Jesse Ventura -- what an A-hole

[HoughMade]

In recent years, I've come to the conclusion that Jesse Ventura is an A-hole for a completely separate set of reasons.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

As interesting as it sounds, your equation is not really relevant. You are right, n apple cannot become an orange. But comparing your equation to this is in and of itself, the equation is apples to oranges. If the defendant was first the apple, the orange can be substituted. In other words, and apple was the defendant (the fruit). Then an orange can become the defendant, but still not be an apple. The apple never becomes the orange. That's exactly the point. He is suing the widow and not Chris now.

If his ego wasn't so huge, I'm sure this could be settled out of court, for a fair and just amount. The problem is that the price he puts on his reputation is MUCH higher than its real value, in my opinion. Besides, who is he to talk of lies? He was a WWF (or wtf it is called now). That whole portion of his career was a big lie. Then, he was a politician, which is beneath being a WWF star. His reputation wasn't harmed at all, to me. It was bad enough already, it couldn't be made worse.

I don't believe for a minute that a simple apology or retraction would have satisfied him. That's part of his spin.

Why is it not relevant? What is being argued by A=B and B=C therefore A=C which is stating that Chris became his widow. Which is not what happened. Chris became his estate of which his widow is executor of. A does not equal B, A sues B, B becomes C, A's lawsuit continues on to C, B=Kyle C=estate not widow.

Would settling out of court prove that he had been defamed? Nope at least not without a public retraction which was refused in the first place. So why would you believe that any out of court settlement would include one? Winning a suit goes much farther. If Kyle's ego hadn't have been so large he could have admitted he lie and this could have been settled without going to court.

How much did he make per year on his shows, appearances, book sales, etc. before he was named as scruff face? How much did that decline?

Yep he was a wrestler in the WWF or whatever it was called, which was acting to a large degree. So acting is lying?

Why don't you believe he wouldn't have accepted it? He publicly asked for it to begin with, after it was refused is when he started the lawsuit.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In recent years, I've come to the conclusion that Jesse Ventura is an A-hole for a completely separate set of reasons.

I could quite possibly agree with that.

 

[Fargo]

Why is it not relevant? What is being argued by A=B and B=C therefore A=C which is stating that Chris became his widow. Which is not what happened. Chris became his estate of which his widow is executor of. A does not equal B, A sues B, B becomes C, A's lawsuit continues on to C, B=Kyle C=estate not widow.

Would settling out of court prove that he had been defamed? Nope at least not without a public retraction which was refused in the first place. So why would you believe that any out of court settlement would include one? Winning a suit goes much farther. If Kyle's ego hadn't have been so large he could have admitted he lie and this could have been settled without going to court.

How much did he make per year on his shows, appearances, book sales, etc. before he was named as scruff face? How much did that decline?

Yep he was a wrestler in the WWF or whatever it was called, which was acting to a large degree. So acting is lying?

Why don't you believe he wouldn't have accepted it? He publicly asked for it to begin with, after it was refused is when he started the lawsuit.

If Taya Kyle was simply the executor, you would be correct. However, since I believe she is also the principle beneficiary of his estate, I do not believe you are correct.

 

[HoughMade]

If Taya Kyle was simply the executor, you would be correct. However, since I believe she is also the principle beneficiary of his estate, I do not believe you are correct.

Guys, guys guys. Executrix.

 

[Fargo]

Guys, guys guys. Executrix.

Mea Culpa, and I'm a sucker for any word you can end with trix!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If Taya Kyle was simply the executor, you would be correct. However, since I believe she is also the principle beneficiary of his estate, I do not believe you are correct.

She may be the principle beneficiary of his estate, she is not his estate. What she get's from his estate then becomes hers. She is the executrix of his estate.

Guys, guys guys. Executrix.

Thank you much for the correction. I like to learn.

 

[Fargo]

She may be the principle beneficiary of his estate, she is not his estate. What she get's from his estate then becomes hers. She is the executrix of his estate.



Thank you much for the correction. I like to learn.

So, but for the lawsuit continuing after Kyle's death, whose money would the 1.8 million be?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

She may be the principle beneficiary of his estate, she is not his estate. What she get's from his estate then becomes hers. She is the executrix of his estate.



Thank you much for the correction. I like to learn.

