half the people are upset simply because this is Rudy and he's a republican who supports P01135809 and any amount would be seen as "too much".
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 13,031
Threads: 1,968
Reputation:
75928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 5,171
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23301
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-20-2023, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: We have lots of example of people not even getting settlements when they were clearly the victim.
How much should a person get if the police destroy their home when they went to the wrong address, for example?
On the other hand we've seen settlements that forced people to pay for medical care for life for their victims.
You can't put a price on a life or a reputation in my book. Determine future earnings and possible needs and then, once found guilty let the defendant prove the amount was too much.
Half the people are upset simply because this is Rudy and he's a republican who supports P01135809 and any amount would be seen as "too much".
Don't mean to be feisty, but the last argument is one I'd rather shy away from. For it is the same type of argument that was rather enraging when Trump defendants used it. 'So, he did something bad you say, meh whatever. You would critizise him whatever he does anyway, so what gives'. For this case, it's not about any amount being too much anyway. 148 million dollars just appears like an obscene, irrational sum, even more so in comparison to other cases. And one does not have to like Trump or Rudy to reach that conclusion. Imho, it's rather water on the mills for those who believe these verdicts are given by anti-Trump partisans rather than independent servants of the law. And it sure really appears that way and imho, that is actually a problem.
Posts: 38,441
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55241
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(12-20-2023, 11:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Don't mean to be feisty, but the last argument is one I'd rather shy away from. For it is the same type of argument that was rather enraging when Trump defendants used it. 'So, he did something bad you say, meh whatever. You would critizise him whatever he does anyway, so what gives'. For this case, it's not about any amount being too much anyway. 148 million dollars just appears like an obscene, irrational sum, even more so in comparison to other cases. And one does not have to like Trump or Rudy to reach that conclusion. Imho, it's rather water on the mills for those who believe these verdicts are given by anti-Trump partisans rather than independent servants of the law. And it sure really appears that way and imho, that is actually a problem.
That's fine. What I'm trying to get across is the people who support P01135809 blindly feel everything done to him and the people who support him (even people arrested for their part in Jan 6) are simply being attacked because of P01135809/politics. "It's a witch hunt!" so to speak.
There may be a minority who simply feel that amount is "too much" so maybe saying "half" is too lazy a way of stating what I just said...but the largest majority of those opposed to the amount are also against the conviction because of politics.
Rudy is the second largest individual amount according to this article:
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/bigger-libel-payouts/
The rest are businesses. Most of those were settled without a judgement.
Jones is by far the largest but there is also a larger group being paid.
So, again, what is the "right" amount? No one knows. This is what was determined this time. Clearly they are using this as an example to try and deter others from doing the same. And I personally think it is more because the case involved election integrity. Something our country should be very clear on defending.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 10,917
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43135
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-20-2023, 11:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Don't mean to be feisty, but the last argument is one I'd rather shy away from. For it is the same type of argument that was rather enraging when Trump defendants used it. 'So, he did something bad you say, meh whatever. You would critizise him whatever he does anyway, so what gives'. For this case, it's not about any amount being too much anyway. 148 million dollars just appears like an obscene, irrational sum, even more so in comparison to other cases. And one does not have to like Trump or Rudy to reach that conclusion. Imho, it's rather water on the mills for those who believe these verdicts are given by anti-Trump partisans rather than independent servants of the law. And it sure really appears that way and imho, that is actually a problem.
What you're seeing from the people defending this ridiculous amount is a willingness, or more accurately an eagerness, to use civil litigation as a weapon. Civil litigation is intended as a remedy, to redress a wrongdoing and make the victims as whole as possible. What you're seeing now is it being used as a tool to both crush offenders and to serve as a warning to anyone who might dare step out of line down the road. They're saying this openly, in this very thread. They're basically advocating for lawfare. If you dare comment on the absurdity of the dollar amount, well then you're a Trump defender who doesn't care about our democracy.
The problem with using the law as a threat and a weapon instead of a framework for a civil society is that, as with any such tool, it can easily be used against you when those in power change. I honestly don't know which is more obscene, the people who view these trials solely as witch hunt, or the ones who celebrate their excesses like they're at a public execution.
Posts: 27,929
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121617
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
I think we should just pretend that judgment against Rudy is a student loan payment that he's gonna pay because he knew damn well what he was getting into when he signed up for it.
