goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 18, 2016, 08:04:27 PM
-
lol, wut?
http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/wwe-hulk-hogan-wins-awarded-115-million-judgment-in-suit-against-gawker-031816
this is trustedsource of information the tards, lol
-
AJ Daulerio, Gawker's former editor-in-chief, shocked a Florida courtroom on Wednesday when he sarcastically said that nearly all celebrity sex tapes are fair game — unless the subject is four-years-old.
:sdeek:
Seems reasonable
-
Journalism, voyeurism
Tomato, tomato
-
WGAF?
-
If you don't think that story is hilarious, there's something wrong with you
-
One I read said that there will be punitive damages as well, and that the $115M did not include them.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
I've been following it on Twitter the last few weeks. learned there is a real life person named bubba the love sponge.
-
The juror voir dire is pretty great. Lots of guys who think wrestling is real
-
Why did Gawker think a sex tape of Hulk Hogan would be worth watching. That is exciting as watching cats mate. They get what they deserve.
-
$25 million in punitive damages on top of the $115 million judgment. :lol:
I guess there is a strong public policy against voyeurism.
-
http://youtu.be/50eTEM63XUM
-
They dead.
-
The bullshit rhetoric they trotted out about why it was okay to out Peter Thiel was a rough ridin' joke. I loved Gawker, but Nick Denton got exactly what he deserves, eff him.
http://gawker.com/this-is-why-billionaire-peter-thiel-wants-to-end-gawker-1778734026
-
Gawker was like the internet version of the National inquirer. It's for feeble-minded people who purchase the bullshit for sale at the cash register.
-
I really enjoyed seeing that site go down. Twitter was so delightful. Was so very easy to pick out former gawker writers.
-
Post some of them
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would probably reduce bad behavior tho?
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would probably reduce bad behavior tho?
I think frivolous lawsuits are bad behavior, so it is a pretty big net negative for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll admit to not knowing the legal side of this whole deal. I know there are people extremely worried about it. My simpleton brain hopes the legal process will take care of it.
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would probably reduce bad behavior tho?
I think frivolous lawsuits are bad behavior, so it is a pretty big net negative for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
was this case frivolous, in your opinion?
-
why would someone invest in a frivolous lawsuit? wouldn't a rational investor only invest in those suits which seem to have merit?
-
I think vengeful is a better word than frivolous for the Hulkster's suit
-
I think vengeful is a better word than frivolous for the Hulkster's suit
Also, it wasn't only one lawsuit. Thiel funded several. His goal was to either cost them a ton of money or make them go broke. Is that how the legal system should be used?
-
It is used like this all time when someone leaves a biz and starts a competitor.
-
His so-called "frivolous" lawsuit managed to make its way to trial and earn a $135 million judgment. Basically, the opposite of a frivalous lawsuit. Frivolous lawsuits result in dismissal orders and, god willimg, santions against attorneys, you rubes.
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think vengeful is a better word than frivolous for the Hulkster's suit
Also, it wasn't only one lawsuit. Thiel funded several. His goal was to either cost them a ton of money or make them go broke. Is that how the legal system should be used?
I don't think we have to worry about too many "media outlets" outing gay billionaires so I'm perfectly okay with shitty Nick Denton and his disgusting business practices being a cautionary tale.
-
BAD GUY
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160721213329-rnc-convention-peter-thiel-proud-to-be-gay-00004119-full-169.jpg&hash=21fcee5361a9a92e3a844a21661195d400cd5059)
-
Providing victims access to the civil justice system is a real sore spot for the libtards. That and any effort to crush voyeurism and other perverse invasions of personal privacy.
-
BAD GUY
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160721213329-rnc-convention-peter-thiel-proud-to-be-gay-00004119-full-169.jpg&hash=21fcee5361a9a92e3a844a21661195d400cd5059)
No doubt. Nick Denton is worse.
-
why would someone invest in a frivolous lawsuit? wouldn't a rational investor only invest in those suits which seem to have merit?
why do people invest in penny stocks? don't be a dumbass. investors aren't God and the case having merit verges on immaterial because for many the prospectus will say that at the very least, plan B is to get a settlement. just because the gawker lawsuit is the vanguard for this new model doesn't mean we need to import the facts of the case when imagining why this is bad.
-
too many to post, but basically anything this dude tweets.
https://twitter.com/samfbiddle
I think it is bad for society of raising capital for lawsuits becomes a new regular investment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would probably reduce bad behavior tho?
