Injured Vet Sues Michael Moore For $85 Million (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh I sure do hope he wins here's the article:

May 31, 2006 1:09 pm US/Eastern
Injured Vet Sues Michael Moore For $85 Million

(CBS4) MIDDLEBORO A local veteran who lost parts of both of his arms in Iraq, is suing filmmaker Michael Moore. Sgt. Peter Damon says Moore recycled old news footage of Damon, and used it in a way that made him seem anti-war.

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_151102350.html

 

[Captain America]

Oh my....

Looks like Moore may have to cut back to 15 hot dogs a day.:mrgreen:

 

[LaMidRighter]

He may have a pretty good case. Micheal Moore is extremely good at exploiting loopholes in federal communication law and very adept at creative editing, all this while being a complete fat idiot. However, he may have messed up here in that he used footage that wasn't cleared, wasn't obtained firsthand, and was taken out of context, even better, this is not a public figure so Moore may have set himself up for a suit based on slander, defamation, and unauthorized use of image. Had Mr. Moore taken the footage himself in a public area, he probably could have had the suit dismissed.

I am on this soldier's side, unfortunately it won't hurt Moore since he can afford it, he can just dip into his Haliburton dividends(source is from the book "Do as I say, not as I do")

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He may have a pretty good case. Micheal Moore is extremely good at exploiting loopholes in federal communication law and very adept at creative editing, all this while being a complete fat idiot. However, he may have messed up here in that he used footage that wasn't cleared, wasn't obtained firsthand, and was taken out of context, even better, this is not a public figure so Moore may have set himself up for a suit based on slander, defamation, and unauthorized use of image. Had Mr. Moore taken the footage himself in a public area, he probably could have had the suit dismissed.

I am on this soldier's side, unfortunately it won't hurt Moore since he can afford it, he can just dip into his Haliburton dividends(source is from the book "Do as I say, not as I do")

All I know is that if this gets infront of a jury Moore doesn't stand a chance the man is a double amputee war veteran, that fact alone will win him the case especially considering the fact that Michael Moore is a piece of **** propagandist and a war profiteer.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

85 million! a bit extreme no? I could see it if Moore caused this guy's permenent disability or something....but for a movie clip?

Slander of a non-public figure is worth 85 mil?
Dam, I want to be slandered.

Sounds like a bit over the top to me....I think this guy just wants money, I'm sure he doesn't really care that much about what was said in the film.

But I don't undersatnd the claim. Did moore actually imply or say that this guy was anti-war? If not, what's his case?

 

[::Major_Baker::]

All I know is that if this gets infront of a jury Moore doesn't stand a chance the man is a double amputee war veteran, that fact alone will win him the case especially considering the fact that Michael Moore is a piece of **** propagandist and a war profiteer.

yeah because we all know what respect disabled war veterans get, like Mr., Cleland....:roll:

 

[aps]

Oh I sure do hope he wins here's the article:

He sounds like an a$$.

 

[zymurgy]

this is a good litmus test for conservatives.

Are you loyal to a party or an idealogy.

If you are loyal to a party you would like to see Moore fork over that 85 million. Preferably while crying and blowing snot bubbles.

But if you are loyal to conservatism, it will be awfully hard to reconcile the 85 million dollars with the actual damages done.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He sounds like an a$$.

The double amputee war veteran who lost his limbs in Iraq? And you claim to support the troops?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

this is a good litmus test for conservatives.

Are you loyal to a party or an idealogy.

If you are loyal to a party you would like to see Moore fork over that 85 million. Preferably while crying and blowing snot bubbles.

But if you are loyal to conservatism, it will be awfully hard to reconcile the 85 million dollars with the actual damages done.

I'm loyal to the truth.

 

[LaMidRighter]

this is a good litmus test for conservatives.

Are you loyal to a party or an idealogy.

Litmus test for conservatives? How about for liberals? If Moore misused material to twist fact he was the @#$hole in this situation. Compounding the offense, he:
a) used a disabled war vet.
b) who was a persoon who didn't agree with the "documentaries" message
c) and did not grant him permission to do so.
d) which damaged the man's position and credibility, his good name.
How would liberals feel if the same thing was done to them, or someone they respect, like a college professor, or fat@#s movie director, or foul-mouthed liberal comic, etc.

If you are loyal to a party you would like to see Moore fork over that 85 million. Preferably while crying and blowing snot bubbles.

First, this isn't about the fact that I disagree with Mr. Moore, which I do, I don't believe in hurting people who have done nothing wrong. Second, I don't believe in the lawsuit culture in which we live these days, and frivolous lawsuits make me physically ill, but Mr. Moore may have wronged this man with a malicious usage of his situation to make a false claim. If that is true then this would be an appropriate lawsuit.

But if you are loyal to conservatism, it will be awfully hard to reconcile the 85 million dollars with the actual damages done.

Really? How much is your reputation worth? Your dignity? The fact is that this is a movie in print and everytime it is played his image will be present to those in view, and thus he was violated.

 

[zymurgy]

I'm loyal to the truth.

Then you want the lawsuit dropped?

The truth is the guys said everything that was in the film.

Apparently his attitude changed.

So, as a conservative, you would support giving this guy 85 million dollars for saying something, then having a change of heart later?

Can you honestly say he suffered 85 million dollars in damages?