Personally, I'd trade my student loan debt for any $100+ million settlement against someone famous, because they're not paying and if I were to die tomorrow Nelnet and AES would fight over which one of them owns my vital organs as payment.
Posts: 38,441
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55241
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're seeing from the people defending this ridiculous amount is a willingness, or more accurately an eagerness, to use civil litigation as a weapon. Civil litigation is intended as a remedy, to redress a wrongdoing and make the victims as whole as possible. What you're seeing now is it being used as a tool to both crush offenders and to serve as a warning to anyone who might dare step out of line down the road. They're saying this openly, in this very thread. They're basically advocating for lawfare. If you dare comment on the absurdity of the dollar amount, well then you're a Trump defender who doesn't care about our democracy.
The problem with using the law as a threat and a weapon instead of a framework for a civil society is that, as with any such tool, it can easily be used against you when those in power change. I honestly don't know which is more obscene, the people who view these trials solely as witch hunt, or the ones who celebrate their excesses like they're at a public execution.
I'd disagree with this take because the law is there for a reason but defamation is not easy to prove, and also I'd wager most cases are not as politically charged as this one.
In this case politics gets involved because of what Rudy said about the victims and what their job was.
And, again, because he was lying about election integrity I'd say the case was of a little more importance and worthy of being tried.
Also he could have tried to settle as many others in the list I provided did. He took a risk and lost.
I don't know what the "right" number is. No one in this thread has provided an answer to that either. So this is the number for now, which I'm sure will be lowered on appeal.
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 27,929
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121617
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
This is all a moot point because Rudy says he has the evidence what he said was factual and legal.
Posts: 13,031
Threads: 1,968
Reputation:
75928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 02:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This is all a moot point because Rudy says he has the evidence what he said was factual and legal.
he also is claiming he's broke
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 27,929
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121617
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
(12-18-2023, 02:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but in all fairness murder happens all the time. Some of the most powerful people on the planet tacitly inciting mobs against specific private citizens...now that you don't see every day. It'd downright absurd that stuff like this is happening, and will continue to happen.
Absurd retaliations follow absurd actions, I guess.
(12-21-2023, 02:47 PM)pally Wrote: he also is claiming he's broke
Ch 11 is a no debt limit for a guy who is apparently allowed to file as a business? I assume this is what Alex Jones did. The system works.
Funny how some folks can be broke like a fox.
Posts: 10,917
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43135
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-21-2023, 01:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd disagree with this take because the law is there for a reason but defamation is not easy to prove, and also I'd wager most cases are not as politically charged as this one.
Defamation is hard to prove, but is it getting easier? Take the Depp/Heard case. A large number of people were surprised at the verdict as they believed the burden for proving defamation was not met. You have to prove the person lied, knew they were lying and did so with malicious intent. I didn't follow the Rudy trial so I can't speak to the evidence. In any event, my sole issue is not with the verdict, it's with the amount of damages awarded.
Quote:In this case politics gets involved because of what Rudy said about the victims and what their job was.
And, again, because he was lying about election integrity I'd say the case was of a little more importance and worthy of being tried.
At no time have I made, or even insinuated, the argument that the case should not have been tried. Even if the case was complete garbage the plaintiffs have a right to file suit and bring the case to court.
Quote:Also he could have tried to settle as many others in the list I provided did. He took a risk and lost.
Yeah, you're gonna want to be careful with this line of thinking. It's literally no different than saying a criminal defendant should get a heavier sentence for not taking the plea deal they were offered and instead went to trial. They took a risk and loss after all, using your own words. Punishing someone for exercising their right to a fair trial is anathema to our system of justice.
Quote:I don't know what the "right" number is. No one in this thread has provided an answer to that either. So this is the number for now, which I'm sure will be lowered on appeal.
No one can know, because none of us are privy to all the evidence. What we can do is compare past judgments awarded to people in other civil cases. When the numbers in this case absolutely dwarf settlements for people being killed by negligence, or outright murder, I don't think we need to know all the details of the Rudy case to comfortably call bullshit on the numbers awarded in this instance.
