Post: #26

A few points that bear consideration;

1. Yes, Erin Andrews just won a 55 million dollar settlement (she'll get 25 million). That was a case presuming malice on the part of the stalker and negligence on the part of the hotel management companies. And those damages, I'm guessing, were non-economic compensatory and punitive damages. With Hogan, it is an amendment v. amendment case. Privacy rights v. free speech.

2. I would like to know what the laws are in the jurisdiction the video was shot in regarding the expectation of privacy and who can waive privacy rights. If it happened in one of those crazy jurisdictions in which one party can waive rights on a video/audio recording, and the chick in the video is the one who sold/released it, Hogan is screwed. To this point, I find it interesting his "good friend" is not on the witness list. However, the defense's claim that Hogan should not have had an expectation of privacy in a bedroom while he was having sex is insane.

3. Most importantly, if Hogan wins, can he collect? My reading of it is that Gawker Media has a Romneyesque legal and tax structure that would make most IRS auditors stroke out. Technical offices in Hungary, contract workers in the US and a few other places, management/ownership positions held by non-US person(s), apex holding company in the Cayman Islands, and a few "onshore" US LLCs. My guess is that Gawker is using the Cayman holding company to partially or completely avoid paying US corporate taxes using some weird dutch sandwich setup. If that's the case, the US-based LLCs will have no assets. And I'm guessing from the jurisdiction that Hogan is suing one of those LLCs (a US-based Gawker company). Those companies are effectively judgement proof. I've seen plenty of cases in which a successful plaintiff was unable to collect a cent from a company, because an onshore company opened its books and was effectively bankrupt. Meanwhile, the offshore parent company in the Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Seychelles is sitting on millions. Good luck there. Go fight your battles in one of those foreign jurisdictions. Or better yet, attempt to enforce a US civil ruling in one of them.

My guess in these early days is that Hogan may actually win. But even if awarded the full 100 million, I think he will have a hell of a time collecting.

The more interesting aspect for me will be the media coverage. Hogan's lawyer has already used Gawker's coverage of the Fappening against them ("We won't publish these pictures because it's wrong"). It will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics the MSM will have to engage in to support Gawker, when they slammed the Fappening leaks for months.

Post: #27

(03-08-2016 05:15 AM)Le Samourai Wrote:  A few points that bear consideration;

1. Yes, Erin Andrews just won a 55 million dollar settlement (she'll get 25 million). That was a case presuming malice on the part of the stalker and negligence on the part of the hotel management companies. And those damages, I'm guessing, were non-economic compensatory and punitive damages. With Hogan, it is an amendment v. amendment case. Privacy rights v. free speech.

2. I would like to know what the laws are in the jurisdiction the video was shot in regarding the expectation of privacy and who can waive privacy rights. If it happened in one of those crazy jurisdictions in which one party can waive rights on a video/audio recording, and the chick in the video is the one who sold/released it, Hogan is screwed. To this point, I find it interesting his "good friend" is not on the witness list. However, the defense's claim that Hogan should not have had an expectation of privacy in a bedroom while he was having sex is insane.

3. Most importantly, if Hogan wins, can he collect? My reading of it is that Gawker Media has a Romneyesque legal and tax structure that would make most IRS auditors stroke out. Technical offices in Hungary, contract workers in the US and a few other places, management/ownership positions held by non-US person(s), apex holding company in the Cayman Islands, and a few "onshore" US LLCs. My guess is that Gawker is using the Cayman holding company to partially or completely avoid paying US corporate taxes using some weird dutch sandwich setup. If that's the case, the US-based LLCs will have no assets. And I'm guessing from the jurisdiction that Hogan is suing one of those LLCs (a US-based Gawker company). Those companies are effectively judgement proof. I've seen plenty of cases in which a successful plaintiff was unable to collect a cent from a company, because an onshore company opened its books and was effectively bankrupt. Meanwhile, the offshore parent company in the Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Seychelles is sitting on millions. Good luck there. Go fight your battles in one of those foreign jurisdictions. Or better yet, attempt to enforce a US civil ruling in one of them.

My guess in these early days is that Hogan may actually win. But even if awarded the full 100 million, I think he will have a hell of a time collecting.

