Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:20 am
Gravlen wrote:he might have agreed to pay them in order to keep such information under wraps. Unlikely, but not impossible.
I can't see a judge signing off on a settlement that is blackmail.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Gravlen wrote:he might have agreed to pay them in order to keep such information under wraps. Unlikely, but not impossible.
The Rich Port wrote:Tankmenistan wrote:What are you on about, exactly?
Those presenting facts and telling the truth would be indeed a better substitute for those twisting facts and not telling the truth. Are they equivalent to flat earthers to you or...? What makes you think they're all untrained and unprofessional as many of them are trained, professional journalists with journalistic degrees no less, who have been expelled from CNN, MSNBC and Fox News for not toeing the line for example regarding recent wars America has been in.
Who exactly do you think you're even talking about?
Name one of these amateurs.
A plucky can-do attitude and a passion for alt-right "facts" does not a journalist make.
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that the Complaint in this matter should be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs.
Gravlen wrote:Kalaron wrote:Sticking it to someone is relative to the amount of trouble it's worth. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the settlement included an informal deal not to dig deep into the Kid's life for retaliatory information. He's already got to deal with Covington, wouldn't it be just terrible if some totally legal investigative journalism revealed that he used a certain word online? Or if it suddenly became known that he was a furry and he was subsequently ostracized at school?
I'm glad he got his money, fighting the media -and especially Bezo's corner of the media- is dangerous for one's wellbeing.
What money? We don’t know that he got a dime.
In fact, if your theory is true, he might have agreed to pay them in order to keep such information under wraps. Unlikely, but not impossible.
The Black Forrest wrote:Aclion wrote:A thing to remember about settlements in very public cases, and on of most interesting insights into the case i've gotten;
Often a party to a case will settle purely to avoid discovery. Had this case gone forward Sandmanns attorneys would be able to subpoena all sorts of documents about the reporting of the case, the release of which might be more damaging to the WaPo then what he asked for in damages.
If you have a shot at damages, why settle?
Gravlen wrote:Aclion wrote:A thing to remember about settlements in very public cases, and on of most interesting insights into the case i've gotten;
Often a party to a case will settle purely to avoid discovery. Had this case gone forward Sandmanns attorneys would be able to subpoena all sorts of documents about the reporting of the case, the release of which might be more damaging to the WaPo then what he asked for in damages.
We won’t know since it’s all kept confidential, but if what you suggest is true in this case, it reflects poorly on Sandmann who supposedly went into this to really stick it to WaPo on an ideological basis. But hey, being bought off is The American Way, so him being a greedy opportunist trading principles for some fast cash wouldn’t be a surprise.
Shofercia wrote:Rusozak wrote:I must have missed something. What was the issue regarding the defamation? What was the truth of the situation versus what the Post published?
Truth: pro-Trump kids were jamming with Native Americans
Bezos' WaPo: pro-Trump kids assaulted Native American
Maybe playing music together means assault to Jeff Bezos?
Rusozak wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Truth: pro-Trump kids were jamming with Native Americans
Bezos' WaPo: pro-Trump kids assaulted Native American
Maybe playing music together means assault to Jeff Bezos?
If that was the case then yeah, the media should be held accountable. I'm still skeptical just because wearing a MAGA hat by itself tends to send certain xenophobic vibes, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that I'd rather let a racist prick go than ruin an innocent man's life.
Gravlen wrote:In fact, if your theory is true, he might have agreed to pay them in order to keep such information under wraps. Unlikely, but not impossible.
Gravlen wrote:We won’t know since it’s all kept confidential, but if what you suggest is true in this case, it reflects poorly on Sandmann who supposedly went into this to really stick it to WaPo on an ideological basis. But hey, being bought off is The American Way, so him being a greedy opportunist trading principles for some fast cash wouldn’t be a surprise.
Rusozak wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Truth: pro-Trump kids were jamming with Native Americans
Bezos' WaPo: pro-Trump kids assaulted Native American
Maybe playing music together means assault to Jeff Bezos?
If that was the case then yeah, the media should be held accountable. I'm still skeptical just because wearing a MAGA hat by itself tends to send certain xenophobic vibes, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that I'd rather let a racist prick go than ruin an innocent man's life.
Greed and Death wrote:Gravlen wrote:He bungled Unsworth v. Musk, maybe he's past his prime?
The case was an uphill battle.
Musk is a well known troll it is hard to convince a juror that anyone believed his tweet which would be required to show damages. Also the nature of the case didn't present an opportunity for discovery which is how you force a settlement.
It is discovery that generally drives settlements. For two reasons. First the process of discovery is expensive for companies. Every email, every meetings minutes, and every editorial decision will need to be reviewed by a team of lawyers for relevancy, and privilege. I would say 10,000 hours worth of work and 125 an hour for attorneys that do document review. That right there is 1.25 million. You will have to have associates review the Document review attorney at 500 an hour for 500 hours. This brings the total to 1.5 million dollars. Finally we will need a partner to review everything at 1,000 an hour for 100 hours. So 1.6 million just to answer discovery from the lawsuit. That is not defending the lawsuit, that is just answering discovery. The total cost of a trial for a large company like Wapo is like 2.5 million dollars.
Second we have the other major risk of discovery inadvertent disclosure. Also sorts of fun things get revealed during discovery. Things like the CEO is having an affair with his secretary, or the CFO using the corporate card to pay for prostitutes. These sorts of things can damage reputation and business. Things like are they really liberal if the CEO is sexually harassing his assistant, where else is my money going if the CFO uses corporate funds for hookers will be asked. The reputation damage can be severe even company destroying.
