• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2020 Republican National Convention Thread

Thereff's favorite cancell culture is authoritarian cops shooting people in the back.
 
Pilchard said:
Close to where 7 figures become 8 figures.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Trump and Trumpism are totally fraudulent.

Being “cancelled” means made rice and famous. For being a “victim”.

And a giant douche.


Trump, of course, is the greatest victim/douche of all.


The perfect Republican leader.
 
Colonel Angus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can feel you beaming with pride through the computer. You and that kid should hang on the boat and get some pussy
 
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.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This Dr. in Kentucky tweeted that the settlement was for a lot of money:

https://www.optionsnaturopathic.com/dr-erin/
 
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.
 
wakelaw13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah if anything the "actual damages" are a positive. Again, I'd love to sit down and talk to the attorneys with any media organization (or the insurance company that agreed to such a settlement) that believed the company somehow saved money by settling for upper 7 figures.
 
Depends on who I can bill for the meeting.

Also the Covington teen's attorney appears to be a QAnon supporter - he has #WWG1WGA in his twitter profile which is a QAnon rallying cry.

Bizarre situation all around.
 
wakelaw13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is line with my thinking and everything I've read from lawyers who have discussed what he likely got.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top