Jesse Ventura -- what an A-hole

[IndyDave1776]

Since he just said he would leave the county in protest if he loses the appeal, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I would say you are right, and would also say that if he is that recalcitrant, he will probably be doing us a service in departing.

 

[Fargo]

Federal Rule of Evidence 411 tightly controls any mentions of insurance policies precisely so that juries don't just say, "let the insurance cover it". If it really is true that Ventura's attorney told the jury this, I don't see how the verdict doesn't get overturned even without the 1st Amendment issues.

 

[Libertarian01]

We could start from the point that the woman damaged your vehicle and perhaps your person--in other words, real and tangible damages. Perhaps one might take a different view had you done these things in response to the woman saying that you are a sissy and your mother wears combat boots.

Yes, in my case my right hand was broken. My car was totaled. I lost wages, vacation time, PTO time along with pain & suffering. I was told the only legal way to proceed as she had died and had no living heirs was to proceed as aforementioned.

However, Mr. Ventura's position is that by being called a "sissy and your mother wears combat boots" he suffered actual damages in economic harm. His income is based, in part, on his persona and reputation as billy badd a**. When Mr. Kyle impugned his machismo he caused actual damages, which can then be claimed in court. Unless of course Mr. Kyle was able to prove that the statements were fact and not exaggeration.

Now, I don't know whether this is true or not, but it seems that a jury did agree with his position. There are certain people in the public eye who depend a great deal upon their reputation. Mr. Ventura is, arguably, one of them. Any actual undermining of the public perception of him could cause real economic harm.

I have to say for the record I used to be very impressed with Mr. Ventura. However, it also seems that he has gone off the deep end on some issues and may not be as stable as I once perceived him to be. However, even if he is a whackadoodle that has gone off meds he still deserves a fair trial to determine if an award is appropriate. And just because Mr. Kyle served his country he does not get a writ of immunes. That is my only position here.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Jludo]

Not when he successfully moved to have the wife added as a party after her husband's death.

Jesse Ventura lawsuit vs. murdered Navy SEAL can move forward, judge says | Fox News

She's executor of chris Kyles estate,

 

[Fargo]

She's executor of chris Kyles estate,

Yeah and beneficiary. Naming her, dragging her into court, and attempting to get money she and the kid would otherwise receive qualifies as "Going after her" in my book.

 

[Libertarian01]

Yeah and beneficiary. Naming her, dragging her into court, and attempting to get money she and the kid would otherwise receive qualifies as "Going after her" in my book.

Please correct me if I am in error, but it seems from that article that it was Judge Boylan and NOT Mr. Ventura that substituted Taya Kyle for her late husband. I would presume there was a reason for this?

Doug

 

[Fargo]

Please correct me if I am in error, but it seems from that article that it was Judge Boylan and NOT Mr. Ventura that substituted Taya Kyle for her late husband. I would presume there was a reason for this?

Doug

The reason was that the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court add her as a party. I think it is rule 20a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

[Libertarian01]

The reason was that the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court add her as a party.

Ok, but was this required by some legality to do so? If so, then I would not think it unreasonable to add her name if that is what was required to proceed. This is what I am now trying to understand.

Thanks,

Doug

 

[Fargo]

Ok, but was this required by some legality to do so? If so, then I would not think it unreasonable to add her name if that is what was required to proceed. This is what I am now trying to understand.

Thanks,

Doug

Plaintiffs are the ones bringing the case. Nothing requires them to sue anyone. Chris Kyle was dead, there was no longer any way to sue Chris Kyle.

 

[Libertarian01]

Plaintiffs are the ones bringing the case. Nothing requires them to sue anyone. Chris Kyle was dead, there was no longer any way to sue Chris Kyle.

I am trying to follow here and I don't get a clear answer from this, so let me rephrase: IF Mr. Kyle allegedly economically damaged Mr. Ventura, was Mr. Ventura required by law to add Mrs. Kyle as a defendant in order to proceed with his just search for reparations?

Thanks again,

Doug

 

[Fargo]

I am trying to follow here and I don't get a clear answer from this, so let me rephrase: IF Mr. Kyle allegedly economically damaged Mr. Ventura, was Mr. Ventura required by law to add Mrs. Kyle as a defendant in order to proceed with his just search for reparations?

Thanks again,

Doug

Maybe. I believe he could have, and is, pursuing such reparations against the publisher. What I am getting at is that there was no more Mr. Kyle. There was no Chris Kyle to sue and there was no Chris Kyle to get reparations from.

Mr. Ventura decided to pursue those reparations against his widow and child, people who had not defamed him. I cannot see the honor in that.

