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.

 

Jesse Ventura, In His Own Words: Will You Stand With Me Against Big Media?

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Beautiful. Just...beautiful. You are one of my all-time favorites 'jus so ya' know. Wise and big hearted.


Hey Y'all want a good giggle? Lighten up this dark corner of the boards? Sublime's post triggered this thought: How much you think Jesse is shelling out to get his behind so deservedly and unequivocally served to him by some of the very finest CTs in existence?

You had me on your side at one time, Mr. Ventura. You blew it in so many ways.

Whoever made that spam comment, too: Priceless.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Greathouse

Took me 2 seconds, the first link.

www.slate.com...

For the Kyle family, then, the legal tribulations surrounding American Sniper are probably wrapping up, and Taya Kyle will likely pay some damages but walk away from the affair with many millions of dollars left to her name. ​(HarperCollins’ libel insurance, in fact, will cover her defamation damages.)



Look at the bold in your quote . No insurance company will ensure you for a lie. Harper's will in turn sue her for the phrase " By your knowledge do you swear all your statements are accurate to the best of your ability " .


The speculation that the insurance company will in fact pay is nothing but speculation until the check is cut .


The book was published as Non-Fiction therefore the publisher has some responsibility for what is stated. Insurance is most likely and E&O policy that is paying out as there were fictitious statements being portrayed as fact.

In short, Insurance companies do pay for lies; quite often in fact.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Read the source it only covers the $500,000 defamation part. The $1.345 million is on the estate . Widows and orphans and such .



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse
I am familiar with the case. The lawsuit with Kyle is only one of the two suits. The suit with Harper is going to be won by JV and rightfully so. Just ask yourself this question, if Kyle was not killed, would you still be upset with the justifiable actions of JV?

Also you may want to expand your thinking a bit because lawsuits are expensive. JV paid his own expenses to defend himself. The insurance company has paid all of the legal expenses of the Kyle estate. So we have someone defamed for no other reason than the publicity it would create. The victim sues the man, the man dies prior to the verdict and all the legal costs charged to the original victim should be just written off because you say so?!

Try to look at things in a different perspective.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

I understand how lawsuits work intimately. I have been through major suits through my businesses . If Kyle was alive I would have a different opinion. And if you know anything about lawsuits this judgment does not mean it's over.


In my opinion Jesse is losing support from people for including a dead man's wife and children in his lawsuit .



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

SO you are advocating that the victim that filed a lawsuit in 2012 and had to cover all of the expenses and deal with all the public fallout should just quit because the perpetrator is dead? What about the costs to the victim who is still alive? I could see if the lawsuit left Kyle's spouse penniless however that is not the case. She is now a multi-millionaire due to a book that gained most of it's publicity on the back of lies that cost JV. Also the case with the Kyle family IS over the defendants filed for judgment as a matter of law however it and all other filings to try and overturn the judgement were categorically denied. (That is how strong of a case JV had)

I am not advocating hurting Kyle's family however, you can't paint her as a victim in this. She certainly did not make money from what her husband did in the military or the meager life insurance policy that Kyle had from his time in service….
edit on 16-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Also, Jesse…

This one is for you. If you are half the man that you want anyone to believe, get on here yourself and post your thoughts first person singular (typos, misstatements and all). If you cannot do at least that, then you are actually no better that the media and politicians you seem to be against.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse

SO you are advocating that the victim that filed a lawsuit in 2012 and had to cover all of the expenses and deal with all the public fallout should just quit because the perpetrator is dead? What about the costs to the victim who is still alive? I could see if the lawsuit left Kyle's spouse penniless however that is not the case. She is now a multi-millionaire due to a book that gained most of it's publicity on the back of lies that cost JV.

I am not advocating hurting Kyle's family however, you can't paint her as a victim in this. She certainly did not make money from what her husband did in the military or the meager life insurance policy that Kyle had from his time in service….


And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.
edit on 16-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: clarity

edit on 16-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.



So to sum up your position you're OK with suing widows and orphans ?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.



So to sum up your position you're OK with suing widows and orphans ?

Generally I agree with you on many things however I have to state that this is the dumbest comment I have ever read from you.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.



So to sum up your position you're OK with suing widows and orphans ?

Generally I agree with you on many things however I have to state that this is the dumbest comment I have ever read from you.


Potato



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.



So to sum up your position you're OK with suing widows and orphans ?

Generally I agree with you on many things however I have to state that this is the dumbest comment I have ever read from you.


Potato



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Totally agree, and I loved the Sublimecraft comment as well. Perfect

IMO, Its blatantly obvious that Jesse is no different than the rest of the charlatans.

In his testimony Jesse indicates that Kyle is responsible for his decline in his career and cancellation of his show.



his career was thriving until the book's publication but afterward work started to dry up, with a TV show on conspiracy theories that he had hosted for three seasons not being renewed for a fourth.
www.newsmax.com...


Than he goes on InfoCr@p and blames the cancellation of the show because he got to close to the truth and the TPTB got scared so they cancelled it.



www.theatlantic.com...

