Hero cave-diver felt 'humiliated, dirtied and ashamed' by Elon Musk 'paedo' insult

[SkyFax]

25 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

CUT

There would have been more justice seen had the case been heard in Thailand or the UK

The release that Unsworth signed against further action maybe only applies to the US. Maybe Unsworth can take a shot in the UK or Thailand.

Edited December 20, 2019 by SkyFax

[newatthis]

28 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

American court, American judge, American jury.

 

Musk is a ridiculously wealthy American citizen. Unsworth is just an ordinary retired working man who is not American.

 

The US is an exceedingly jingoistic nation and will stick by their own be they right or wrong. Google Lt Calley and the My Lai Massacre.

 

It would be very naive for us to believe that Musk's wealth did not help influence the judge's decision. It's well documented that certain American judges throughout the relatively short history of the USA have been bribed to give verdicts in favour of rich people who have appeared in front of them.

 

Nothing new.

 

There would have been more justice seen had the case been heard in Thailand or the UK.

 

 

 

 

So Unsworth loses and the US judge has taken a bribe. Wow! That is absolute pitiful <deleted>!

1. The verdict was not given by a judge but a jury. (Now, you'll say that Musk bribed the jurors)

2. The jury foreman said that Unsworth's lawyers should have focused more on the evidence and instead of trying to play people's emotions. Hopefully, always, it is evidence, not emotions, that gets people convicted.

All these TV / newspaper interviews that Unsworth is doing now are exactly the same.......playing on people's emotions. There's truth in the saying:

"Don't play the victim in the circumstances you created yourself."

[lamyai3]

44 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

He did an incredible public act in helping rescue the boys, truly heroic,  but he lost the moral high ground with the 190M$ claim.

This again points to failings in the legal system (including the strategies of the prosecuting lawyers). When Unsworth allowed the lawyers to represent him, it was hardly likely that he had anything to do with the amount being pursued. The very high amount suggests that the lawyers took the case on pro bono, partly since the original evidence made it look like it'd be a slam dunk, but also on the basis that winning such a case could set an important precedent for social media libel cases generally.

 

The refusal of the judge to allow the most damning parts of that evidence to be heard makes a mockery of the whole system, though in the wider scheme of things I suppose it could have hardly gone any other way. 

[SkyFax]

3 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

 CUT

The very high amount suggests that the lawyers took the case on pro bono, partly since the original evidence made it

look like it'd be a slam dunk, but also on the basis that winning such a case could set an important precedent for social media libel cases generally.

CUT

Yes and the basis of losing such a case "could set an important precedent for social media libel cases generally."

 

BTW 'contingency fee' and 'pro bono' are not the same thing.

[lamyai3]

28 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

Yes and the basis of losing such a case "could set an important precedent for social media libel cases generally."

 

BTW 'contingency fee' and 'pro bono' are not the same thing.

Again, you're just underscoring what I'm saying. Did you read my second paragraph?

 

If this had been a test case for social media libel generally rather than being about the specifics of the particular case, there was zero chance of it succeeding in the US courts. There'd be way too many vested interests involved. 

 

The point about contingency fee vs pro bono is moot - bottom line is that the lawyers took a gamble on the outcome, and Unsworth was not personally liable for any legal fees. 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by lamyai3

[MRToMRT]

14 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

...... The very high amount suggests that the lawyers took the case on pro bono,.....

 

 

In the TV interview the lawyer states it was "no win, no fee" arrangement. 

Saying that as the law firm was representing Vernon, then I suppose Vernon must have agreed to the amount as the plaintiff (I don't know about these things though) ???

[yogi100]

3 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

The release that Unsworth signed against further action maybe only applies to the US. Maybe Unsworth can take a shot in the UK or Thailand.

I hope he does. 

 

A public insinuation that is now common knowledge all around the world that someone is a paedophile is an evil, vile act that demands proper justice. What's worse is that even Musk himself who'd never even heard of Unsworth had absolutely no evidence let alone proof that Unsworth  had anything remotely to do with any form of paedophilia.

 

A few years back in the UK some vigilantes tried to attack someone they thought was Paedophile. It turned out their target was in fact a paediatrician which is a doctor who specialises in children's illnesses and diseases but his would be attackers were that ignorant that they never knew that.

 

But that goes to show how dangerous these false accusations can be and calling someone a pedo guy is a dangerous accusation to make in anyone's language. If any one on any internet forum was to call another member a 'pedo guy' in a post he would be banned for life. Or I hope he would be.

 

The remarks by Unsworth about Musk and his midget submarine pale into insignificance by comparison.

