Jesse Ventura -- what an A-hole

[Timjoebillybob]

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".

Yep. Once again he wanted his name cleared. That happened. He is entitled to the money he had to spend to clear his name because of the lies of Kyle and his inability to man up to them from his estate. And no answer once again to any of my questions? I wonder why?

 

[Fargo]

Yep. Once again he wanted his name cleared. That happened. He is entitled to the money he had to spend to clear his name because of the lies of Kyle and his inability to man up to them from his estate. And no answer once again to any of my questions? I wonder why?

What question? I've answered the "due" one twice.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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?

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 .

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

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


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


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...

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".

What question? I've answered the "due" one twice.

Do you want them numbered? And whether or not he sought it, isn't it still his due? And once again he didn't seek monies for the lies Kyle put forth, all he wanted was Kyle to state the truth. Kyle refused to do that. So yes recompense for monies spent to clear his name is his due. ETA If he was willing to forgive the financial damage Kyle's slander the money is still due him. He offered Kyle an opportunity to come clean, Kyle refused. He stated it wasn't about the money it was about his reputation, that doesn't effect monetary damages due to him.

 

[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

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


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


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...

I forgot this post, it's addressed to anyone if you or anyone would care to answer any of the questions asked. I won't bother numbering them.

 

[Fargo]

1 & 2 have been answered repeatedly.

Most of the others were directed at other people.

As to recouping expenses, the American rule provides that parties normally bear the burden of their own legal costs absent a statute or contract stating otherwise so legally he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Hint: that's why his award wasn't for legal fees)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Please ignore due to a pebkac error,

 

[jamil]

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?

You were saying something about emotional? C'mon, man. I do tend to get personal when someone else crosses the personal line. But I've had no reason to make our conversation personal. So why are you?

Why do you think I think this is emotional?

I don't know. You may be an emotional person. Maybe you assume I am.

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.

Why be so hung up on emotion? I don't really *feel* about it. I have no personal involvement in this case. It doesn't affect me or my family. However, I do have opinions about it, which are based on my principles, my idea of what is honorable, and right and wrong.

I can see why Ventura was upset about what Kyle wrote in his book. But in my estimation he's making it more important than it is. If that's the biggest thing in his life to be upset with, it seems like a very first-world problem. I was raised, 1) not to get offended by every little thing and 2) not to sweat the small stuff. This seems pretty small to be worth $1.8M, or whatever obscene amount he was awarded (notwithstanding the fact that he was awarded that obscene amount after the jury was informed that the insurance company would pay it).

And at the point where Kyle was killed, I see no more honor to be recouped from continuing. Granted, morality is not all that objective, and all I'm saying, is that in my estimation, Ventural's handling of the situation makes him an *******. That estimation has nothing to do with emotion. It's just a character assessment.

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?

You "feel". And I'm the emotional one? J/K, but I think you deserved that.

My opinions about this have nothing to do with how much Kyle's wife is left with after Ventura gets his, or the rightness of Ventura trying to recoup his costs incurred prior to Kyle's death. But Ventura claiming this is all about honor is nonsense. I'll put it this way. After Kyle's death I'd probably have a bit more respect for Ventura if he'd have just settled with the estate for costs, because he certainly had no claim of honor that could possibly be recouped by going further.

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 .

I saw the question and that it wasn't directed at me, so I opted to let them answer it. But since you've asked me directly, I certainly have an opinion on that. The bank should get what is owed them from the estate. And because you've asked me that question I am assured that you really don't understand my objection.

Once again, I'm not making an objection about the legality of it. I'm calling into question the honor of insisting he's suing the family of his dead enemy to somehow get his honor back. He has pretty much said that after Kyle's death. I just think Ventura has behaved less honorably than Kyle making those unsubstantiated claims in the first place.

You can disagree with me or not. The issue certainly isn't as important to us as it is to Kyle's widow and Ventura. But if you think the reasoning behind my opinions is childish I'm going to have to insist that you've arrived at that conclusion for emotional reasons.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

Wouldn't that have been marital property while he was alive, hence 50% hers in the first place?

 

[jamil]

Wouldn't that have been marital property while he was alive, hence 50% hers in the first place?

Well, it is Texas, where someone gets the trailer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, it is Texas, where someone gets the trailer.