I think frivolous lawsuits are bad behavior, so it is a pretty big net negative for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
was this case frivolous, in your opinion?
of course not. but I also don't think Peter Thiel was a noble benefactor searching for justice. while the targeting of political enemies may also be a potential negative, I don't think that is very likely. I think an overall rise in lawsuits because capital was searching for a way to get a return would be bad.
-
It serves two purposes: 1) indemnity for its victims, and 2) bankrupting those who profit by harming people.
Exactly how it's supposed to work.
-
SUPER STUD WHO PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY LOVES
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F160721213329-rnc-convention-peter-thiel-proud-to-be-gay-00004119-full-169.jpg&hash=21fcee5361a9a92e3a844a21661195d400cd5059)
-
KK, you are 100% correct, it's just this is the absolute worst case to make the point with. Denton and Gawker used their war chest and array of on retainer attorneys to bully people they deemed worthy of bullying since their inception. They got sloppy/comfortable and picked on a whale, they literally got swallowed. I don't think we have to worry about this setting the precedent for a wave of similar actions.
-
KK, you are 100% correct, it's just this is the absolute worst case to make the point with. Denton and Gawker used their war chest and array of on retainer attorneys to bully people they deemed worthy of bullying since their inception. They got sloppy/comfortable and picked on a whale, they literally got swallowed. I don't think we have to worry about this setting the precedent for a wave of similar actions.
I think you missed the part where there is now a company that is starting an investment fund that will provide capital to invest in lawsuits with the hope of returns for investors. That has very little to do with Gawker/Thiel other than it being the most prominent example and a possible inspiration considering one of the founders has ties to Thiel.
-
I sure did, I'd like to read about that.
-
I sure did, I'd like to read about that.
https://www.legalist.us/ (https://www.legalist.us/)
-
Thank you.
So obviously bringing third party profit into the justice system in this manner is clearly a miscarriage, so I'm not going to argue for it. However, money has tipped the scales for as long as they have existed, in most cases wouldn't this almost constitute a leveling of the playing field?
-
What's the best news source on the net now that gawker is dead? Twitter?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
-
Buzz feed
-
KK, you are 100% correct, it's just this is the absolute worst case to make the point with. Denton and Gawker used their war chest and array of on retainer attorneys to bully people they deemed worthy of bullying since their inception. They got sloppy/comfortable and picked on a whale, they literally got swallowed. I don't think we have to worry about this setting the precedent for a wave of similar actions.
I think you missed the part where there is now a company that is starting an investment fund that will provide capital to invest in lawsuits with the hope of returns for investors. That has very little to do with Gawker/Thiel other than it being the most prominent example and a possible inspiration considering one of the founders has ties to Thiel.
This is really just the next step in what has already been happening for a long time.
The Equal Access to Justice Act allows for attorney's fees to be paid at some market rate if one wins a lawsuit against the government. So, there are literally companies set up to sue the federal government, they might sue for like 20 things and bundle them all together, pay a building full of junior attorneys $100 an hour, win just ONE of those 20 suits and get reimbursed $300 an hour for all those hours.
-
I don't have much of a problem with the investment into lawsuits issue (and I don't think i'm being a "dumbass"). Sure, investors aren't God, and I didn't mean to imply they were all knowing. However, I did mean to imply that investors want to see returns on their money, and it doesn't take omniscience to figure out whether or not a suit has any merit. That said, I'm admittedly a bit more litigious than most, especially when it comes to commercial litigation (which are the type of claims legalist appears to bring). But, my bias aside, I think there are only a limited number of relevant scenarios here:
Scenario 1: Meritless claim that results in settlement. This is the bad scenario. I think settling is probably plan A, and plan B is actually litigating it and/or taking it to trial, because settlements are quick and cheap and lucrative. However, if KK's pessimistic viewpoint of this industry is true, settling meritless claims is a stupid decision on the part of the company. Even outside the third party investment context, settling meritless claims sends a signal to all potential plaintiffs that you can litigate cheaply and quickly against that company and expect a return, no matter the strength of your claim. So settling meritless claims is already pretty risky behavior. Adding third party investors just magnifies this risk. But if a company wants to avoid the nightmare scenario envisioned by KK, spend the money to litigate the damn thing and show plaintiffs and investors that bringing frivolous lawsuits against it are a bad investment of the plaintiff's time and the third party investors' money. Generally speaking, if a claim really is baseless, it gets booted on a motion to dismiss, or summary judgment. It can still be costly, but it's better economically than settling everything. I would venture to say most companies today aren't inclined to settle meritless claims.