 

I agree about the 190 million dollars being ridiculously high. The amount of compensation involved should be left to the court to decide.

 

But it shows you how the elite, the wealthy, those in authority and the influential in any society have one another in their pockets and will look after each other while poor old Joe Bloggs or Vernon Unsworth can be called a paedophile and when he objects to it finds that he can go and get stuffed and any quest he may make for justice will be made in vain.

[yogi100]

45 minutes ago, newatthis said:

So Unsworth loses and the US judge has taken a bribe. Wow! That is absolute pitiful <deleted>!

1. The verdict was not given by a judge but a jury. (Now, you'll say that Musk bribed the jurors)

2. The jury foreman said that Unsworth's lawyers should have focused more on the evidence and instead of trying to play people's emotions. Hopefully, always, it is evidence, not emotions, that gets people convicted.

All these TV / newspaper interviews that Unsworth is doing now are exactly the same.......playing on people's emotions. There's truth in the saying:

"Don't play the victim in the circumstances you created yourself."

Did the American judge not direct the American jurors as to their verdict in this case?

 

I've served on a UK jury and the judge can definitely influence a jury. I doubt that it is much different in an American court where their legal system is roughly based on ours.

 

And who said the US judge took a bribe. I did not. I said that through history certain judges have done so. You are the one who has said that 'the US judge has taken a bribe' in the first sentence of your post.

 

But you are insinuating that I did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by yogi100

[SkyFax]

20 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Again, you're just underscoring what I'm saying. Did you read my second paragraph?

 

If this had been a test case for social media libel generally rather than being about the specifics of the particular case, there was zero chance of it succeeding in the US courts. There's way too many vested interests involved. 

 

The point about contingency fee vs pro bono is moot - bottom line is that the lawyers took a gamble on the outcome, and Unsworth was not personally liable for any legal fees. 

Pro bono usually refers to a criminal case or civil case without potential financial damages.

 

The judge's ruling on the Buzzfeed was based on legal precedent as was  noted above.

 

Also there were several reports from the defamation/libel legal community that the judge's November 2019 refusal to throw out the case before trial made look like Unsworth had a very good chance of winning the case.

Edited December 20, 2019 by SkyFax

[Langsuan Man]

Everyone stop looking at this case through your foreign eyes 

 

Libel and defamation laws in the US are completely different from most other countries, due to the US Constitution that specifically guarantees freedom of speech and expression

 

Unsworth, became a public figure and as such was fair game, and the jury used the common sense application of defamation to determine he suffered no harm 

 

You don't read about US news outlets being sued very often, whereas British papers are always getting sued, especially by the Royals

 

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

Unsworth, became a public figure and as such was fair game, and the jury used the common sense application of defamation to determine he suffered no harm 

One of the judges rulings a couple of weeks prior to the hearing was that Unsworth did not constitute a public figure. This would have improved the chances in taking the the case to trial. 

[thailandsgreat]

7 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

One of the judges rulings a couple of weeks prior to the hearing was that Unsworth did not constitute a public figure. This would have improved the chances in taking the the case to trial. 

So in that system the judges are free to speak about the case before the hearing?

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, SkyFax said:

Also there were several reports from the defamation/libel legal community that the judge's November 2019 refusal to throw out the case before trial made look like Unsworth had a very good chance of winning the case.

This, and the point I noted above about him not being a public figure (#91) would have increased Unsworth's chances.

 

Refusal to accept the full raft of evidence (emails), the high amount of damages in the claim, and the implications on free speech in social media would have significantly reduced them. 

[SkyFax]

13 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

One of the judges rulings a couple of weeks prior to the hearing was that Unsworth did not constitute a public figure. This would have improved the chances in taking the the case to trial. 

Actually the exact opposite -- it was the Musk legal team who wanted Mr. Unsworth considered as a public figure for the purposes of the trial which the judge denied:

 

The case against Musk got a boost when (Judge) Wilson last month said Unsworth’s sudden fame from the rescue did not make him a “public figure,” meaning he did not need to show that Musk acted with “actual malice” when posting his tweets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/reuters-america-update-1-elon-musk-goes-on-trial-in-u-s-for-defamation-over-pedo-guy-tweet.html

Edited December 20, 2019 by SkyFax

[lamyai3]

3 minutes ago, thailandsgreat said:

So in that system the judges are free to speak about the case before the hearing?

The judge made a few preliminary rulings back in November concerning the parameters of the case, regarding whether the plaintiff was a public figure or not, what could be heard as evidence etc. 

