Unsworth Vs Musk defamation trial

[MP3Mike]

Easy question. They didn’t get the result they wanted.

I'm interested under what conditions the court would grant a retrial.
​

Are you saying that they could get a retrial as many times as they wanted until they got a verdict that Musk was liable?

 

[Chickenlittle]

Yes at least that would provide more billable hrs to the attorney. I suspect the right answer would have been to leave it alone. Why pursue someone for funds they can’t pay. This from the person who figured out the strategy of asking for 190 million dollars

 

[sparcs]

Lin Wood on Twitter

Unsworth's attorney seems pretty worked up on twitter. This whole case has been about egos between Unsworth, Elon and their attorneys. Would be sad if cooler heads did not reign this in. Hard to get a sense if Wood is just trying to say "he fought the good fight" for his client or is insinuating they will continue this fiasco.

I do not see the benefit to Unsworth now that he's extracted two public apologies from Elon. Then it really becomes about greed. Won't Musk seek reimbursement if this goes to trial again and they lose? They would be forcing him into it.

 

[AudubonB]

Did not the plaintiff make a public announcement at the end of the trial...one that indicated he was satisfied and would not pursue the matter further? That doesn't mean he can't change his mind, but to have the lawyer make an announcement - one that was not, it appeared to me, couched language along the lines of "MY CLIENT wishes to engage in a retrial..." - seems to me to be dripping with psychotropic cocktails.

 

[ZsoZso]

The mere fact that the jury could decide in just 20 minutes that the ambulance chaser deserves nothing else than a boot on the backside should be enough clue to Mr Wood. But some people never learn...
Him foaming at the mouth does not mean that he actually has standing to demand a retrial, though.

IANAL, and all that

 

[TNEVol]

Easy question. They didn’t get the result they wanted. I believe it’s a threat to have musk not seek his legal fees. Once again they have not judged him correctly. Will most likely persuade him to ask to be reimbursed

Let's put this to rest. EM cannot recover his legal fees. Under the American Rule each side bears its fees unless a statute provides for recovery.

As to the retrial this would be a huge hill to climb. In particular the judge did not grant EMs motion to dismiss so there is no error there. And this is a simple tort case, not a criminal case. The jury decided and both parties accepted the jury. Imo there is not much to appeal here.
But plaintiffs lawyer has got to wonder what if I had asked for 1$ in damages and 100k in punitive. But then plaintiffs lawyer would have only had a fee of 33k which likely would have been about $100 per hour after expenses. Oh well never wanted to.be a tort or criminal lawyer

In summary EM spent a great deal of $ to prevent an unjustified lawsuit arising from a silly name calling incident. The jury saw through the arguments. IMO the jury saw no damages and an attempt to force $ from a rich man.

 

[mongo]

I was reminded of this song.
Shakedown by Bob Seger

 

[sparcs]

As to the retrial this would be a huge hill to climb.

Here are some select tweets from Lin Wood's stream:

My faith in validity of Churchill statement about truth is renewed after learning Unsworth v. Musk jury did not deliberate merits of defamation case. Verdict based solely on finding that since Vernon was not identified by name in Musk tweets, he could not claim defamation.

Unsworth v. Musk jury verdict did not shake my belief that Churchill is right or equally strong belief in trial by jury. But jury must receive reasonable oversight from the trial court. Without it, jury can reach the wrong result for the wrong reason. Ask Vernon Unsworth.

The Unsworth v. Musk jury neither discussed or decided case on merits. Jury made a quick & wrong decision on undisputed issue of “of and concerning" & ended inquiry without considering the merits of Vernon's claims against Musk.

Error arose out of jury deciding whether Musk tweets were “of & concerning” Vernon. This issue was undisputed by Musk admission that tweets were responsive to Vernon’s CNN interview. Jury did not deliberate on merits of case. Clear miscarriage of justic & a very odd one at that.

Jury did not reach merits evidence because of erroneous decision on noncontested issue of whether Musk tweets were about Vernon. Musk testified in Court that investigator was a con-man. “Investigator” now back in prison in U.K. for fraud conviction prior to date Musk hired him.

Justice for Vernon Unsworth not achieved last week in LA. We will explore legal options to do so because truth demands it. From reports, we did restore Elon Musk faith in humanity which had been destroyed by defamation lawsuit Musk had profanely challenged Vernon to file.

So he might be claiming that the Jury misunderstood the jury instructions??? I don't know if this is all bluster to put some spin on the trial?

 

[ggr]

Here are some select tweets from Lin Wood's stream:













So he might be claiming that the Jury misunderstood the jury instructions??? I don't know if this is all bluster to put some spin on the trial?

I haven't read (or seen) a transcript, and IANAL (but my wife is, and I helped her drill for the bar exam), but I'm pretty sure that the judges instructions would have included all of the conditions that had to be met for them to find for the plaintiff, and the jury started with number 1... and then finished.