The more interesting aspect for me will be the media coverage. Hogan's lawyer has already used Gawker's coverage of the Fappening against them ("We won't publish these pictures because it's wrong"). It will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics the MSM will have to engage in to support Gawker, when they slammed the Fappening leaks for months.

Could he put liens on the personal property of the company's employees who live in the US? For example, if some guy owes you a court award and refuses to pay you can get his car taken away and sold. Are corporate executives immune from that?

Post: #28

Nice juxtaposition post Handsome. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the SJW-laden Gawker is filled up to the brim with hypocrisy.

Some animals are more equal than others.

I hope Gawkers editors are cross-examined with those articles directly.

Post: #29

(03-08-2016 10:05 AM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  Nice juxtaposition post Handsome. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the SJW-laden Gawker is filled up to the brim with hypocrisy.

Some animals are more equal than others.

I hope Gawkers editors are cross-examined with those articles directly.

Thanks, though I can't take the credit - it was made by the Reaxxion staff.

That said, I have a feeling it doesn't get shared nearly enough - it's a hard hitter for every Gawker double standard situation, not just this one.

Post: #30

(03-08-2016 04:26 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  They're in Pinellas County. Don't the have two courthouses in Pinellas, one in St. Pete, and the other in Clearwater? If it's in the Clearwater court, and he pays his proper tribute to the Church of Scientology, he's guaranteed to win.

Then again, Idiocracy is the unofficial movie of Pinellas County, Hulk must be a God among men down there.

You're confusing Pinellas with Pasco or Polk County on the second paragraph.

There are several courts in Pinellas (South, Mid, and North for convenience since they mostly deal with traffic violations), but the county seat is Clearwater so the actual Pinellas County Courthouse is located in downtown Clearwater, deep in the heart of the flying saucer mafia.

Post: #31

Listened to Day 2 Part 1. Hulk has no chance.

Post: #32

^

Maybe expound on why, for those of us who didn't listen to it?

Post: #33

(03-08-2016 01:53 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  The worst part is not that Gawker acquired and posted the tape to violate his privacy, but that it refused to take it down after receiving a court order to do so. The first part could somehow be excused by carelessness or yellow journalism, but the second is pure malice:

Holy shit. Gawker is a fucking piece of shit. I hope they go bankrupt.

Post: #34

(03-09-2016 01:26 AM)A.S. Wrote:  Listened to Day 2 Part 1. Hulk has no chance.

It's a jury, not a judge. You never know how a jury will react.

Post: #35

Why can't people in charge at Gawker be charged with the same laws used in revenge porn cases?

So as a citizen I can't release a sex tape without being charged criminally, but if I release it through a corporation it's legal?

Post: #36

C-Note

Regarding the idea of collecting from the personal property of Gawker staff in the US - not possible. Even those with ownership stake in the company are, most likely, not personally liable for decisions made against the company. Any amount awarded will have to be collected from the company itself. There are ways of getting around this, but it generally requires the owners/managers of a company to be running the company in a very poor (stupid) manner. And the way this company is structured tends to point to owners/managers who know what they are doing. The most that could be collected would be anything the company "owns" in the US - so bank balances in US banks, technical and computer equipment located in the US, etc. This brings up an interesting thought that I will share at the end of the post.

I have been looking in to owner Nick Denton and his citizenship and residency status. The only reliable information states that he is a a UK Citizen and, currently, a US resident (New York). He is married to an American man (actor Derrence Washington). I only mention this because it could have some influence on Denton's decision on whether to pay on a decision or settlement. A UK National (or most other nationalities for that matter) who own a foreign corp/llc/trust/whatever that owes a settlement in the US have a lot of options when it comes to delaying payment or completely avoiding it. However, when the owner is in the US and intends to stay in the country, those options become extremely limited. It is also interesting to note that this isn't the first time Gawker has been sued for releasing a celebrity sex tape. They previously released actress Rebecca Gayheart's sex tape (tame compared to Hogan's) and the company reached a six figure settlement with her.

