Close to where 7 figures become 8 figures.
Ridiculous.
This simply cannot be true. I was assured by multiple high-powered jurists and intellectuals on this board as well as on twitter that the settlement was simply a nuisance fee.
Where does anyone have concrete numbers on the Covington case for the settlement? As someone has dealt with a lot of insurance settlements, a) this information is not disclosed (protected by agreement and why nobody really said much after the settlement), b) based on the remaining claims when the case settled, there was not a significant ability for Covington to recover damages since Kentucky statute requires actual damages on the claims remaining (cannot be punitive or speculative, aka must be proven), and c) there's no way that a media company is paying that much whatsoever to these types of events given the precedent it sets moving forward.
The settlement was likely around the cost it would take for the company to pay their attorneys to draft a summary judgment motion. I've certainly been wrong before plenty but if this is anywhere north of 6 figures I'd be absolutely floored and want to know more about what the insurance company and law firm for the media organizations were doing.
Source?
This Dr. in Kentucky tweeted that the settlement was for a lot of money:
https://www.optionsnaturopathic.com/dr-erin/
Are you really that dense?
Are you really that dense?
Agree with Numbers. For example, the entire case against the WP was thrown out in the Motion to Dismiss stage. For those of you unfamiliar with the civil litigation process, that means that even assuming the facts alleged in the complaint were true, the Court found that Sandmann could not prevail on any of his claims. On reconsideration, the Court allowed a very narrow part of the case to proceed. Remember, that's before any discovery has been undertaken. Next, Sandmann gets to sit for a deposition along with someof his friends and get questioned under oath.
The narrow grounds upon which his case was allowed to proceed were statements that he was blocking the drum banging lunatic. Those statements were simply a witness's account of what occurred, which may or may not have been true. Assuming that it is untrue, which is a significant assumption, please explain to me how that is defamatory?
Next, let's assume both that the statement was untrue and that it was defamatory (it wasn't). As Numbers pointed out, Sandmann must prove actual damages. This is not a libel per se case. He must prove actual economic harm as a direct result of untrue statements made by the Post. I have yet to hear a valid explanation of the harm that resulted to him from a (possibly incorrect) statement that he was blocking someone's way.
Sandmann still has open cases with multiple other news organizations. Now imagine trying to prove economic harm when this whole bullshit saga has turned him into a hero to white losers everywhere. He is a fucking speaker at the RNC! This has been an economic blessing to him, not damaged him at all.
So yeah, the kid got paid nuisance value. And this is one of the rare occasions where I'm sure the plaintiff wanted the confidentiality rather than the defendant, so he can go on acting like a winner.
??
you said something and shoo wanted to know where you read it
??
you said something and shoo wanted to know where you read it
I didn't read it. The settlement was contingent on non-disclosure so there is no reportable source.
Agree with Numbers. For example, the entire case against the WP was thrown out in the Motion to Dismiss stage. For those of you unfamiliar with the civil litigation process, that means that even assuming the facts alleged in the complaint were true, the Court found that Sandmann could not prevail on any of his claims. On reconsideration, the Court allowed a very narrow part of the case to proceed. Remember, that's before any discovery has been undertaken. Next, Sandmann gets to sit for a deposition along with someof his friends and get questioned under oath.
The narrow grounds upon which his case was allowed to proceed were statements that he was blocking the drum banging lunatic. Those statements were simply a witness's account of what occurred, which may or may not have been true. Assuming that it is untrue, which is a significant assumption, please explain to me how that is defamatory?
Next, let's assume both that the statement was untrue and that it was defamatory (it wasn't). As Numbers pointed out, Sandmann must prove actual damages. This is not a libel per se case. He must prove actual economic harm as a direct result of untrue statements made by the Post. I have yet to hear a valid explanation of the harm that resulted to him from a (possibly incorrect) statement that he was blocking someone's way.
Sandmann still has open cases with multiple other news organizations. Now imagine trying to prove economic harm when this whole bullshit saga has turned him into a hero to white losers everywhere. He is a fucking speaker at the RNC! This has been an economic blessing to him, not damaged him at all.
So yeah, the kid got paid nuisance value. And this is one of the rare occasions where I'm sure the plaintiff wanted the confidentiality rather than the defendant, so he can go on acting like a winner.