 

[EV forever]

Let's put this to rest. EM cannot recover his legal fees. Under the American Rule each side bears its fees unless a statute provides for recovery.

As to the retrial this would be a huge hill to climb. In particular the judge did not grant EMs motion to dismiss so there is no error there. And this is a simple tort case, not a criminal case. The jury decided and both parties accepted the jury. Imo there is not much to appeal here.
But plaintiffs lawyer has got to wonder what if I had asked for 1$ in damages and 100k in punitive. But then plaintiffs lawyer would have only had a fee of 33k which likely would have been about $100 per hour after expenses. Oh well never wanted to.be a tort or criminal lawyer

In summary EM spent a great deal of $ to prevent an unjustified lawsuit arising from a silly name calling incident. The jury saw through the arguments. IMO the jury saw no damages and an attempt to force $ from a rich man.

I don’t think the objective would be to recover the money for Elon. It would be a good deterrent for future when folks try to bring these frivolous lawsuits to get fame/notoriety.

 

[The Accountant]

Wow - with emotions finally in check, Lin Wood comes to his senses.

 

[sparcs]

Wow - with emotions finally in check, Lin Wood comes to his senses.


View attachment 486627

what a way to end this circus. let me guess, there won't be any coverage of this by the media. lol

the only consolation here is watching the shorts completely meltdown on social media.

 

[Tslynk67]

Totally weird - Lin ranting for a few days that it's all wrong, then says the right result was given??? Did he miss some of hi meds the previous days, or something??? Maybe one of his peers told him straight that in fact there was no case, etc. Weird!

And here's a longer statement (apologies for the RMac link...)

Ryan Mac on Twitter

 

[Deidre]

I think Lin Wood is about to retire.
Maybe Elon's lawyers spoke with him about future lawsuits.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Totally weird - Lin ranting for a few days that it's all wrong, then says the right result was given??? Did he miss some of hi meds the previous days, or something??? Maybe one of his peers told him straight that in fact there was no case, etc. Weird!

And here's a longer statement (apologies for the RMac link...)

Ryan Mac on Twitter

View attachment 486703

That's so funny! For 3/4's of Mr Wood's "expose", he claimed that Elon wanted to end the case and then near the last sentence claim that "Mr Musk wanted a trial"?!?! Boy is he reaching!

Edit: So in his eyes, the lawsuit wasn't about defamation, because you can only have that when people actually believe a lie (which no one did), but just about clearing the doubts about Mr. Unsworth's pedophilia. That's some serious spin!

 

[Lessmog]

Let's put this to rest. EM cannot recover his legal fees. Under the American Rule each side bears its fees unless a statute provides for recovery.

As to the retrial this would be a huge hill to climb. In particular the judge did not grant EMs motion to dismiss so there is no error there. And this is a simple tort case, not a criminal case. The jury decided and both parties accepted the jury. Imo there is not much to appeal here.
But plaintiffs lawyer has got to wonder what if I had asked for 1$ in damages and 100k in punitive. But then plaintiffs lawyer would have only had a fee of 33k which likely would have been about $100 per hour after expenses. Oh well never wanted to.be a tort or criminal lawyer

In summary EM spent a great deal of $ to prevent an unjustified lawsuit arising from a silly name calling incident. The jury saw through the arguments. IMO the jury saw no damages and an attempt to force $ from a rich man.

I have looked but can't find it again (sorry) where someone posted a court order signed by the clerk, denying Plaintiff anything while allowing Defendant to seek compensation for legal expenses in this case. I think I saw it today, so it should not be hard to find for someone who knows their way around filings -- to which category me no belong

However, that would counter your assertion. Just FYI. HTH and so on.

It might also serve that rent seeker right.

EDIT: Yay, post number 2^11

 

[mongo]

I have looked but can't find it again (sorry) where someone posted a court order signed by the clerk, denying Plaintiff anything while allowing Defendant to seek compensation for legal expenses in this case. I think I saw it today, so it should not be hard to find for someone who knows their way around filings -- to which category me no belong

However, that would counter your assertion. Just FYI. HTH and so on.

It might also serve that rent seeker right.

EDIT: Yay, post number 2^11

Courtlistener has it
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137.160.0.pdf

 

[Lessmog]

Courtlistener has it
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137.160.0.pdf

View attachment 486775

Hey, I just found my source: it was on Bonnie's twitter
Bonnie Norman on Twitter

 

[mongo]

Hey, I just found my source: it was on Bonnie's twitter
Bonnie Norman on Twitter

@bonnie rocks!

 

[Rarity]

The cognitive dissonance in Lin's words probably has to do with the identity of his client: Is it Unsworth or a third-party funder? Did the the third-party funder back out of any further action? Will they get in a fight as to who is on the hook for Musk's legal fees? Will we then learn the identity of the third-party funder?