Elon Musk is taking legal action against the kid who tracks his jet and the jets of other billionaires.
His contention is that it poses a security risk to his family.
31-35, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@Northwest
Yep, kids have been known to fight back.
And sometimes win, like Nicholas Sandmann, for example.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/18/nbc-settles-with-nicholas-sandmann/#:~:text=Sandmann%20previously%20settled%20with%20the%20Washington%20Post%20and,the%20narrative%20is%20more%20important%20than%20the%20news.
Yep, kids have been known to fight back.
And sometimes win, like Nicholas Sandmann, for example.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/18/nbc-settles-with-nicholas-sandmann/#:~:text=Sandmann%20previously%20settled%20with%20the%20Washington%20Post%20and,the%20narrative%20is%20more%20important%20than%20the%20news.
helenS · 36-40, F
@Northwest I did some research, and you are right:
"Judges [in the US] have the authority to sanction lawyers and fine plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits.
What’s more, a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit can turn around and sue the plaintiff for malicious prosecution. A claim for malicious prosecution is a tort action, and damages include the costs of having to defend against the baseless lawsuit."
(Source: https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/frivolous-lawsuits/)
👍
"Judges [in the US] have the authority to sanction lawyers and fine plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits.
What’s more, a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit can turn around and sue the plaintiff for malicious prosecution. A claim for malicious prosecution is a tort action, and damages include the costs of having to defend against the baseless lawsuit."
(Source: https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/frivolous-lawsuits/)
👍
Northwest · M
@Thinkerbell I see you're still pushing false narrative. The link in your response is in no way related to my response, or the topic of the thread, but you're being the dumfuck that you are, you can't change your ways, can you?
BTW, NBC did NOT settle for $275M, it settled for penance, to avoid the legal headache. This is not specific to NBC, but a sample of what his lawsuits produced:
https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/
[quote]Here’s the analysis which is being cited favorably by Zaid, Moss, and others on legal Twitter. It ends (TL/DR) with a supposition — an opinion — that Sandmann may have ended up with a ballpark guess of about $50,000. That’s a far cry from his original asking price of $250 million.
When asked about the thread, Lin Wood, an attorney for Sandmann, told Law&Crime he made it his “practice not to respond to uninformed, errant nonsense.” He noted that the settlement was confidential and that he could not comment on it, but said “questions about confidentiality and the timing of the settlement will have to be directed to others.”
The Twitter thread in question posits that though a judge tossed most of Sandmann’s case, the few remaining claims that remained would not have survived discovery. But since the claims were allowed to remain alive, it would have cost $200,000 or so to defend them. That’s why an insurance carrier, in this supposed version of events, probably threw a lowball offer to prevent spending even more to get the entire case tossed. In other words, the settlement was a business decision that had nothing to do with the merits of Sandmann’s case. Here are the legally relevant portions of the thread, with almost all of its twists and turns of defamation litigation included:[/quote]
Goodbye dummy.
BTW, NBC did NOT settle for $275M, it settled for penance, to avoid the legal headache. This is not specific to NBC, but a sample of what his lawsuits produced:
https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/
[quote]Here’s the analysis which is being cited favorably by Zaid, Moss, and others on legal Twitter. It ends (TL/DR) with a supposition — an opinion — that Sandmann may have ended up with a ballpark guess of about $50,000. That’s a far cry from his original asking price of $250 million.
When asked about the thread, Lin Wood, an attorney for Sandmann, told Law&Crime he made it his “practice not to respond to uninformed, errant nonsense.” He noted that the settlement was confidential and that he could not comment on it, but said “questions about confidentiality and the timing of the settlement will have to be directed to others.”
The Twitter thread in question posits that though a judge tossed most of Sandmann’s case, the few remaining claims that remained would not have survived discovery. But since the claims were allowed to remain alive, it would have cost $200,000 or so to defend them. That’s why an insurance carrier, in this supposed version of events, probably threw a lowball offer to prevent spending even more to get the entire case tossed. In other words, the settlement was a business decision that had nothing to do with the merits of Sandmann’s case. Here are the legally relevant portions of the thread, with almost all of its twists and turns of defamation litigation included:[/quote]
Goodbye dummy.
Northwest · M
@helenS Not only that, but plaintiffs who ask for $s, may end up having to put up a "deposit", and they will lose it, if they lost the case. My company got hit with a nuisance lawsuit, but a foreign entity that did not understand US law, and they had to put up a $5M guarantee. They lost it, along with the lawsuit, and had to cover our legal fees.
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@Northwest
[quote]"BTW, NBC did NOT settle for $275M, it settled for penance, to avoid the legal headache."[/quote]
Nobody said NBC settled for $275M; of course they probably settled for something on the order of what their legal costs would have been to continue their losing battle.
And of course they did not countersue Sandmann for bringing a frivolous lawsuit; NBC couldn't even get the judge to dismiss Sandmann's case.
But I'm glad to have the expert legal opinion from someone who can't properly calculate the area of an obtuse triangle... 😂 😂 😂
[quote]"BTW, NBC did NOT settle for $275M, it settled for penance, to avoid the legal headache."[/quote]
Nobody said NBC settled for $275M; of course they probably settled for something on the order of what their legal costs would have been to continue their losing battle.