To prevent this already long post from getting even longer, I will close with this. If Hogan wins and wins big, and Gawker attempts to avoid paying the judgement, there may be an Achilles' Heel here. I would go after Gawker's domains. They may not have a cent in US banks. They may have workers on (sub)contract status to avoid employees. They may have all sorts of legal trickery going on when it comes to their domicile. But they run from .com TLDs. Those have been repeatedly held, by US courts, to be solely in US jurisdiction. In many ways, the .com TLD is treated like real property in the US. The government can shut sites running on them down, redirect them, seize them. If I was Hogan, that would be my Hail Mary play to collect.

Quick response to RioNomad -

Regarding revenge porn, most of the statutes at the state level require malicious intent, harassment, or something similiar to charge/convict on "revenge porn" cases. Gawker is, firstly, claiming that they released the tape as a journalistic practice. Even if that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, they can then claim they released the tape with commercial intent (they intended to profit off of it). Neither of those claims admit to any malicious intent. So, to answer your question directly, yes. You could, theoretically, incorporate a business and release sex/nude tapes of people and avoid many state revenge porn laws. You would still get hit with a bunch of lawsuits and criminal charges (violation of privacy and, even, copyright infringement).

Post: #37

I believe this lawsuit is misguided.

Apparently the video tape was stolen by Bubba the Love Sponge's former employee along with other sex tapes. The kicker is that no charges have been filed against him. I have a hard time believing Bubba the Love Sponge was not involved with the leak in some way at all, given that he was the one who insisted on his wife having sex with other dudes and then him filming it. He's a voyeur and gets off on being an attention whore both as a shock jock and in his personal sex life as well. While I could be off I just don't see how there is not any complicitity on Bubba's behalf.

I think it's silly to sue one news outlet and yet the thief has no charges filed and gets to keep all the money he made selling the tapes to wherever.

Post: #38

(03-09-2016 03:25 PM)Le Samourai Wrote:  Regarding revenge porn, most of the statutes at the state level require malicious intent, harassment, or something similiar to charge/convict on "revenge porn" cases. Gawker is, firstly, claiming that they released the tape as a journalistic practice. Even if that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, they can then claim they released the tape with commercial intent (they intended to profit off of it). Neither of those claims admit to any malicious intent. So, to answer your question directly, yes. You could, theoretically, incorporate a business and release sex/nude tapes of people and avoid many state revenge porn laws. You would still get hit with a bunch of lawsuits and criminal charges (violation of privacy and, even, copyright infringement).

So then the OWNER of the "revenge porn" site is immune to prosecution, since he would most likely be doing it to profit?

We have some messed up laws.

Might as well go ahead an legalize prostitution. It's "for profit".

Post: #39

Hulk smash Gawker. Jury Awards $115 million in damages.

Post: #40

HAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35849140

Post: #41

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!

Reuters Wrote:Wrestler Hulk Hogan wins $115 million in sex tape suit against Gawker

A Florida jury awarded Hulk Hogan $115 million on Friday after finding the Gawker website violated his privacy by publishing a sex tape of the celebrity wrestler.

Hogan sought $100 million in damages over the edited video that Gawker posted online in 2012. The case weighed a celebrity's right to privacy in the Internet age against freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people...SKCN0WK2UA

Take that, bitches!

Post: #42

VICTORY







MAGA!

Post: #43

The best part is they aren't even finished.

50 million is for emotional damages.
65 million is for economic damages.

They reconvene Monday to decide on punitive damages.

So they're looking at likely a 150+ million loss.

Anyone know Gawkers worth?

Post: #44

Post: #45

WHATCHA GONNA DO GAWKER WHEN HULKAMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU?!!!!!!

Post: #46

LMAO ! Fuck yes !

Fuck you Gawker, I hope you tank now !

Post: #47

Gawkers latest twitter post getting owned:

Post: #48

Post: #49

I doubt Gawker Media has that much money in the first place, or property to pay damages.

Enforcing the judgement will be tricky because of that.

But, in any case, this is a good day for the mankind. A website which defends pedophiles, refuses to condemn child porn(!) and outright promotes degeneracy does not deserve to survive.

Hulk Logan, may the almighty hand of Tuthmosis guide you to further victories.

Post: #50