It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jury Awards Ventura $1.8M In Defamation Case

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: schuyler

So you're saying the laws changed just for Jesses?


No, both sides agreed to not need to have a unanimous verdict, because otherwise it would have been a hung jury and needed to start over. Neither side knew which way it was swinging when they agreed to the 8 out of 10 verdict.

I've served on juries, it's very, very difficult to have the decision be unanimous. Hours are spent going over every detail of the evidence presented.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: dashen
So now a widow has to come up with 1.8 million dollars?
did the book even make that much money?
the person who did the crime is six feet underground.
Maybe next he will dig up the grave and challenge him to another bar fight?


"come up with?"

She is the widow of the man who wrote the book, she is in charge of all the profit that (very profitable) book has (and will) bring in.

Why do you feel she is entitled to profit from lies?

Drop the emotional BS, please. "Oh, poor widow" the only reason she is the person dealing with this lawsuit is because she is in charge of the book. If she wanted to simply be done with it, she could give up her rights to the book and not deal with it.

She wants to profit from the book, which contains lies, then she needs to compensate the victim of those lies.

What type of crazy world are we living in where it's seen as BAD by some people to correct lies told about them?

Emotional children!


Wow I sure hope your wife and kids one day never have to pay for a stupid mistake you make.......



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The juries decision speaks volumes. I don't know either men (Ventura or Kyle) outside of their public personas, but feel this does substantiate Ventura's claim that this event never happened.

This also is now the third time we've heard a tale from Chris Kyle that turned out to be untruthful. The other fake tales being the Cleburne shooting, where Kyle claimed he shot dead two carjackers at a gas station in Texas (no records of such a shooting exist), and his claim that he shot thirty people looting in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. The Katrina-Blackwater claim is beyond ludicrous,Kyle spun a yarn that Blackwater shot dead thousands of people during the hurricane. I mean, come on.

I don't know if Kyle had a mental issue that led him to just tell these whoppers, which grew bigger and bigger with each telling. Sadly, no jury verdict can fully repair the damages Kyle inflicted on Ventura's rep with his book and talk show circuit interviews, but maybe publishers will exercise more caution before encouraging one of their authors to goose book sales with libelous fibs.
edit on 29-7-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I agree that I have no idea who is right on this.......

But without the testimony of the dead man there to defend himself how can we prove that it wasnt true.........just playing the devils advocate here.....

Now he very well may have made the whole damn thing up, who am i to say
edit on 7/29/2014 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: dashen
So now a widow has to come up with 1.8 million dollars?
did the book even make that much money?
the person who did the crime is six feet underground.
Maybe next he will dig up the grave and challenge him to another bar fight?


"come up with?"

She is the widow of the man who wrote the book, she is in charge of all the profit that (very profitable) book has (and will) bring in.

Why do you feel she is entitled to profit from lies?

Drop the emotional BS, please. "Oh, poor widow" the only reason she is the person dealing with this lawsuit is because she is in charge of the book. If she wanted to simply be done with it, she could give up her rights to the book and not deal with it.

She wants to profit from the book, which contains lies, then she needs to compensate the victim of those lies.

What type of crazy world are we living in where it's seen as BAD by some people to correct lies told about them?

Emotional children!


Wow I sure hope your wife and kids one day never have to pay for a stupid mistake you make.......


The tenor of the lawsuit changed after Kyle's death; all Taya Kyle had to do was rescind that short chapter from the book and agree that it never happened. Instead she upped the ante by saying 'my husband never lied' (an obvious lie itself given his whoppers) and played the 'poor widow with two small children' card every chance she got. She actually wanted the trial in Texas, where because of Kyle's lies, Jesse is hated and a fair trial would have been impossible. Read some of the comments from that neck of the woods. It's scary.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
One of Kyle's witnesses in the case was also forced to admit that she received 26,000 from Kyle's widow. As the linked article stated, it was inconsistencies in the witness statements for Kyle that led to their decision.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Not sure what Ventura's mindset is on this.

If this was TRULY about saving face, he failed in that people are looking at him with more disgust over requesting a widow replace the defendant than getting punched in a bar fight.