 

[Libertarian01]

Maybe. I believe he could have, and is, pursuing such reparations against the publisher. What I am getting at is that there was no more Mr. Kyle. There was no Chris Kyle to sue and there was no Chris Kyle to get reparations from.

Mr. Ventura decided to pursue those reparations against his widow and child, people who had not defamed him. I cannot see the honor in that.

While there may not be "honor" in that it is not necessarily "dishonorable" either, is it?

After all, how many spouses are economically harmed by the stupid and/or illegal actions of their dumber halfs? Doesn't this happen with families going into witness protection due to their spouses illegal activity when they have done nothing wrong? Or when their spouses get legitimately sued and their standard of living goes into the toilet through no fault of their own - except to chose their spouse?

I see what you are saying but it appears that maybe(?) he didn't have a choice in order to proceed.

What is it I have heard - it is an "adversarial" process, yes? A system designed in some twisted, maniacal way to burn the truth out of a crucible of fire and conflict? Where justice is a fantasy and the legal system grinds down many of those thrown into the machinations of statute and precedent. Even then the truth isn't really the truth. Rather, it is a combination of ingredients allowed into the forge by the Judge who decides what can get thrown in and what is omitted.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Fargo]

While there may not be "honor" in that it is not necessarily "dishonorable" either, is it?

After all, how many spouses are economically harmed by the stupid and/or illegal actions of their dumber halfs? Doesn't this happen with families going into witness protection due to their spouses illegal activity when they have done nothing wrong? Or when their spouses get legitimately sued and their standard of living goes into the toilet through no fault of their own - except to chose their spouse?

I see what you are saying but it appears that maybe(?) he didn't have a choice in order to proceed.

What is it I have heard - it is an "adversarial" process, yes? A system designed in some twisted, maniacal way to burn the truth out of a crucible of fire and conflict? Where justice is a fantasy and the legal system grinds down many of those thrown into the machinations of statute and precedent. Even then the truth isn't really the truth. Rather, it is a combination of ingredients allowed into the forge by the Judge who decides what can get thrown in and what is omitted.

Regards,

Doug

His beef was with Chris Kyle. It was impossible to sue Chris Kyle after Chris Kyle's death.

Chris Kyle's property became the property of his beneficiaries after his death, specifically his wife and his child. Jesse chose to sue to prevent them from the receiving it and added Taya Kyle as a party instead of pursuing the publisher and others who had a direct role in the alleged defamation.

Ironically, he has damaged his name and reputation much more through how he has conducted this lawsuit then by whatever happened in the original incident. If he is really worried about his reputation hurting his earnings, he really should sue his own dumb ass.

I do consider his actions dishonorable.

 

[jamil]

Ventura has repeatedly said in public that this was not about the money. It's about restoring his honor or some such ****. Can Mrs. Kyle restore his honor? If not then I'd say he's probably lying about his purpose.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ventura has repeatedly said in public that this was not about the money. It's about restoring his honor or some such ****. Can Mrs. Kyle restore his honor? If not then I'd say he's probably lying about his purpose.

Exactly. It is hard to apply the quest for honor to kicking grieving family members over an insult from a dead man.

 

[rhino]

Since it's against the rules to mention insurance policies, why didn't the judge do something about it at the time it happened?

 

[Fargo]

Since it's against the rules to mention insurance policies, why didn't the judge do something about it at the time it happened?

As I understand it he did, but did not mistry it. The jury was probably admonished that they were not to consider that information they were just provided and to act as if they did not know it. That is the normal remedy short of mistrial.

 

[rhino]

As I understand it he did, but did not mistry it. The jury was probably admonished that they were not to consider that information they were just provided and to act as if they did not know it. That is the normal remedy short of mistrial.

Ah!

Isn't that kind of instruction . . . absurd? Seriously, who can hear something and then pretend they didn't hear or not allow it to affect their decision just because someone told them afterward to ignore it?

Silly robe wearing lawyers and their silly robe wearing lawyer games.

 

[Fargo]

Ah!

Isn't that kind of instruction . . . absurd? Seriously, who can hear something and then pretend they didn't hear or not allow it to affect their decision just because someone told them afterward to ignore it?

Silly robe wearing lawyers and their silly robe wearing lawyer games.

Yes it is rather silly, but Judges really hate having to get a new jury and start over.

Upon further research, it appears there may not have been an objection so an admonishment may not even have been given. The comment was apparently made in closing arguments, not even during the presentation of evidence, which makes it much worse to me. It violates multiple rules of evidence and it is much harder to lodge a timely objection during closing. Mentioning facts not in evidence which are facially inadmissible and prejudicial makes it seem likely to me that there will be a new trial ordered.

 

[rhino]

Thank you for the additional information and analysis, sir!