 

[disneydude]

Maybe something was missing from the article. But I read the article and I did not see anything that was indicative of slander/libel. I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have a claim, but the article didn't lay out any legitimate claim of such. The only thing that the article alluded to was that perhaps the footage of the guy was used without his permission, but thats not libel/slander and certainly would not rise to those types of damages.
Does anyone have additional information about what he is basing the claim on. I truly would be interested in knowing.

 

[Captain America]

yeah because we all know what respect disabled war veterans get, like Mr., Cleland....:roll:

Ya beat me to it Major.

So, who's next? The SwiftBoatVets?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Then you want the lawsuit dropped?

The truth is the guys said everything that was in the film.

Apparently his attitude changed.

So, as a conservative, you would support giving this guy 85 million dollars for saying something, then having a change of heart later?

Can you honestly say he suffered 85 million dollars in damages?

No the truth is that his comments had nothing to do with his support or lack there of for the war in Iraq yet Moore used his likeness and comments in an out of context fashion without his permission to make it appear as though he was against the war.

What I can honestly say is that Moore is a disenguise war profiteer who incurred lots of money off of the exploitation of this mans suffering now it's time for Moore to pay the piper for his evil deeds.

 

[Captain America]

How would liberals feel if the same thing was done to them, or someone they respect, like a college professor, or fat@#s movie director, or foul-mouthed liberal comic, etc.

I would think they'd be used to it by now.....

Does the name Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly ring any bells?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Maybe something was missing from the article. But I read the article and I did not see anything that was indicative of slander/libel. I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have a claim, but the article didn't lay out any legitimate claim of such. The only thing that the article alluded to was that perhaps the footage of the guy was used without his permission, but thats not libel/slander and certainly would not rise to those types of damages.
Does anyone have additional information about what he is basing the claim on. I truly would be interested in knowing.

He's basing his claim on the fact that Moore made it appear as though he was anti-war through editing and splicing when infact his comments had nothing to do with his support of the war.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Maybe something was missing from the article. But I read the article and I did not see anything that was indicative of slander/libel. I'm not saying that the guy doesn't have a claim, but the article didn't lay out any legitimate claim of such.

If the message that Moore conveyed was not indicitive of the soldiers position it is absolutely slander. Moore didn't have to lie, he simply had to send a message that damaged the soldiers reputation.

The only thing that the article alluded to was that perhaps the footage of the guy was used without his permission, but thats not libel/slander and certainly would not rise to those types of damages.

That would also be one of the issues, if Moore had shot the footage himself or had obtained permission, this would not be an issue

 

[LaMidRighter]

I would think they'd be used to it by now.....

Does the name Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly ring any bells?

I'll give you Coulter to a degree, but how exactly do Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et.al slander liberals, most of the time they either quote these guys verbatim or back it up with sound clips, played in full, with the context in tact. The fact is that presenting stupid or inflamatory things people said is legal, as long as it is presented in a manner that makes the subjects intent known.

 

[zymurgy]

The conservative view on civil suits is that damages are based on something tangible.

If you sue for 85 million dollars, you better show how the slander caused you to lose 85 million dollars.

 

[disneydude]

How did Moore make this guy look like he was against the war?

The article doesn't really answer that. Did Moore misattribute quotes to the guy that he didn't say or did he cut/paste the quote so that it would say something the guy didn't say?

The article doesn't really say that either. From the article it sounds like the guys claim is that because he was in the film it makes it look like he is against the war. If that is the guys claim, that is not slander nor libel.

Honestly, I cannot recall the film well enough to remember who this guy is and what was said, but from the sounds of the article he is going to have a tough suit unless he can point to a more colorable argument. Maybe he has a better argument which is why I am wondering if anyone has more information that was expressed in the posted article.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

No the truth is that his comments had nothing to do with his support or lack there of for the war in Iraq yet Moore used his likeness and comments in an out of context fashion without his permission to make it appear as though he was against the war.

What I can honestly say is that Moore is a disenguise war profiteer who incurred lots of money off of the exploitation of this mans suffering now it's time for Moore to pay the piper for his evil deeds.

You have more details about the article/what was said in the movie? If so, please share!:2wave:
Or were you just speculating...?
I'd love to see the context he used...

You, demonizing war profiteers? That's Rich. What do you call halliburton or Kellog, Brown, and Root? Honest corporations? A rhetorical question.

This soldiers is filing an overblown frivolous lawsuit, it seems to me at this point. He can handle dodging IEDs and being shot at, but not an implication from a fat nobody?
85 million for 'hurt feelings'?
This guy really must be a liberal.:lol:

 

[BWG]

TORT REFORM....TORT REFORM

:2funny:

Now I remember why I come here, the comedic relief! :2rofll:

 

[disneydude]

If the message that Moore conveyed was not indicitive of the soldiers position it is absolutely slander.

Legally, that's not slander. Just because Moore may have put the guy in the film and Moore's message is not indictive of the guys position does not make a colorable claim for slander. However, if Moore does more and makes a point of painting this guy as anti-war he could have a claim. That is not to say that the guy might have a claim for the unauthorized use of his image which based on the little information I have read sounds like the more arguable offense.

 

[Captain America]

I could care less if Moore gets sliced, diced and julianned. But I have to wonder who is behind this guy propping him up (pardon the pun:mrgreen: ) financially. I'm thinkin' a PAC maybe.

Freedom of speech ain't always free.