"It's clear they're doing everything they can to make it a failure so they don't have to renew it," Ventura said when he appeared on The Alex Jones Show's Infowars

They've chosen not to air it. TruTV, the network did. Who influenced truTV to do that, I do not know."


Sounds like to me he played the TPTB card to get attention to save face for the cancellation and then changed the story to get a pay day.

I posted this a while back and wished the Kyle Estate attorneys would have played the part where he blames the TPTB for the cancellation of his show and not Chris Kyle.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Greathouse




And the defamation lawsuit covered by insurance and the award he will win from the publisher should cover everything nicely. He should simply refuse the money offered from windows and orphans .

Two lawsuits create two legal bills. Did you win your business lawsuits that you referred to? If so, did you not claim or attempt to collect the judgement? Also it is not money offered by the 'widows and orphans' It is a judgement that was made on a case which is extremely difficult to win unless there is a major and vast preponderance of evidence. Just the fact that the case was a slam dunk should tell you who the victim really was. Stop trying to paint a personal picture here this IS a business lawsuit that we are talking about. This OP is about the main stream media making the victim into a evildoer and you are playing their tune to a tee….congratulations.



Or do you think it's a right to sue people every time someone claims they punched you in the nose sounds like a big sissy to me .

No, not unless they made a lot of money at my expense.


Civil suits are not won on a "vast preponderance of evidence," they are won on "most likely" and "who the jury likes the most." The fact is that, in this case, the jury was hung and they wanted to declair a mistrial and wanted to push I down to the next jury but he judge ordered them back into deliberation and to not come back without a verdict. They wanted to go home and the defendant could not defend homself, being dead, so they went with the celebrity.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



In the United States, defamation cases are extremely difficult to win, thanks to the First Amendment. When allegedly defamatory statements pertain to a public figure, the plaintiff mustn’t just prove those statements were false. He has to prove the defendant made those statements with “actual malice”—that is, knowledge that they were false or with “reckless disregard” for their falsity. Very few defamation plaintiffs can make it over the high bar of actual malice.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Did you read the actual document on the case? www.nolapatent.com...




CONCLUSION This case was tried to a jury and the Court from July 8, 2014 , to July 22 , 2014 . On July 29, 2014, upon agreement by the parties, the jury returned a divided verdict of eight to two as follows:

1. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of defamation against Ch ris Kyle? (See Jury Instruction Nos. 8, 8A, 8B, 8C.) X YES _____NO
2. What amount of money, if any, will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the defamation? (See Jury Instruction Nos. 12 and 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 500,000 .00
3. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of appropriation against Chris Kyle? (See Jury Instruction No. 9.) _____ YES X NO
4. What amount of money, if any, wi ll fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the appropriation? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $_____________________
5. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of unjust enrichment against Chris Kyle and the Defendant Estate? (See Jury Instruction No. 10.) X YES _____NO
6. By what amount of money, if any, has the Defendant Estate been unjustly enriched? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 1,345,477.25


I'm not sure where you got your info but "eight to two" certainly doesn't support your statement. Reading the newspaper accounts doesn't equal reading the actual documents. If you have official documents which support your opinions please post some links. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: NavyDoc

Did you read the actual document on the case? www.nolapatent.com...




CONCLUSION This case was tried to a jury and the Court from July 8, 2014 , to July 22 , 2014 . On July 29, 2014, upon agreement by the parties, the jury returned a divided verdict of eight to two as follows:

1. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of defamation against Ch ris Kyle? (See Jury Instruction Nos. 8, 8A, 8B, 8C.) X YES _____NO
2. What amount of money, if any, will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the defamation? (See Jury Instruction Nos. 12 and 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 500,000 .00
3. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of appropriation against Chris Kyle? (See Jury Instruction No. 9.) _____ YES X NO
4. What amount of money, if any, wi ll fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the appropriation? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $_____________________
5. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of unjust enrichment against Chris Kyle and the Defendant Estate? (See Jury Instruction No. 10.) X YES _____NO
6. By what amount of money, if any, has the Defendant Estate been unjustly enriched? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 1,345,477.25


I'm not sure where you got your info but "eight to two" certainly doesn't support your statement. Reading the newspaper accounts doesn't equal reading the actual documents. If you have official documents which support your opinions please post some links. Thanks.
i read he documents and skdo listened to interviews with the jurors who were initially hung before they were told ti com back with a verdict.?you only have part of the stiry.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
Potato

Greathouse, you are a warrior, a philosopher of depth, and man of character as I've come to see it.

Nicely played, Sir, turning the "dumbest statement ever" that is, "Potato" into intellectual gold.


I'm with you on the orphans and widows. Besides being ancient and wise that concept: They didn't start the mess. Let them move on. Jesse generally gets around to being a pompous jerk with just about everybody himself.

So was Jesse a Navy Seal or a Frog Man, anyway?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The sad part is, if Chris Kyle was alive nobody here would give a @#$%. It's almost as if people are against JV just to feel good about themselves.
edit on 16-7-2015 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join