It's been said his popularity was declining before the book came out.

My opinion is, he saw an opportunity for a payoff and seized it.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I agree that I have no idea who is right on this.......

But without the testimony of the dead man there to defend himself how can we prove that it wasnt true.........just playing the devils advocate here.....

Now he very well may have made the whole damn thing up, who am i to say


The dead man gave a video deposition about this case before he died that was played in court. Also, when writing the book he made mention that he may get sued over this story. When his worries became a nightmare and Ventura asked him to redact the story he refused.

So what we "do know" is Chris Kyle had 2 opportunities to make this go away and he decided to take his chances in court. He/his estate lost. End of story!



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
What gets me going is the fact so many people say hes lying, but have no idea what the real truth is and Chris had a chance to put this behind him, but decided against it for some reason.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: signalfire

Ah, thank you. That makes sense, but the poster I was responding to is emotionally wrapped up with this verdict and he did in fact say that the rules changed for our hero Jesse.


a reply to: schuyler
So yeah, your hero Jesse got his guilty verdict all right. All that had to happen was change the rules in the middle of the trial. American Justice: If you don't like the way it's going, just change the rules.


Haters gonna hate...
edit on 29-7-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Thisbseth

Well, the greatest evidence that Kyle is a liar came straight from his mouth. He said the cops were called after the he knocked out Jesse but there's no police report or police verifying Kyle's fairly tale story.

But you're right, Ventura haters will continue to embrace ignorance even after hearing about Jesse winning his lawsuit.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler
Having served on federal civil juries, I can say that it is not at all unusual to have this situation arise. To say that the "change in rules" was because of Jessie's celebrity is to be ignorant of the system. The "rules" include this option. A trial like this is a very expensive operation and any attorney or judge worth a dime will do whatever they need to do to avoid having to re-try a case.
The first jury I sat on was a federal civil suit in which an inmate at the state prison was suing two prison guards for their inhumane treatment of him. It was a multi-day trial with lots of witnesses. The jury was in much the same situation as described in Jesse's case. After nearly 8 hours of deliberation, one of the hold-outs switched his vote just because he was tired and wanted to get home and see his kids. The inmate won his case, the guards lost their jobs and got a stern lecture from the judge.
So I say "Congrats!" to Jesse! I hope this is the end of the matter.
This verdict makes me feel just a tiny bit better about the US justice system.
Jesse, if you're here, I've never had the honor of meeting you but I was honored to be tutored by Doug during a statewide campaign in '99. He taught me more about politics and campaigns in a few weeks than any university could ever do. During that time all the "Jesse stories" convinced me that you are the real deal. I sincerely hope that I have the opportunity to vote for you in a presidential election.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: oldetimehockey4


If this was TRULY about saving face, he failed in that people are looking at him with more disgust over requesting a widow replace the defendant than getting punched in a bar fight.


Ventura did not "request a widow replace the defendant," as you say, in fact your statement is idiotic. The widow is the executrix of Kyle's estate, she assumed that role legally on her own. In fact she then proceeded to file a motion for summary judgement against Ventura, so she willingly took on this role. She also is named as the recipient of the book's proceeds as part of Kyle's estate and is receiving profit from it, she has made public appearance giving her own version of the events in support of publicity for the book, just as she was the one to distribute $26,000 of the books profits to one of her husband's witnesses.

You're lame argument that Ventura is "going after her" is apathetic or based on sheer ignorance of the law.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Your idiotic approach at a rebuttal failed.

Not once in my post did I go into the legal aspect of it, so how about working on that reading comprehension?

Of course she became "executrix of the estate." That's because Kyle DIED. She didn't go out of her way, it passed onto her legally after his death.

If Ventura were a real man, he would have dropped everything once Kyle died, that's called "class." You should look it up.
edit on 30-7-2014 by oldetimehockey4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I remember hearing Jesse on the Alex jones show shortly after kyle's interview. He was basically crying! Not because he supposedly got his butt kicked, rather because he supposedly said All that bad stuff about military vets. I obviously don't know Jesse personally, but years in the spotlight have shown me he loves his comrads and has too much honor to act that way. Good job for "the body".