Scenario 2: Meritless claims that go to trial. Defendant wins. Tough pill to swallow for the corporation, but, as stated above, companies already should (and many times do) defend meritless lawsuits to prevent the same from being brought in the future.
Scenario 3: Claims that may have merit. Not a bad thing! A great thing in fact, right?! Claims that may have merit SHOULD be brought. Not bringing such claims solely because plaintiffs don't have the time or money to do so is bad and unjust.
Maybe I'm giving the investment fund too much credit in thinking that they have no interest in investing in the "penny stocks" of the commercial litigation world, but even if they do, so long as companies act economically rational (which companies are prone to do), that type of investment will prove to be fruitless relatively quickly. So, assuming all parties are rationale and want money (which is safe to assume), the only claims worthy of investment are those that have merit, or at least appear to have merit.
-
FWIW, there are some pretty strict ethical rules in place when the financier of the litigation is not the client.
-
I don't have much of a problem with the investment into lawsuits issue (and I don't think i'm being a "dumbass"). Sure, investors aren't God, and I didn't mean to imply they were all knowing. However, I did mean to imply that investors want to see returns on their money, and it doesn't take omniscience to figure out whether or not a suit has any merit. That said, I'm admittedly a bit more litigious than most, especially when it comes to commercial litigation (which are the type of claims legalist appears to bring). But, my bias aside, I think there are only a limited number of relevant scenarios here:
Scenario 1: Meritless claim that results in settlement. This is the bad scenario. I think settling is probably plan A, and plan B is actually litigating it and/or taking it to trial, because settlements are quick and cheap and lucrative. However, if KK's pessimistic viewpoint of this industry is true, settling meritless claims is a stupid decision on the part of the company. Even outside the third party investment context, settling meritless claims sends a signal to all potential plaintiffs that you can litigate cheaply and quickly against that company and expect a return, no matter the strength of your claim. So settling meritless claims is already pretty risky behavior. Adding third party investors just magnifies this risk. But if a company wants to avoid the nightmare scenario envisioned by KK, spend the money to litigate the damn thing and show plaintiffs and investors that bringing frivolous lawsuits against it are a bad investment of the plaintiff's time and the third party investors' money. Generally speaking, if a claim really is baseless, it gets booted on a motion to dismiss, or summary judgment. It can still be costly, but it's better economically than settling everything. I would venture to say most companies today aren't inclined to settle meritless claims.
Scenario 2: Meritless claims that go to trial. Defendant wins. Tough pill to swallow for the corporation, but, as stated above, companies already should (and many times do) defend meritless lawsuits to prevent the same from being brought in the future.
Scenario 3: Claims that may have merit. Not a bad thing! A great thing in fact, right?! Claims that may have merit SHOULD be brought. Not bringing such claims solely because plaintiffs don't have the time or money to do so is bad and unjust.
Maybe I'm giving the investment fund too much credit in thinking that they have no interest in investing in the "penny stocks" of the commercial litigation world, but even if they do, so long as companies act economically rational (which companies are prone to do), that type of investment will prove to be fruitless relatively quickly. So, assuming all parties are rationale and want money (which is safe to assume), the only claims worthy of investment are those that have merit, or at least appear to have merit.
0% chance anyone read that FWIW
-
I know I didn't :th_twocents:
-
Straight to the bottom.
-
I don't have much of a problem with the investment into lawsuits issue (and I don't think i'm being a "dumbass"). Sure, investors aren't God, and I didn't mean to imply they were all knowing. However, I did mean to imply that investors want to see returns on their money, and it doesn't take omniscience to figure out whether or not a suit has any merit. That said, I'm admittedly a bit more litigious than most, especially when it comes to commercial litigation (which are the type of claims legalist appears to bring). But, my bias aside, I think there are only a limited number of relevant scenarios here:
Scenario 1: Meritless claim that results in settlement. This is the bad scenario. I think settling is probably plan A, and plan B is actually litigating it and/or taking it to trial, because settlements are quick and cheap and lucrative. However, if KK's pessimistic viewpoint of this industry is true, settling meritless claims is a stupid decision on the part of the company. Even outside the third party investment context, settling meritless claims sends a signal to all potential plaintiffs that you can litigate cheaply and quickly against that company and expect a return, no matter the strength of your claim. So settling meritless claims is already pretty risky behavior. Adding third party investors just magnifies this risk. But if a company wants to avoid the nightmare scenario envisioned by KK, spend the money to litigate the damn thing and show plaintiffs and investors that bringing frivolous lawsuits against it are a bad investment of the plaintiff's time and the third party investors' money. Generally speaking, if a claim really is baseless, it gets booted on a motion to dismiss, or summary judgment. It can still be costly, but it's better economically than settling everything. I would venture to say most companies today aren't inclined to settle meritless claims.