They could do like the old Nextel PTT commercial featuring the lumberjacks taking over the court during a divorce where they divided everything other than the dog (who was put on joint custody) by sawing it in two.

 

[Libertarian01]

Here is an interesting take from Slate, where it appears that Harper Collins is on a mighty big hook if the author of the story is on the right track.

American Sniper lawsuit: Chris Kyle told lies about Jesse Ventura.

It also appears that Chris Kyle may have been, to be blunt, a very big liar about a great many things. It appears that he told several over the top stories that made it into a book that Harper Collins failed to fact check before publishing.

Doug

 

[OutdoorDad]

Looks like the widow has a little bit of trouble with the truth as well...



Earlier on Wednesday, Kyle’s widow, 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.
Taya Kyle said her husband didn’t even want to write the book but did so because he didn’t want others to do it instead. She called him “one of the most humble people I ever knew” and said he wanted not to glorify himself but “to throw his flaws on the table.”

 

[femurphy77]

Without going thru 292 posts and all of the suit related documents how was it proven that ventura was liabled? Did Kyle pony up prior to or post mortem?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

But, as far as Ventura's suit against the publisher, that's all just business, right?

INGO doesn't have a problem with that, right?

 

[jamil]

But, as far as Ventura's suit against the publisher, that's all just business, right?

INGO doesn't have a problem with that, right?

What is he suing them for? What is he suing Kyle's [STRIKE]estate[/STRIKE] widow for? If he's suing the publisher because they didn't factcheck, okay. Fine. I'm still not convinced that he's going to recoup his honor in the settlement with the estate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But, as far as Ventura's suit against the publisher, that's all just business, right?

INGO doesn't have a problem with that, right?

I would say that the biggest difference here is that of considering that if, in fact, libelous material was published, the publisher failed to perform a small modicum of due diligence, and if it is presented as business as business, that is one thing. Kicking a widow and children, while denying that it is about the money, when they can't recant on the behalf of a dead man--which would be the only source of 'restoring honor' through pursuing Kyle--we are left with the money Ventura denies that he wants. That is the only thing he stands to gain, strongly indicating that his claims to the contrary are, at best, extremely difficult to defend.

If he would just admit that he is sore about the implication that he is the subject of a story about an anonymous individual and considers money the balm that alleviates that soreness, his position would be at least somewhat easier to accept.

 

[Libertarian01]

I would say that the biggest difference here is that of considering that if, in fact, libelous material was published, the publisher failed to perform a small modicum of due diligence, and if it is presented as business as business, that is one thing. Kicking a widow and children, while denying that it is about the money, when they can't recant on the behalf of a dead man--which would be the only source of 'restoring honor' through pursuing Kyle--we are left with the money Ventura denies that he wants. That is the only thing he stands to gain, strongly indicating that his claims to the contrary are, at best, extremely difficult to defend.

If he would just admit that he is sore about the implication that he is the subject of a story about an anonymous individual and considers money the balm that alleviates that soreness, his position would be at least somewhat easier to accept.

I agree with this.

The problem is that in our legal system there are only two (2) options, generally speaking, for punishing someone: lock them up (criminal) or sue for money (civil). There is no way to actually get your reputation restored. The argument is that when you win the big money you "prove" that the other person had spoken falsely and thus the people know that the statement made was a lie. Thus, you are exonerated.

From the article, "...In the United States, defamation cases are extremely difficult to win, thanks to the first amendment. When allegedly defamatory statements pertain to a public figure, the plaintiff mustn’t just prove those statements were false. He has to prove the defendant made those statements with "actual malice"—that is, knowledge that they were false or with “reckless disregard” for their falsity. Very few defamation plaintiffs can make it over the high bar of actual malice.

Ventura made it. On July 29, 2014, a federal jury returned from six days of deliberations to award Ventura $1.845 million in damages—specifically, $500,000 for defamation and about $1.345 million for unjust enrichment. (In other words, Kyle unjustly profited from defaming Ventura, and so his estate must give Ventura some of that money..."

I want to focus on something I hadn't really paid attention to when I posted this. The jury deliberated for six (6) days! They didn't just throw out a number and go home to their families. They must have argued/discussed/debated for a good long time all the while wanting to go home to their families. But they did it. Good on them for doing their civil duty.