Let's simplify it. If all Kyle owned was a house that he and his wife and children lived in, Ventura would be suing for a lien on the house. Am I correct?

 

[HoughMade]

Let's simplify it. If all Kyle owned was a house that he and his wife and children lived in, Ventura would be suing for a lien on the house. Am I correct?

Impossible to say. I have seen many, many lawsuits that would never have been brought is there was not insurance. In 17 years of practice, I've only seen 2 cases where a person paid a settlement out of pocket. I'm sure it happens in other areas of law more often, but determining where money would come from if you are successful is usually the second thing evaluated in a case. the first being, "is there a bad enough injury" and the third being "did someone do something wrong".

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Let's simplify it. If all Kyle owned was a house that he and his wife and children lived in, Ventura would be suing for a lien on the house. Am I correct?

Possibly. Let's simplify this way. Kyle had his name on a bank loan for their home, he dies, should the loan simply be-forgiven or should it be attached to his estate? Would you harbor the same resentment for the bank as you appear to harbor towards Ventura? If not why?

Impossible to say. I have seen many, many lawsuits that would never have been brought is there was not insurance. In 17 years of practice, I've only seen 2 cases where a person paid a settlement out of pocket. I'm sure it happens in other areas of law more often, but determining where money would come from if you are successful is usually the second thing evaluated in a case. the first being, "is there a bad enough injury" and the third being "did someone do something wrong".

Thanks for the input.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So, but for the lawsuit continuing after Kyle's death, whose money would the 1.8 million be?

It likely would have went to the widow, at least most likely a large portion of it. But for him being killed before the lawsuit being decided who's money would the 1.8 million (actually 1.3 because the publishers insurance is liable for .5 mil) be? So Ventura should be out of his due, because of the actions of another who he had no control over?

 

[OutdoorDad]

Let's simplify it. If all Kyle owned was a house that he and his wife and children lived in, Ventura would be suing for a lien on the house. Am I correct?

No. There are many possible outcomes. But in Texas, with probable asset title, this would be an extremely unlikely course.

And the rules for real estate and personal property are different than intangible assets.

 

[Fargo]

It likely would have went to the widow, at least most likely a large portion of it. But for him being killed before the lawsuit being decided who's money would the 1.8 million (actually 1.3 because the publishers insurance is liable for .5 mil) be? So Ventura should be out of his due, because of the actions of another who he had no control over?

Ventura's public position was that he wasn't after the money so talk of his "due" isn't really relevant if he is to be believed.

 

[jamil]

Yes I am depicting it accurately.

No. You're not.

Why is it not relevant? What is being argued by A=B and B=C therefore A=C which is stating that Chris became his widow. Which is not what happened. Chris became his estate of which his widow is executor of. A does not equal B, A sues B, B becomes C, A's lawsuit continues on to C, B=Kyle C=estate not widow.

Would settling out of court prove that he had been defamed? Nope at least not without a public retraction which was refused in the first place. So why would you believe that any out of court settlement would include one? Winning a suit goes much farther. If Kyle's ego hadn't have been so large he could have admitted he lie and this could have been settled without going to court.

How much did he make per year on his shows, appearances, book sales, etc. before he was named as scruff face? How much did that decline?

Yep he was a wrestler in the WWF or whatever it was called, which was acting to a large degree. So acting is lying?

Why don't you believe he wouldn't have accepted it? He publicly asked for it to begin with, after it was refused is when he started the lawsuit.

No, it's not as emotional as you suspect. It's perhaps a difference in opinion about definitions and cutting through the bull**** to get to the crux.

First. Ventura has repeatedly said that this was (paraphrasing) to restore his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor. Kyle is now dead. Ventura's [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor can't possibly be restored by any monetary settlement paid from Kyle's [STRIKE]estate[/STRIKE] widow's future possessions. Now. If Ventura wants to back off from his original statements and say, yeah, it's really about the money. Fine. Take the widow for all the jury will award. But he's still an ******* for it.

Second. We were talking about he notion that Ventura is not suing Kyle's widow. Technically that is true but only because we've invented a legal vehicle that has the affect of abstracting the practical impact of it. He's suing Kyle's estate in the legal sense. But he is indeed taking money away from Kyle's widow, since, as far as I know, she's the only beneficiary. So it is a tidy way for him to face the practical outcome that he's exacting his revenge on a person's family.