And of course they did not countersue Sandmann for bringing a frivolous lawsuit; NBC couldn't even get the judge to dismiss Sandmann's case.
But I'm glad to have the expert legal opinion from someone who can't properly calculate the area of an obtuse triangle... 😂 😂 😂
Northwest · M
@Thinkerbell
[quote]Nobody said NBC settled for $275M[/quote]
I guess you posted that link because you did not believe in what it said? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
[quote]from someone who can't properly calculate the area of an obtuse triangle[/quote]
Another fairy tale created, by switching topics, your tinkerbell signature move, but that's just how you obtusely roll... 🤣🤣🤣🤣
[quote]Nobody said NBC settled for $275M[/quote]
I guess you posted that link because you did not believe in what it said? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
[quote]from someone who can't properly calculate the area of an obtuse triangle[/quote]
Another fairy tale created, by switching topics, your tinkerbell signature move, but that's just how you obtusely roll... 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@Northwest
The link didn't say Sandmann settled[i] for[/i] $275M, just that he settled his $275M lawsuit.
I'll grant you that the link [i]could[/i] have said (for the sake of the intellectually halt), "settled his $275M suit for an undisclosed sum."
And of course NBC settled because they were unable to get the judge to throw out the case, a point you conspicuously dodged in your hasty attempt to protect NBC. 😂 😂 😂
And the "fairy tale" is anything[i] but[/i] that, and entirely relevant.
Our legal expert was unable to correctly solve a high-school geometry problem. 😂 😂 😂
And didn't you once claim you had a degree in physics? 😂 😂 😂
The link didn't say Sandmann settled[i] for[/i] $275M, just that he settled his $275M lawsuit.
I'll grant you that the link [i]could[/i] have said (for the sake of the intellectually halt), "settled his $275M suit for an undisclosed sum."
And of course NBC settled because they were unable to get the judge to throw out the case, a point you conspicuously dodged in your hasty attempt to protect NBC. 😂 😂 😂
And the "fairy tale" is anything[i] but[/i] that, and entirely relevant.
Our legal expert was unable to correctly solve a high-school geometry problem. 😂 😂 😂
And didn't you once claim you had a degree in physics? 😂 😂 😂
Northwest · M
@Thinkerbell And you keep on moving the goal post. That's your MO. At one point, you will say: well, you responded it, so it's legit.
[quote]And of course NBC settled because they were unable to get the judge to throw out the case, a point you conspicuously dodged in your hasty attempt to protect NBC. 😂 😂 😂[/quote]
No, they settle because they did not want the legal nuisance, and they gave him enough rope to hang himself.
https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2022-07-27/federal-judge-dismisses-former-cov-cath-students-media-lawsuit
And he did.
[quote]Our legal expert was unable to correctly solve a high-school geometry problem. 😂 😂 😂[/quote]
Interesting. I did not identify myself as a legal expert. I posted a link to analysis by legal experts. That you can't that, shows how stupid you are, but you already referring to how obtuse you are, with the obtuse triangle. I presented a couple of pictures, and solved for the one showing a right-angled triangle. As usual, you ignored it, and not only were you arguing an obtuse triangle, you did not state you're doing that, and then you started attacking the posters who agreed with me.
That's how you roll. As usual, when you reach that point, I saw no point in continuing to respond, as there is no point in arguing your different problem, when I had already shown the simplest way to solve the problem.
But stupid does, what stupid does, and I know I bit on this, but not one fucking comment of yours if on topic, but you're obsessed with me, and you continue stalking me.
[quote]And didn't you once claim you had a degree in physics? 😂 😂 😂
[/quote]
You [b][i][u]have[/u][/i][/b] a degree, you don't [b][i][u]had[/u][/i][/b]. Jealous? Obsessed? Get a fucking life and once, just once, remain on topic. Goodbye dummy.
[quote]And of course NBC settled because they were unable to get the judge to throw out the case, a point you conspicuously dodged in your hasty attempt to protect NBC. 😂 😂 😂[/quote]
No, they settle because they did not want the legal nuisance, and they gave him enough rope to hang himself.
https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2022-07-27/federal-judge-dismisses-former-cov-cath-students-media-lawsuit
And he did.
[quote]Our legal expert was unable to correctly solve a high-school geometry problem. 😂 😂 😂[/quote]
Interesting. I did not identify myself as a legal expert. I posted a link to analysis by legal experts. That you can't that, shows how stupid you are, but you already referring to how obtuse you are, with the obtuse triangle. I presented a couple of pictures, and solved for the one showing a right-angled triangle. As usual, you ignored it, and not only were you arguing an obtuse triangle, you did not state you're doing that, and then you started attacking the posters who agreed with me.
That's how you roll. As usual, when you reach that point, I saw no point in continuing to respond, as there is no point in arguing your different problem, when I had already shown the simplest way to solve the problem.
But stupid does, what stupid does, and I know I bit on this, but not one fucking comment of yours if on topic, but you're obsessed with me, and you continue stalking me.
[quote]And didn't you once claim you had a degree in physics? 😂 😂 😂
[/quote]
You [b][i][u]have[/u][/i][/b] a degree, you don't [b][i][u]had[/u][/i][/b]. Jealous? Obsessed? Get a fucking life and once, just once, remain on topic. Goodbye dummy.