But all in all the article does point out that what Kyle had said was apparently so egregious it went above and beyond.

I guess my sympathy level for Mrs. Kyle is about zero. She chose to marry a big mouth liar, who happened to be a really great shot. She stuck by him and his lies. She supported, at least partially, her husbands lies by continuing to fight in support of them. She also could have ended this by admitting her husbands tendency to at the very least extreme embellishment and exaggeration, but she hasn't. She is fighting to keep profits that were earned by lies and falsehoods. So, why should I feel anything but apathy for her?

In this case two (2) big mouths entered the public arena. One told lies on the other. He lost, and now his family doesn't get to keep some of the money he unjustly earned. Oh well...

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree with this.

The problem is that in our legal system there are only two (2) options, generally speaking, for punishing someone: lock them up (criminal) or sue for money (civil). There is no way to actually get your reputation restored. The argument is that when you win the big money you "prove" that the other person had spoken falsely and thus the people know that the statement made was a lie. Thus, you are exonerated.

From the article, "...In the United States, defamation cases are extremely difficult to win, thanks to the first amendment. When allegedly defamatory statements pertain to a public figure, the plaintiff mustn’t just prove those statements were false. He has to prove the defendant made those statements with "actual malice"—that is, knowledge that they were false or with “reckless disregard” for their falsity. Very few defamation plaintiffs can make it over the high bar of actual malice.

Ventura made it. On July 29, 2014, a federal jury returned from six days of deliberations to award Ventura $1.845 million in damages—specifically, $500,000 for defamation and about $1.345 million for unjust enrichment. (In other words, Kyle unjustly profited from defaming Ventura, and so his estate must give Ventura some of that money..."

I want to focus on something I hadn't really paid attention to when I posted this. The jury deliberated for six (6) days! They didn't just throw out a number and go home to their families. They must have argued/discussed/debated for a good long time all the while wanting to go home to their families. But they did it. Good on them for doing their civil duty.

But all in all the article does point out that what Kyle had said was apparently so egregious it went above and beyond.

I guess my sympathy level for Mrs. Kyle is about zero. She chose to marry a big mouth liar, who happened to be a really great shot. She stuck by him and his lies. She supported, at least partially, her husbands lies by continuing to fight in support of them. She also could have ended this by admitting her husbands tendency to at the very least extreme embellishment and exaggeration, but she hasn't. She is fighting to keep profits that were earned by lies and falsehoods. So, why should I feel anything but apathy for her?

In this case two (2) big mouths entered the public arena. One told lies on the other. He lost, and now his family doesn't get to keep some of the money he unjustly earned. Oh well...

Regards,

Doug

Good points all the way around. I do have to ask how the jury concluded that nearly half the proceeds from the book are derived from one story about a fight with a person not named in the book that apparently did not happen as reported? Granted, Kyle did indicate separately that Ventura was the person supposedly involved in the story, but the only way I can see the story itself having that much value to the profit generated from the book is if we suppose that its sales were multiplied by the attention that the Ventura lawsuit brought it. That very quickly turns into a circular argument leaving Ventura in the position where his decision to sue ostensibly caused the increased profits, yet he accused Kyle of wrongly profiting from the attention caused by the lawsuit.

As for Mrs. Kyle, she may be a lying little slimeball. Then again she, not unlike a number of women with whom I have been acquainted, believes that her husband is the most wonderful occupant of space and time this side of Christ regardless of his, well, not meriting such devotion.

 

[OutdoorDad]

The whole "we wanted to give away the proceeds, but couldn't -due to gifting laws" absolutely chaps me.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The whole "we wanted to give away the proceeds, but couldn't -due to gifting laws" absolutely chaps me.

I would agree that this claim is as lame as Ventura claiming it isn't about money. The gifting laws allow you to give, as of the last time I checked, $21K per person per year without incurring a tax liability. On the other hand, setting up a 501(c)3, which should cost less than $10K (I was quoted $2500 for a turnkey 501(c)3 a few years back by a lawyer who isn't particularly cheap) will give you much wider ability to act charitably without .gov problems. I find it highly improbable that someone actually motivated to do this would fail to discover this fact.