I'm not at all saying that he doesn't legally get to do what he's doing. I am saying, if this is really about recovering his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor, taking money from widows doesn't accomplish that.

 

[Fargo]

No. You're not.



No, it's not as emotional as you suspect. It's perhaps a difference in opinion about definitions and cutting through the bull**** to get to the crux.

First. Ventura has repeatedly said that this was (paraphrasing) to restore his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor. Kyle is now dead. Ventura's [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor can't possibly be restored by any monetary settlement paid from Kyle's [STRIKE]estate[/STRIKE] widow's future possessions. Now. If Ventura wants to back off from his original statements and say, yeah, it's really about the money. Fine. Take the widow for all the jury will award. But he's still an ******* for it.

Second. We were talking about he notion that Ventura is not suing Kyle's widow. Technically that is true but only because we've invented a legal vehicle that has the affect of abstracting the practical impact of it. He's suing Kyle's estate in the legal sense. But he is indeed taking money away from Kyle's widow, since, as far as I know, she's the only beneficiary. So it is a tidy way for him to face the practical outcome that he's exacting his revenge on a person's family.

I'm not at all saying that he doesn't legally get to do what he's doing. I am saying, if this is really about recovering his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor, taking money from widows doesn't accomplish that.

The vile rep gods thwart my attempts to rep thee with righteous positive pointage.

 

[jamil]

The vile rep gods thwart my attempts to rep thee with righteous positive pointage.

It's the thought that counts.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ventura's public position was that he wasn't after the money so talk of his "due" isn't really relevant if he is to be believed.

And as he stated if Kyle would have simply issued a retraction and apology that would have been the end of it. Instead he has spent I have no idea how much of his own money (compared to Kyle's widow, who's was paid for by the insurance company) defending his reputation along with losing again I have no idea how much income due to this. Is he not entitled to be compensated for that? And why didn't you answer my question? If Kyle had not been killed before the trial whose money would it have been now? And why should he be an ass for recouping what he has spent to prove Kyle slandered him because of the actions of another who he had no control over? I answered yours it's simple polite decency to do the same.

No. You're not.



No, it's not as emotional as you suspect. It's perhaps a difference in opinion about definitions and cutting through the bull**** to get to the crux.

First. Ventura has repeatedly said that this was (paraphrasing) to restore his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor. Kyle is now dead. Ventura's [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor can't possibly be restored by any monetary settlement paid from Kyle's [STRIKE]estate[/STRIKE] widow's future possessions. Now. If Ventura wants to back off from his original statements and say, yeah, it's really about the money. Fine. Take the widow for all the jury will award. But he's still an ******* for it.

Second. We were talking about he notion that Ventura is not suing Kyle's widow. Technically that is true but only because we've invented a legal vehicle that has the affect of abstracting the practical impact of it. He's suing Kyle's estate in the legal sense. But he is indeed taking money away from Kyle's widow, since, as far as I know, she's the only beneficiary. So it is a tidy way for him to face the practical outcome that he's exacting his revenge on a person's family.

I'm not at all saying that he doesn't legally get to do what he's doing. I am saying, if this is really about recovering his [STRIKE]manhood[/STRIKE] honor, taking money from widows doesn't accomplish that.

What is this kindergarten? Okay, I'll play along. Yes I am.
But to bring it back to a bit more of an adult level, why is my depiction not accurate?

Why do you think I think this is emotional? Only time I mentioned emotion so far in this thread has been in reference to the dislike/disgust/etc that it appears to me is felt about Ventura over this. Although I do feel a good bit of it is emotional. This settlement will hardly make a dent in her income and none in her life. Kyle received something along the lines of 3 mill in royalties before his death. Between then and the trial it had either increased to 8 mil and change or by 8 mil and change. How much has it increased since then from book sales alone? How about movie royalties? People seem to think that this judgement will bankrupt her and leave her homeless, far from the fact. Oh and unless you're Willy Clinton definitions aren't really that open to "opinion".