Posts: 13,031
Threads: 1,968
Reputation:
75928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Defamation is hard to prove, but is it getting easier? Take the Depp/Heard case. A large number of people were surprised at the verdict as they believed the burden for proving defamation was not met. You have to prove the person lied, knew they were lying and did so with malicious intent. I didn't follow the Rudy trial so I can't speak to the evidence. In any event, my sole issue is not with the verdict, it's with the amount of damages awarded.
At no time have I made, or even insinuated, that the case should not have been tried. Even if the case was complete garbage they plaintiffs have a right to file suit and bring the case to court.
Yeah, you're gonna want to be careful with this line of thinking. It's literally no different than saying a criminal defendant should get a heavier sentence for not taking the plea deal they were offered and instead went to trial. They took a risk and loss after all, using your own words. Punishing someone for exercising their right to a fair trial is anathema to our system of justice.
No one can know, because none of us are privy to all the evidence. What we can do is compare past judgments awarded to people in other civil cases. When the numbers in this case absolutely dwarf settlements for people being killed by negligence, or outright murder, I don't think we need to know all the details of the Rudy case to comfortably call bullshit on the numbers awarded in this instance.
The X-factor in any jury trial is the jury. In the Guiliani case, the women made very sympathetic witnesses as ordinary Americans just doing their civic duty and were publically and cruelly attacked by a public official, which set off a firestorm of abuse from those who supported what he said.
The award will be appealed and likely knocked back or behind the scenes negotiations will result in a settlement
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 38,441
Threads: 1,699
Reputation:
55241
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Defamation is hard to prove, but is it getting easier? Take the Depp/Heard case. A large number of people were surprised at the verdict as they believed the burden for proving defamation was not met. You have to prove the person lied, knew they were lying and did so with malicious intent.
And a large number of people were not surprised too because they could follow the entire thing live. And that's one case. Sarah Palin lost hers.
The vast majority we hear about our celebrities and they tend to sue the media and usually get a settlement. Not always, but usually.
In fact this article says:
Quote:Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.
It even mentions the famous Jerry Falwell defamation case he lost.
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't follow the Rudy trial so I can't speak to the evidence. In any event, my sole issue is not with the verdict, it's with the amount of damages awarded.
So if can't speak to the evidence why have an issue with the verdict that came from people who heard all the evidence?
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At no time have I made, or even insinuated, that the case should not have been tried. Even if the case was complete garbage they plaintiffs have a right to file suit and bring the case to court.
I didn't say you did.
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you're gonna want to be careful with this line of thinking. It's literally no different than saying a criminal defendant should get a heavier sentence for not taking the plea deal they were offered and instead went to trial. They took a risk and loss after all, using your own words. Punishing someone for exercising their right to a fair trial is anathema to our system of justice.
So that doesn't happen? It's a risk. Innocent people have gone to jail because they didn't take a plea deal from a prosecutor who believed they had a weak case but won anyway. That's why we have an appeal process too.
It's not punishing anyone, its the way the system works.
(12-21-2023, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one can know, because none of us are privy to all the evidence. What we can do is compare past judgments awarded to people in other civil cases. When the numbers in this case absolutely dwarf settlements for people being killed by negligence, or outright murder, I don't think we need to know all the details of the Rudy case to comfortably call bullshit on the numbers awarded in this instance.
Your comparisons are fine, but each case is separate. Again, without knowing all the evidence we don't know how the number was reached.
And, again IMHO, because this was about elections and their integrity I believe it was treated a little more seriously.
We all know he probably won't pay a red cent. Rich people seldom do. They work the system (see his filing for bankruptcy above) and appeal until they die I guess...lol...so this entire discussion will be moot.
"Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time." In this case "If you don't want to pay be careful what you say."
Warning: Reading signatures may hurt your feelings.
Posts: 27,929
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121617
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 03:39 PM)pally Wrote: The X-factor in any jury trial is the jury. In the Guiliani case, the women made very sympathetic witnesses as ordinary Americans just doing their civic duty and were publically and cruelly attacked by a public official, which set off a firestorm of abuse from those who supported what he said.
The award will be appealed and likely knocked back or behind the scenes negotiations will result in a settlement
I always thought the rule of thumb on this was that if you don't want your fate in the hands of a possibly biased or deranged judge or jury, you shouldn't do stuff that puts you in front of a judge or jury.