Scenario 2: Meritless claims that go to trial. Defendant wins. Tough pill to swallow for the corporation, but, as stated above, companies already should (and many times do) defend meritless lawsuits to prevent the same from being brought in the future.
Scenario 3: Claims that may have merit. Not a bad thing! A great thing in fact, right?! Claims that may have merit SHOULD be brought. Not bringing such claims solely because plaintiffs don't have the time or money to do so is bad and unjust.
Maybe I'm giving the investment fund too much credit in thinking that they have no interest in investing in the "penny stocks" of the commercial litigation world, but even if they do, so long as companies act economically rational (which companies are prone to do), that type of investment will prove to be fruitless relatively quickly. So, assuming all parties are rationale and want money (which is safe to assume), the only claims worthy of investment are those that have merit, or at least appear to have merit.
I never really thought you were a dumbass.
I talked to another lawyer who made a similar case that you did and said essentially that this isn't fundamentally different than what many firms do now. I still worry about the implications if a large stream of capital comes in looking for a return.
-
Have not read any of this, but it seems like class action suits are basically the same thing, lawyers investing in litigation for profit then pay a few million victims $1.75 a piece
-
Except most class actions, in fact, are frivolous. Class action attorneys at least lay the ground work with useless and extremely ambigious consumer protection laws
-
Roger Ailes has retained the libel lawyer who represents Hulk Hogan in his suit against Gawker and Melania Trump in her suit against The Daily Mail.
Attorney Charles Harder sent a threatening letter on Ailes' behalf to New York magazine and its national affairs editor Gabriel Sherman, whose reporting about Ailes' alleged sexual harassment has led the way this summer.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/05/media/roger-ailes-charles-harder/index.html
-
NBC News was aware of video footage of Donald Trump making lewd and disparaging remarks about women for nearly four days, a network executive said Saturday, but delayed reporting about the story out of concern that Trump would sue the network.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-nbc-delay-trump-tape-publication-20161008-story.html
-
:lol: right.
-
It’s an enormously deflating end to the year’s most dramatic media story. Even people suspicious or dismissive of the Hogan story — concerning as it did a sex tape — should feel nervous about the fact that two indisputably true articles were taken down because their subjects were lucky enough to find a billionaire backer with a grudge. The Ayyadurai and Terrill suits were all but certain to have been dismissed when they came to trial early next year. Instead, Ayyadurai — whose claims to have invented email have been thoroughly discredited — will walk away from a billionaire’s proxy legal war substantially richer, and with an accurate but unflattering article about him deleted from the internet.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/this-is-what-it-costs-when-a-billionaire-declares-war-on-you.html
-
Gotta say I wasn’t surprised when tech billionaire Peter Thiel endorsed Trump. Peter and I were dormmates at Stanford freshman year, and while I barely knew him?—?we ran in different circles?—?his fiercely Libertarian views were often a topic of conversation among those of us living in Branner Hall. One day I heard a rumor that Peter defended apartheid (which was then still the law of the land in South Africa), which I found morally repugnant. To know that a fellow student, a dormmate for that matter, might defend such a brutally oppressive race-based caste system gave me the willies. But I wanted to give Peter the benefit of the doubt, so I mustered the courage to go to his room to ask him about it. He said, with no facial affect, that apartheid was a sound economic system working efficiently, and moral issues were irrelevant. He made no effort to even acknowledge the pain the concept of apartheid could possibly raise for me, a Black woman. Needless to say, the chill up my spine didn’t go away that day; if anything my fear was now greater knowing I was living with someone who seemed indifferent to human suffering or felt that oppressing whole swaths of humans was a rational, justifiable element of a system of governance. The looming threat of a Trump presidency makes me feel the exact same way.
https://medium.com/@JulieLH/my-conversation-with-peter-thiel-about-apartheid-and-its-aftermath-3fdf4249b08d#.t8556rcp7
-
So, chum is a fascist. interesting
-
"Sure to have been dismissed when they came to trial" is legally absurd, fwiw.