Sandmann Loses

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:

@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:

I thought he already settled.

He settled with CNN and another outlet. Not with the others.

I wonder if he had better cases against them or if they just chose not to gamble.

[Copper]

He wasn't a public figure

They weren't journalists

[jon-nyc]

I wonder how much of the earlier settlements he spent on these suits?

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:

I wonder how much of the earlier settlements he spent on these suits?

Good question. Related, do you think that those were on contingency?

Remember he fired Lin Wood?

[Jolly]

People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.

[jon-nyc]

I don’t know. It’s common in personal injury but I don’t know where else.

Now I’m waiting for the Advisory Opinions podcast about it. And maybe Ken White’s new podcast.

[Horace]

@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:

People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.

The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.

[Jolly]

@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:

@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:

People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.

The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.

If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:

@Horace said in Sandmann Loses:

@Jolly said in Sandmann Loses:

People. All lawyers ask for Summary Judgement at the beginning of a civil case. Except in the absolute most cut-and-dried cases, SJ is denied by the judge. This only mean the case proceeds as any civil case might. Picking juries, etc.

The way I read it, the judge provided a summary judgment against Sandmann.

If so, then the Judge has found he has no standing.

This is bad.

I don't see this as about Sandmann at all. If I break into your house and steal your vinyl, then you call the police, and I get prosecuted. If I gin up a mob with lies, get you fired from your job, make you unemployable, and make your home unsafe, that's far worse. Yet nothing happens to me.

Legally, we need to do something about doxxing and cancel culture. Apply what we currently have, write new ones, something. Because right now, destroying lives is completely legal. And the more you've accomplished, the bigger a target you make.

[Horace]

Not much is as revealing of character than the degree to which one takes pleasure in the destruction of whomever they consider 'others'. People can be relied on to self-select in this manner, as long as their peer group doesn't shame them for it.

[kluurs]

It's helpful when one can prove damages. He's made millions - more than he might have expected to make in a lifetime with normal earnings.

[George K]

@kluurs said in Sandmann Loses:

He's made millions

More than I used to make in 6-7 months!

[jon-nyc]

@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:

@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol

Harrumph....

No.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in Sandmann Loses:

@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:

@George-K But less than you've lost in 4 months, right? lol

Harrumph....

No.

I feel your pain, Kimosabe.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Sandmann Loses:

I feel your pain, Kimosabe.

"What do mean 'we', white man?"

[Horace]

You people need to hew closer to the Horace investment strategy.