Posts: 3,490
Threads: 39
Reputation:
10978
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
Take everything he has. The real fear of these people is not jail, it's to be poor.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Posts: 10,917
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43135
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-21-2023, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: And a large number of people were not surprised too because they could follow the entire thing live. And that's one case. Sarah Palin lost hers.
The vast majority we hear about our celebrities and they tend to sue the media and usually get a settlement. Not always, but usually.
In fact this article says:
It even mentions the famous Jerry Falwell defamation case he lost.
I literally said in my post that my issue is with the dollar amount, not the verdict.
Quote:So if can't speak to the evidence why have an issue with the verdict that came from people who heard all the evidence?
Honest question, did you actually read my post before responding? Because I directly addressed this.
Quote:I didn't say you did.
No, what you said was this;
"And, again, because he was lying about election integrity I'd say the case was of a little more importance and worthy of being tried."
Hence my response.
Quote:So that doesn't happen? It's a risk. Innocent people have gone to jail because they didn't take a plea deal from a prosecutor who believed they had a weak case but won anyway. That's why we have an appeal process too.
Does it happen, I'm sure it has. Should it happen? Absolutely not.
Quote:It's not punishing anyone, its the way the system works.
This statement is profoundly inaccurate. This is the exact opposite of the way the system is supposed to work. Demanding a fair trial instead of taking a plea should in now way impact the final verdict or sentence/judgment. Again, this is the 100% in direct contradiction to our system of justice.
Quote:Your comparisons are fine, but each case is separate. Again, without knowing all the evidence we don't know how the number was reached.
And, again IMHO, because this was about elections and their integrity I believe it was treated a little more seriously.
We all know he probably won't pay a red cent. Rich people seldom do. They work the system (see his filing for bankruptcy above) and appeal until they die I guess...lol...so this entire discussion will be moot.
Yes, each case is separate. But a rational adult can rather easily come to the conclusion that having someone lie about you, even if said lies resulted in profound discomfort and stress to you, is in no way shape or form comparable to taking your life or the life of a loved one. Or are you arguing otherwise?
Quote:"Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time." In this case "If you don't want to pay be careful what you say."
No one is arguing otherwise. What is being argued is the obscene dollar value in the judgment. Honestly, the only way I can conceive of anyone seeing that amount and not going WTF is that you personally hate Rudy and delight in his punishment. While vindictiveness is hardly an uncommon human reaction it's rarely a logical one.
Posts: 10,917
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43135
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-21-2023, 03:39 PM)pally Wrote: The X-factor in any jury trial is the jury. In the Guiliani case, the women made very sympathetic witnesses as ordinary Americans just doing their civic duty and were publically and cruelly attacked by a public official, which set off a firestorm of abuse from those who supported what he said.
The award will be appealed and likely knocked back or behind the scenes negotiations will result in a settlement
Indeed. The problem is that it shouldn't have to be "knocked back". The target shouldn't be order a ridiculous judgment so it can be retracted to a reasonable amount later. The target should be make a logical judgment in the first place so the process can be concluded.
Posts: 13,031
Threads: 1,968
Reputation:
75928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 04:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed. The problem is that it shouldn't have to be "knocked back". The target shouldn't be order a ridiculous judgment so it can be retracted to a reasonable amount later. The target should be make a logical judgment in the first place so the process can be concluded.
True. We shouldn't be billed crazy high prices for medical procedure only for insurance to pay a fraction of the cost with the rest being written off either but that is the American way
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 10,917
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43135
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(12-21-2023, 04:23 PM)pally Wrote: True. We shouldn't be billed crazy high prices for medical procedure only for insurance to pay a fraction of the cost with the rest being written off either but that is the American way
I don't disagree, but that's rather off topic. Something being unjust in one area is not cause for something to be unjust in another. Additionally, when we encounter the unjust we should all be able to call it out for what is is. That has not happened in this thread.
Posts: 27,929
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121617
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
(12-21-2023, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree, but that's rather off topic. Something being unjust in one area is not cause for something to be unjust in another. Additionally, when we encounter the unjust we should all be able to call it out for what is is. That has not happened in this thread.
It's hard to compare anything to the president's lawyer specifically calling out and lying about private citizens via the official pulpit. Maybe if Taylor Swift told everyone that John Q Johnson of Upper Uppington was a kiddie diddler when she had no reason to think it was true we'd have a better comparison.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