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldetimehockey4

If Ventura were a real man, he would have dropped everything once Kyle died, that's called "class." You should look it up.


It's easy for you to sit back and hate beings you have never been in that situation. A mans estate is essentially his "company". If a pharmaceutical company manufactures a drug that kills your child, and you have a lawsuit pending, do you stop it because the owner of that company dies? No. Because the damage has already been done. Because Kyle lied, he was responsible for the damages. After he passed, he is still responsible for the damages because his "company", the estate, benefitted from those lies.
edit on 30-7-2014 by lonweld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: oldetimehockey4

Taya Kyle is the legal representative of the estate that is publishing the book. THAT is why she is named in the defamation lawsuit. AS LONG as she continues to publish the book and profit from it, then she bears the responsibility for it's content.

You don't just automatically become an executor or executrix of an estate - that requires a formal legal agreement. A lawyer, trust company, bank or other institution can also become such. For Ventura to clear his name from Kyle's libel, he had no choice but to file a defamation suit against the representative of that estate. End of story.


He said the cops were called after the he knocked out Jesse but there's no police report or police verifying Kyle's fairly tale story.


Kyle was full of tall Texas tales. If there had been a police response then the lawyers for Kyle's estate would have called them as witnesses. Of course no such witnesses could be found.

Speaking of Kyle's witnesses - the ones running their mouths in public supporting Kyle's version of events (like Ben Smith), I noticed none of them appeared in court to give sworn testimony. But then it's obvious, they knew not to cross the line into perjury, instead saving their lies for the like of Glenn Beck or the O’Reilly Factor. Notice that Ben Smith, in spite of all his public bluster in support of Chris Kyle never raised his hand on a bible and swore in court his story was true. He could have, it was a jury trial. Would probably made a big impact. But it never happened.

During the defamation suit, Ventura's lawyers showed that the early drafts for the book had multiple versions of the details of the fight story. Really? Multiple versions in the rough drafts? How can that be? Surely, there is only one true version of the story... unless, of course, the book's authors were just spinning stories.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I see a lot of speculation here being used as a platform for some sort of argument against Jesse's character.

At the very least could you guys attempt to keep things civil on here? Calling each other idiots only weakens your already faltering points. Flinging poo at eachother is not going to solve anything.

Ventura is an integral person who's name was obviously slandered. Character assassination is a very real crime, especially when the lie begins to build more traction such as this book. The courts ruled he was nothing more than a victim in this situation, and yet I am not seeing any legitimate facts that contradict this ruling.

My condolences to the widow of the soldier, but this is not her book and not her lies. She is merely a benefactor off of the stories written within. For Jesse to be wrongfully included in these stories, in my opinion he clearly deserves compensation.

Personally, if I was Jesse the first thing I would do with that cheque would be to give it to an organization that deals in assisting veterans who are still alive and suffering. It would set an honourable precedent.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

Many here on ATS called him disgusting for going through with his lawsuit but a jury of peers saw differently.

Wellllll.......not quite. 10 out of 12 jurors did; two didn't. Normally a civil case requires 11 out of 12 to agree. The "standard" of guilt is lower than at a criminal trial. In this case the jurors reported an impasse and said they could not come to an agreement. This would have resulted in a "hung jury" and the entire case would either (a) have to be dropped, or (b) a new trial would have to be done.

So yeah, your hero Jesse got his guilty verdict all right. All that had to happen was change the rules in the middle of the trial. American Justice: If you don't like the way it's going, just change the rules.



Let's "Deny Ignorance" here.

There is no "Guilty" verdict in a civil complaint. The decisions are either "For" or "Against"

"Guilty" is for a criminal trial only.

Only 3/4th of the jurors are required to make a case "For" or "Against".

Here is a link FYI.

www.montcourt.org...


edit on 30-7-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
If a jury says Ventura was defamed, then I suppose he was defamed. Although, I seriously doubt that his reputation was truly harmed. Anyhow, I think that Ventura could go a long way towards repairing that "defamed" reputation if he were to donate that $1.8-million to some sort of veterans charity.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join