[lamyai3]

2 minutes ago, SkyFax said:

Actually the exact opposite -- it was the Musk legal team who wanted Mr. Unsworth considered as a public figure for the purposes of the trial which the judge denied:

That's what I just said. Public figure status would have improved the chances for the defence, not for Unsworth's team. Surely it was obvious from my post when I said it improved the chances of taking the case to trial that I was referring to the chances of Unsworth winning?

[thailandsgreat]

17 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

The judge made a few preliminary rulings back in November concerning the parameters of the case, regarding whether the plaintiff was a public figure or not, what could be heard as evidence etc. 

I don't know that system. But it seems strange to make rulings just off hand, without hearing the parties. Let's say Musk wanted to contend this. Then the judge would have to be recused for already having given a biased opinion.

 

 

The info is given in several media. But only as general information during the trial. I can't find the original statement by the judge.

 

I have no law training but in my opinion US judges "talk a lot"  ????

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by thailandsgreat

[SkyFax]

I posted this earlier today -- the decision whether to exclude the Buzzfeed emails as evidence was the subject of lengthy pre-trial motions on both sides. If there was any question about the judges decision, I would guess the Unsworth team would have used this as the basis of some mistrial motion or appeal:

 

From the above referenced judge's ruling 18NOV2019 citing precedent:

 

Defendant is only liable for the Buzzfeed Article, however, if republication of Defendant’s statements from the Email was reasonably foreseeable. ... Defendant claims he could not reasonably foresee republication of his statements because of his previous experience with reporters and the fact that he wrote “off the record” at the beginning of the Email.

Edited December 20, 2019 by SkyFax

[tominbkk]

He started it....grow a backbone lil' buttercup!

[LazySlipper]

On 12/19/2019 at 1:11 PM, spidermike007 said:

In the US a rich person can buy their way out of nearly any crime with enough money. It is a very corrupt and broken system that favors the rich. You throw millions at a legal team and they can create doubt in the mind of most juries. 

Guess That is where Thailand learned its lesson from...

[RickBradford]

On 12/19/2019 at 7:59 AM, KC 71 said:

Keyboard warriors are out again i see !

????

How else are people supposed to comment on an Internet forum?

[metisdead]

Some posts with offensive allegations have been removed. 

[ireckonso]

Poor ole slighted vern, guess the family wont be getting a new house and truck now.

[Cryingdick]

Elon used 'pedo' not 'paedo' so many articles intentionally mix the two terms.

[hgma]

people who are not used to the spotlights, get blinded, sometimes added by a media hype who make ordinary people a national " hero" whereby feelings of superiority kick in while ordinary humility should prevail, remarks are made by both sides, remarks way off the hero status both gentleman thought they had, back to earth now and live on, 

[zydeco]

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Elon used 'pedo' not 'paedo' so many articles intentionally mix the two terms.

And it's irritating that articles on TVF continue to alter his tweet and quote it incorrectly.

[SkyFax]

32 minutes ago, zydeco said:

And it's irritating that articles on TVF continue to alter his tweet and quote it incorrectly.

And this was the actual 15JUL2018 tweet:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by SkyFax

[Isaanbiker]

Speaking on today's Good Morning Britain, emotional Vernon said: "He set out to destroy me. Psychologically, I'm a tough guy. Hard on the outside, soft on the inside.

 

Would I await a couple of million bucks, I'd be very soft in the inside and already have had plenty of sessions with a psychiatrist to complain about my suicidal thoughts after this verbal attack. 

 

  

[Isaanbiker]

19 hours ago, SkyFax said:

And this was the actual 15JUL2018 tweet:

 

 

 

 

You can't make such things up. Please look who's put that into the Urban dictionary. It was Musk.

 

  

Pedo Guy

According to the Pedo Files, "An Encyclopedic Guide to All Things Pedo", a modern term of affection used by middle aged tech billionaires with decades younger girlfriends to describe their creepy elders who also have younger girlfriends but are less tech savvy and prefer to walk (from the Latin pedester, going on foot) or swim rather than drive electric cars or ride in kid-sized submarines. Some etymologists have suggested this may be a double entendre on the Afrikaans slang for an Olympic level 'pedo (or Speedo) wearing swimmer.

Modern usage: nice job Vern using your pedo instincts to find those young cave divers.
Afrikaans slang: Vern is a such a pedo guy, and he looks so manly in his Speedos.

by E. Long Musk December 07, 2019

 

Nice job Musk to make it look like a pedo isn't really a pedo. 

 

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pedo Guy

Edited December 22, 2019 by Isaanbiker

[SkyFax]

54 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

CUT

 

Nice job Musk to make it look like a pedo isn't really a pedo. 

CUT2

Nice job indeed -- worth about $190 million.