So WAPO's best case scenario is they lose 2.5 million in legal fees, Their worse case scenario is they pay 2.5 million in legal fees plus lose 20 million in damages to the boy plus lose 50+ million in other damages from an inadvertent disclosure.
So to split the baby and minimize risk they will likely they likely gave the kid about 10 million of which half went to his attorney.
The Black Forrest wrote:Aclion wrote:A thing to remember about settlements in very public cases, and on of most interesting insights into the case i've gotten;
Often a party to a case will settle purely to avoid discovery. Had this case gone forward Sandmanns attorneys would be able to subpoena all sorts of documents about the reporting of the case, the release of which might be more damaging to the WaPo then what he asked for in damages.
If you have a shot at damages, why settle?
Shofercia wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
Not just damages but a definitive decisive win that could cripple the newspaper and make you look like a hero in the eyes of the MAGA.
In what World does that cripple WaPo? It's Bezos' paper, so it doesn't have to make a profit, it just has to spread Bezos' propaganda, and judging by some of the responses in this post, even if the kid got 100% fully declared bonafide victory, some NSGers would still read WaPo. It's not like WaPo's going to go away after a single case. Heck, WaPo trashed an innocent human being who went through therapy, and cost her the job that she would've probably retired at, and numerous posters are still defending it on another issue in this thread, cause "Orange Man Bad" so would that have crippled WaPo? Not even close.
Galloism wrote:Shofercia wrote:
In what World does that cripple WaPo? It's Bezos' paper, so it doesn't have to make a profit, it just has to spread Bezos' propaganda, and judging by some of the responses in this post, even if the kid got 100% fully declared bonafide victory, some NSGers would still read WaPo. It's not like WaPo's going to go away after a single case. Heck, WaPo trashed an innocent human being who went through therapy, and cost her the job that she would've probably retired at, and numerous posters are still defending it on another issue in this thread, cause "Orange Man Bad" so would that have crippled WaPo? Not even close.
Besides, it’s like people don’t understand how corporate America deals with lawsuits.
They stretch them for decades.
Gravlen wrote:Aclion wrote:I can't see a judge signing off on a settlement that is blackmail.
It would of course not appear to be blackmail. This is after all a settlement between two private parties, so the judge wouldn't get all the information in the motion to dismiss filed by Sandmann's lawyers.
In fact, it is clear that the motion did not disclosed the terms of the settlement.STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that the Complaint in this matter should be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs.
Shofercia wrote:Greed and Death wrote:The case was an uphill battle.
Musk is a well known troll it is hard to convince a juror that anyone believed his tweet which would be required to show damages. Also the nature of the case didn't present an opportunity for discovery which is how you force a settlement.
It is discovery that generally drives settlements. For two reasons. First the process of discovery is expensive for companies. Every email, every meetings minutes, and every editorial decision will need to be reviewed by a team of lawyers for relevancy, and privilege. I would say 10,000 hours worth of work and 125 an hour for attorneys that do document review. That right there is 1.25 million. You will have to have associates review the Document review attorney at 500 an hour for 500 hours. This brings the total to 1.5 million dollars. Finally we will need a partner to review everything at 1,000 an hour for 100 hours. So 1.6 million just to answer discovery from the lawsuit. That is not defending the lawsuit, that is just answering discovery. The total cost of a trial for a large company like Wapo is like 2.5 million dollars.
Second we have the other major risk of discovery inadvertent disclosure. Also sorts of fun things get revealed during discovery. Things like the CEO is having an affair with his secretary, or the CFO using the corporate card to pay for prostitutes. These sorts of things can damage reputation and business. Things like are they really liberal if the CEO is sexually harassing his assistant, where else is my money going if the CFO uses corporate funds for hookers will be asked. The reputation damage can be severe even company destroying.
So WAPO's best case scenario is they lose 2.5 million in legal fees, Their worse case scenario is they pay 2.5 million in legal fees plus lose 20 million in damages to the boy plus lose 50+ million in other damages from an inadvertent disclosure.
So to split the baby and minimize risk they will likely they likely gave the kid about 10 million of which half went to his attorney.
Thank you for the explanation! I'm wondering how'd his attorney get 50% of the damages, aren't they limited to 33% in regular cases, and 25% in custom cases, or did it go up because of potential legal costs of duking it out in Court?
Greed and Death wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Thank you for the explanation! I'm wondering how'd his attorney get 50% of the damages, aren't they limited to 33% in regular cases, and 25% in custom cases, or did it go up because of potential legal costs of duking it out in Court?
Going rate here is 30% for a settled case and 40% for a case that goes to trial. However he will also get to add legal related expenses to the 30%. Expert witnesses retained, filing fees etc. There is not a hard cap on what the attorney and client can agree to either the 1/3 is more of a guide post than a hard fast rule.
So a lot of people seem to think Sandmann won a meaningful amount of money, but every part of this, from the procedural history, the timing, the announcement, the relevant law, all of it confirms Sandmann was paid mere nuisance value.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:I don't know if he'll win, but right is on his side. Media needs proper regulation and they're getting away with too much shady practice.
Free speech comes with a social responsibility and if you abuse your position of influence and don't check facts there should be consequences. No amount of pearl clutching over press freedom negates that.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:I don't know if he'll win, but right is on his side. Media needs proper regulation and they're getting away with too much shady practice.
Free speech comes with a social responsibility and if you abuse your position of influence and don't check facts there should be consequences. No amount of pearl clutching over press freedom negates that.
Let's not mince words. We're not talking about "social responsibility." Losing customers who came to disbelieve WaPo of their own accord would constitute "social responsibility." We're talking about the legal system imposing limitations on freedom of speech.
And hey, we all believe in limitations on freedom of speech, or we'd be for the right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre. But let's not pretend that isn't what it is.