Lawyer must pay $4.5M to gay student he criticized
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Pointless.
The defendant will just claim bankruptcy and the gay guy will never see a penny
The defendant will just claim bankruptcy and the gay guy will never see a penny
Last edited:
It was clearly egregious creating a blog in which he accused the plaintiff of "enticing minors with alcohol and recruiting people to become homosexual." At the same time if this goes up on appeal there is a serious Sullivan Rule argument to be made.
In what respect?
That the Defendant did not know the words were false and was not reckless?
Or are you saying that the Sullivan Rule would stand in the way of his appeal?
But that would be relevant on issues of liability only.
The damages are still clearly totally out of proportion -- at least in Canada -- even though this sems to be an appropriate case for substantial and punitive damages.
Perry
People get killed on the job due to negligence of their employer and don't receive 4.5 million
Perry, in that the plaintiff Christopher Armstrong as President of the University of Michigan's Student Body was a "public figure" and hence the Actual Malice standard articulated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan should apply i.e. that the defendant had actual knowledge that the information was false or published with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not; further that the burden of proving so switches to the plaintiff. That as you know is a very hard standard to meet, this case seems egregious enough that perhaps it can be reached, but at least from the article it doesn't seem to have been addressed.
Of course a seperate line of appeal are the damages which I agree are nuts.
I am not sufficiently versed with all the intricacies and nuances introduced into the laws of defamation south of the border by reason of your First Amendment and/or legislation... :biggrin1:
But at Common Law, malice is the very heart of defamation. It is sometimes assumed, sometimes inferred from the circumstances, sometimes implied, sometimes assumed not to exist, and the burden of proof can shift from Plaintiff to Defendant... but, at the end of the day, unless malice is established either by implication or actually proved, there can be no liability for defamation.
But, IMHO, saying that the president of a student body is a public figure is stretching things too far... that is a term usually reserved for government functionaries [public officials] and celebrities.
I think defamation is the most fascinating area of civil law.
Perry
How come the unemployed lawyer doesn't have a job?
Some gay association should pay him big bucks to promote and sell glory hole tickets at one of their functions. :eyebrows:
Some gay association should pay him big bucks to promote and sell glory hole tickets at one of their functions. :eyebrows:
Seems like you didn't bother to read the article. "The gay guy" didn't do this for money, and according to the article all that Shirvell had to do was apologize and they would have dropped the lawsuit. The money was awarded by the jury.
This is a better article and includes an Anderson Cooper interview ("It seems you're obsessed with this young man" LOL) with Shirvell, who sounds like a classic bigoted right wing nutjob.
He called Armstrong "Satan's representative on the student assembly" and posted this image.
This a-hole is the definition of a cyberbully, and will not win any appeal he tries to launch.
The Daily Show
Jason Jones mocks Shirvell in an interview
http://www.annarbor.com/entertainme...-shirvell-armstrong-controversy/#.UC_c5d3XGSo
Jason Jones mocks Shirvell in an interview
http://www.annarbor.com/entertainme...-shirvell-armstrong-controversy/#.UC_c5d3XGSo
Perry you may well be correct, we shall see what the appellate Courts have to say. However, even the sister of a "public figure" was herself held to be a "public figure" by virtue of having been a bridesmaid in her sister's wedding.
Sullivan was a Civil Rights ruling, and there has been lots of talk about it having been hugely overbroad, but thus far the U.S. Supreme Court has not seen fit to revisit it. I am about as sure as one can be, that the majority never foresaw it protecting "Supermarket Tabloids."
If I had a TDL and I was gay (comments based on another thread here) it would include you Aardvark154 and you Perry Mason,
I have researched and learned/familiarized myself a few things today based on your legal dialogue.
I have researched and learned/familiarized myself a few things today based on your legal dialogue.
Right-wingers ARE 'funny' people....
Shirvell HAS to be a Dildoehead!!!.....
WTF!!!!!
Shirvell HAS to be a Dildoehead!!!.....
Yes, and if this just involved the neighbor's kid, Mr. Shirvell pretty certainly wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, although I don't believe the "it was the truth" argument will go far, the Actual Malice argument may if it is found that being the student body president qualifies as being a public figure.
And I'm saying it was pointless to award him all that money since he'll never see a penny of it.
The only people who made money here were the lawyers
A university student is exactly "the neighbour's kid" and there was no justification for Shirvell's continued harassment against him while he was trying to get an education. He will lose any attempted appeal.
I think if he continues with this vendetta he's likely to end up without a license to practice law.
One of the lawyers was Shirvell and he didn't make any money. And if Armstrong will never see a penny, then his lawyer won't either.
Is it your contention that the US District court does not have the authority to garnish wages or other assets from Shirvell? Or that he has made himself so toxic and unemployable that he'll never work again?
Since he couldn't keep it (his prejudice against gays) in his pants while working for the State Attorney office I can't imagine any private business hiring him although maybe he could operate the deep fryer at a Chick-Fil-A.
