Jesse Ventura (1 Viewer)

[Paulymaggs]

Nice of the publisher/insurance company to make this whole thing out to be "Ventura vs. Kyle's widow".

AAA PR work there. Kyle's wife, nor his estate is part of the suit here.

And hey, even if Kyle did kill a lot of terrorists and we can all appreciate that, doesn't make it right to fabricate / name drop Ventura so he can be make millions.

 

[sbonomo]

I agree with Ventura. This guy made up a story about knocking him out that didn't even happen. He benefited off of a lie in his book. That's bs.

I highly doubt that is the reason why people are buying the book....

 

[East Coast Bias]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

Rediculous. The jury must have been made up of some of the same morons that voted for him.

 

[Jobber]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

Rediculous. The jury must have been made up of some of the same morons that voted for him.

Your spelling is 'rediculous'.

I didn't vote for him, but he was the best governor Minnesota had in my lifetime, IMO.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

Rediculous. The jury must have been made up of some of the same morons that voted for him.

Your spelling is 'rediculous'.

I didn't vote for him, but he was the best governor Minnesota had in my lifetime, IMO.

Sorry for the mistake (on my spelling).

I hope you're young. The govs of late haven't been very good, but there were some good ones previous to Ventura, whether you agree with their politics or not.

And for the record, I did vote for him, but it was one of the most moronic choices I ever made. I deserve ridicule for it, just like everyone else who voted for him, and for the people on this jury.

 

[Politician Spock]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

Rediculous. The jury must have been made up of some of the same morons that voted for him.

Your spelling is 'rediculous'.

I didn't vote for him, but he was the best governor Minnesota had in my lifetime, IMO.

Sorry for the mistake (on my spelling).

I hope you're young. The govs of late haven't been very good, but there were some good ones previous to Ventura, whether you agree with their politics or not.

And for the record, I did vote for him, but it was one of the most moronic choices I ever made. I deserve ridicule for it, just like everyone else who voted for him, and for the people on this jury.

I'm not a fan of the guy, but the defendent wasn't exactly a shinning example of citizenry either. The only good reason the defense gave for the jury to side with them is that he's dead. Other than that, the defense had nothing.

 

[Bull Dozier]

Ventura awarded 1.8 million in damages.

Rediculous. The jury must have been made up of some of the same morons that voted for him.

Your spelling is 'rediculous'.

I didn't vote for him, but he was the best governor Minnesota had in my lifetime, IMO.

Sorry for the mistake (on my spelling).

I hope you're young. The govs of late haven't been very good, but there were some good ones previous to Ventura, whether you agree with their politics or not.

And for the record, I did vote for him, but it was one of the most moronic choices I ever made. I deserve ridicule for it, just like everyone else who voted for him, and for the people on this jury.

I'm not a fan of the guy, but the defendent wasn't exactly a shinning example of citizenry either. The only good reason the defense gave for the jury to side with them is that he's dead. Other than that, the defense had nothing.

As far as what happened in the bar that one night, it was a he said-he said. They both had "witnesses" to the event that backed their side of the story. I wasn't in the court room to determine which sides' was more trustworthy.

That said, and I'm going mainly on media reports which is usually a mistake itself, I can't comprehend how the plaintiff could prove what it needed to prove (that being as I understand it that not only did the event not happen, but the claiming that it did happen injured Ventura's reputation and therefor earning potential).

I guess the saying of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" isn't true after all.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I assume that Ventura didn't need to prove damages so long as he proved that it affected his profession. In Minnesota, that's per se defamation. Per se defamation doesn't require proof of actual damages.

Again, I think a lot the legal analysis that was written about this case was pretty bad. I never thought that the actual malice standard would matter precisely because it was a he said/he said situation. If the jury finds that the statement is false, it's hard to see how they could find it was made without malice.

 

[Al O'Pecia]

I assume that Ventura didn't need to prove damages so long as he proved that it affected his profession.

Which is what these days?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I assume that Ventura didn't need to prove damages so long as he proved that it affected his profession.

Which is what these days?

Media personality/author/public speaker? I'm sure he had an answer.