The jury awarded a total of $1.845 million: $500,000 in defamation damages and $1.345 million for “unjust enrichment” — or to be specific, $1,345,477.25.
Jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, as instructed. Instead, with the consent of both sides, they voted 8 to 2 in Ventura’s favor.
Ventura was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read.
22 comments:
Bullshit!
Watch the ratings for any movie he's in plummet.
Deservedly.
For those who are not aware, the Navy SEAL who wrote the book which includes the story which is the subject of this lawsuit died and Clown Ventura is suing his widow. He justified continuing on with his lawsuit even after the supposed defamer died because he said he viewed it as going after insurance proceeds. I don't do coverage in this area but these don't look like covered claims to me.
He's not sure if his reputation will ever recover...
Yeah... suing the dead man's widow is going to help with that.
(If it really is the publisher's insurance that pays out, that's different and Editors are supposed to keep an eye out for potential libel issues, but it's also something verifiable and he'd be listed as suing the publisher rather than the estate.)
Probably the dumbest man in Public Life. Only one state would have elected him Governor. Minnesota really is a clown state. I've heard Pee-wee is in the lead to replace Franken in the Senate.
He justified continuing on with his lawsuit even after the supposed defamer died because he said he viewed it as going after insurance proceeds. I don't do coverage in this area but these don't look like covered claims to me.
This is one case in which I wish there was more transparency in legal fees. I would like to know -- to the dollar -- exactly how much money will wind up in the pockets of Ventura's legal team. In other words, follow the money.
Amartel, the defamation claim was covered by the insurance company (publishers' defamation insurance), and the insurance company provided the lawyers. So the $500K is covered, the $1.3M comes from the book proceeds, i.e. the widow.
I followed this case. sort of surprised, but not terribly so. It seemed a bit of a stretch, even for Ventura, to say "we deserve to lose a few." I wouldn't totally discount it, but I'd need some strong testimony. The damage award did surprise me. I don't think Ventura's reputation was worth a nickel, even before this.
Clint Eastwood is directing an upcoming film adaptation of American Sniper. Given Clint's penchant for politics, I wonder how he will treat the incidence (if at all).
I don't know the details of this case. If the incidence was wholly fabricated, then I can see Ventura's point. If on the other hand, it was a he said and now he's dead scenario, and Ventura simply had better legal team to cast aspersions on the witnesses, then Clint should definitely take on the story. It's one thing for a big pro-wrestling He-man to financially beat up a Seal's widow, but quite another for him to take on one of few remaining lights in Hollywood.
Former Gov. Jesse Ventura testified Friday that the fight in which he supposedly was decked by an outraged Navy SEAL in a California bar never happened.
Folks, fights in bars in California don't happen without witnesses. Were there witnesses? Were they hushed? Discredited? What happened?
I see from my link that Luke Grimes will be in Eastwood's film. There's two good reason why there will be no "shifty grades of fey" in "American Sniper."
BTW... Ventura got elected in Minnesota when voters were so disgusted by both parties that he managed to pull votes from both sides. He's probably the only person alive that my conservative parents *and* my liberal activist sister and bil all voted for the same guy.
According to my mom, the "establishment" was so horrified that they put aside their differences and did their jobs for once.
Folks, fights in bars in California don't happen without witnesses. Were there witnesses? Were they hushed? Discredited?
There witnesses supporting both sides. some of Ventura's ex UDT friends were there and said nothing happened. Some of Kyle's friends said they saw bits of it, but none claimed to see the whole thing. They had all been drinking, some heavily. The witnesses on Kyle's side were not totally consistent with each other (which could detract from their credibility, or add to it. If they manufactured a story, wouldn't they make it all the same?). It was a credibility determination the jury made. They watched Kyle's deposition testimony.
It surprises me that anyone would believe Ventura. But the jury deliberated for about 5 full days. I doubt that their factual determinations will be overturned.
I seriously doubt Jesse Ventura is on anyone's political radar except for maybe Howard Stern's.
@Patrick: Thanks for the analysis. I'd like to hear from the two dissenting jurors.
This defamation has now won lasting fame. In his obituary it will probably be mentioned ahead of his election as governor and his far more distinguished career as wrestler......When you think of all the mud that gets ladled onto decent people and then think that the only person of recent memory to win a defamation suit is this jerk, it breaks your heart.
IANAL ...however, the article says:
Jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, as instructed. Instead, with the consent of both sides, they voted 8 to 2 in Ventura’s favor.
WTF? How does this happen and why would the defending attorneys agree to a split decision?
Answer: They figured the insurance company could handle the "defamation" damages as a least cost outcome...and the hell with the "unjust enrichment" part for the widow. Is that the idea?
In short, the widow had no defense attorneys ... just hacks who did their job for the Insurance Company. She was alone and on her own. Is that about it?
There seems to be instances where Shakespeare was right...just saying.
I see an appeal in the future on this one.
And I cannot see how anyone can damage the reputation of Jesse "The Victim" Ventura, beyond the self inflicted damage he has done over the years.
Answer: They figured the insurance company could handle the "defamation" damages as a least cost outcome...and the hell with the "unjust enrichment" part for the widow. Is that the idea?
In short, the widow had no defense attorneys ... just hacks who did their job for the Insurance Company. She was alone and on her own. Is that about it?
If this is not reversed on appeal, Insurance Company Bad Faith and Legal Malpractice are the remedy. The attorneys appointed by the insurance company owe their loyalty solely to the insured, not the insurance company.
"I seriously doubt Jesse Ventura is on anyone's political radar except for maybe Howard Stern's."
He is now.
JesseVenturaFanClub
I am a little puzzled how Ventura can claim to be a former "SEAL", since his branch of Naval service, the UDT Teams, 1969-1975, were not designated as "SEALS", with added training (that he did not receive) until 1983. By 1975 he was a professional wrestler and out of uniform.
Some of Kyle's comrades in arms have hinted, some not too subtly, that Jesse better keep his head on a swivel from now on.
Even if they never act, that is certainly one group of humans I would not want to have pissed off at me, just sayin'.
Sleep tight, Ventura.
Post a Comment