No his honor or reputation can't be restored by monetary settlement paid out of Kyle's estate. But the attorney fees he paid for can, along with what he has lost in earning by being defamed. He's a asterisk for doing so? If their house wasn't paid off and the lien was only in Kyle's name and he wished the home to go to his widow, would the bank be redacted for wanting what was owed them? Will you answer any of my questions? I've at least attempted to answer any directed towards me, but when I ask one all I get is .

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Oh and one more question if anyone will answer, how is this taking any money away from Kyle's widow and family? Both him and his widow have stated (his widow under oath) that the proceeds were supposed to go to other veterans and/or their families?

Chris Kyle Video Deposition Played In ?American Sniper? Trial « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Taya, testified that the couple never intended to profit from the book. In often tearful testimony, she said the couple wanted to donate money to other veterans but were limited by gift tax laws that prevented them from donating more than $13,000 each to two families last year. The book has earned more than $3 million in royalties.

ETA Compare that to what she says here...
?American Sniper? widow says much of Jesse Ventura?s $1.8 million award coming out of her pocket | BizPac Review

Is his widow going to back off from her statements made under oath and say it's all about the money she is trying to get...

The Real Legacy of Chris Kyle: A ?True American Hero? Who Devoted His Life to Serving Others | TheBlaze.com

A perfect reflection of his character, Kyle gave all proceeds from his best-selling book “American Sniper” to the families of soldiers killed in combat. He told the Texan News Service that he regularly received tearful calls and thanks from military families “That means the world to me,” Kyle said in a recent interview. “There’s definitely still a lot of hurt from losing my guys or the fact that I got out and I felt like it wasn’t my time yet…Being able to do this makes me feel like I’m still a part of it and still giving back.”

HarperCollins - On the Passing of Chris Kyle, author of American...

He dedicated his life in recent years to supporting veterans and donated the proceeds of American Sniper to the families of his fallen friends.

I'm not questioning Kyle's bravery, patriotism or skill. Just perhaps his and his widow ability to be honest. And to tell the truth honesty is a bad thing to have as a sniper. You're not supposed to as I believe say here I am, I'm about to put a round through your head. Nope they use deception, stealth and other tactics not honesty. Hell George Washington lied, he stated that they were going to attack on the 26th then went across the Potomac in the middle of the night on the 24th and slit the enemies throats in their sleep on Christmas morn and nobody (other than the British) thought him of anything other than a patriot. That doesn't mean he admitted to cutting down the cherry tree. It means he probably blamed it on on cousin the next farm over...

 

[Fargo]

And as he stated if Kyle would have simply issued a retraction and apology that would have been the end of it. Instead he has spent I have no idea how much of his own money (compared to Kyle's widow, who's was paid for by the insurance company) defending his reputation along with losing again I have no idea how much income due to this. Is he not entitled to be compensated for that? And why didn't you answer my question? If Kyle had not been killed before the trial whose money would it have been now? And why should he be an ass for recouping what he has spent to prove Kyle slandered him because of the actions of another who he had no control over? I answered yours it's simple polite decency to do the same.



What is this kindergarten? Okay, I'll play along. Yes I am.
But to bring it back to a bit more of an adult level, why is my depiction not accurate?

Why do you think I think this is emotional? Only time I mentioned emotion so far in this thread has been in reference to the dislike/disgust/etc that it appears to me is felt about Ventura over this. Although I do feel a good bit of it is emotional. This settlement will hardly make a dent in her income and none in her life. Kyle received something along the lines of 3 mill in royalties before his death. Between then and the trial it had either increased to 8 mil and change or by 8 mil and change. How much has it increased since then from book sales alone? How about movie royalties? People seem to think that this judgement will bankrupt her and leave her homeless, far from the fact. Oh and unless you're Willy Clinton definitions aren't really that open to "opinion".

No his honor or reputation can't be restored by monetary settlement paid out of Kyle's estate. But the attorney fees he paid for can, along with what he has lost in earning by being defamed. He's a asterisk for doing so? If their house wasn't paid off and the lien was only in Kyle's name and he wished the home to go to his widow, would the bank be redacted for wanting what was owed them? Will you answer any of my questions? I've at least attempted to answer any directed towards me, but when I ask one all I get is .

Ventura publicly stated he wasn't "due" money, he wanted some sort of name clearing via retraction/apology. Once Chris Kyle was dead, there was no possible way for him to receive his "due".