Statue of Veritas image, blog post by John HoffBoth sides have rested in the Jerry Moore v. John Hoff a/k/a Johnny Northside trial and will present closing arguments today after what is expected to be a small flurry of intensely dry and legalistic stuff at about 9 a.m. Witnesses put on yesterday included Jerry Moore, (more) and Megan Goodmundson, who gave a literal "blow by blow" of the infamous fistfight incident of January 12, 2009, following the JACC board elections.
There has been quite a bit of press coverage about this trial, which has attracted commentary from legal scholars far removed from this city and from the specific facts of this case. It would be great to say more, but that isn't terribly prudent due to the ongoing lawsuit, so readers are asked to "hang in there" and, for now, seek details from other media including Twin Cities Daily Planet.
(Do Not Click "Read More" But Do Read All About Moore)
There has been quite a bit of press coverage about this trial, which has attracted commentary from legal scholars far removed from this city and from the specific facts of this case. It would be great to say more, but that isn't terribly prudent due to the ongoing lawsuit, so readers are asked to "hang in there" and, for now, seek details from other media including Twin Cities Daily Planet.
(Do Not Click "Read More" But Do Read All About Moore)
20 comments:
More multi-state coverage:
http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/event/article/id/27517/group/homepage/
Jury is out.
A question has come back from the jury. No telling what it is, yet...
Liar!
No, there was no telling what it was, yet, at the moment I typed those words because people were on the phone, on hold, and I didn't know the question.
But now I know the question.
And, no, it's not "how to calculate damages."
Stay tuned.
The jury wants to know how to spell "douchebag"?
Do you realize that "wanted poster" with the picture of a slumlord you display in this blog is not protected free speech?
I'd explain why but you'd just disagree with me because you never listen to anyone. There will be another trial.
@ Anonymous 3:15pm, that is a very good possibility of the question posed by the jury. It is easy to see how after hearing all that testimony they would come up with that word to describe mortgage fraudsters and identity thieves.
Is John Hoff able to speak for himself? Or does he need permission from NoMi Passenger first?
Since I'm not a "beltless beta male" it seems likely I can speak for myself.
Oh, that reminds me...
Well, it can wait.
I agree with both of these opinions/comments:
Anonymous said...
Liar!
March 10, 2011 3:02 PM
Response: Yes, Jerry Moore is a liar!
and
Anonymous said...
The jury wants to know how to spell "douchebag"?
March 10, 2011 3:15 PM
Response: J.E.R.R.Y. M.O.O.R.E.
Jury: Blogger Johnny Northside must pay $60,000 to fired community leader
The controversial north Minneapolis blogger must pay $60,000 in damages to a former Jordan Area Community Council executive director who was fired after a a 2009 blog post.
Star Tribune 3/11/2011
Comments?
Per the Strib, the jury found your statement true but nonetheless held you liable for intentional interference. That doesn't make sense. It is black letter law that a true statement can't be the basis for an intentional interference claims. Restatement (Second) Torts 772(a); Glass Service Co., Inc. v. State Farm, 530 N.W.2d 867, 871; Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership, 319 F.3d 329, 337. Seems like there may well be very good grounds for a post-trial motion and/or appeal.
Just for the record, John is away and I'm much more picky about what comments to publish than he is. If he wants to publish all of the "na-na-na-na boo-boo" comments he can do so later. And if he doesn't want to, well, he doesn't have to according to the laws.
But some I am publishing so mature discussions can be had, which after all is the whole purpose here anyways.
Something doesn't seem right with this verdict. I hope you appeal. It is an inconsistent verdict and no evidence that you interfered with his employment, although evidence of someone else interfering.
A lot of journalists are taking notice at this verdict, how can we be held liable for telling the truth?
John is away? I hope hes at the bank getting his victim his 60 grand.
Well, if there is a fire in a movie theater, and you yell "fire" that causes a panic, you are liable!!!The truth is not an absolute out!
I'm not sure folks understand what the jury verdict means.
The most important result of the Moore/Hoff trial is that bloggers can be held liable for causing damage to their subjects reputations if the harm was intentional and deliberate - which is absolutely what John Hoff did/does.
His concept of "1st Amendment retaliation" didn't fly with the jury and it cost him $60,000, which I doubt will be reversed on appear as similar cases have been affirmed on appeal all over the country. But he can always try.
Interesting choice of blog post photo considering you were found guilty of telling the truth. You guilty truth teller, you!
Saw this on Hawkman's twitter feed and thought it should be shared here too. Your readers are waiting to hear from you regarding this verdict.
Blogging the truth
The Strib article about the verdict has been updated and enough of it changed that I will highlight some of the new meat of the article here:
http://www.startribune.com/local/117805398.html
Jane Kirtley, a U of M professor of media law and ethics, called the lawsuit an example of "trash torts," in which someone unable to sue for libel, which by definition involves falsity, reaches for another legal claim. She predicted the verdict will be overturned.
"This is based on expression, and expression enjoys First Amendment protection," Kirtley said. Just last week, she said, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church's antigay protests at military funerals.
"I find it really hard to believe that there was a degree of emotional distress caused by this reporting that outstrips that suffered by [a Marine's] family," Kirtley said.
....
The verdict also surprised U of M law professor William McGeveran, but he wasn't so certain that it will be easily overturned. Appeals courts tend to give a lot of credence to jury verdicts, he said.
....
Fifth Ward City Council Member Don Samuels said he was surprised by the verdict and disappointed. Hoff was accused of being Samuels' mouthpiece, and the council member testified during the trial.
Samuels said he hoped the verdict wouldn't discourage Hoff or others from trying, through blogging, to improve life on the North Side.
"People have these pent-up frustrations, and they want the world to know what they're experiencing," Samuels said. "There's a sense that if everyone knew what was happening, things would change."
Hey anonameass 8:34, you don't want someone warning you about a fire if it breaks out in a theater? I think that only applies if there is not a fire in a crowded theater and you yell "FIRE". The only thing on fire is your pants and that is because you are lying...or you were a member of the jury who must have all got drunk on their lunch breaks before they handed down the verdict.Bathtub Gin i assume. The verdict will get thrown up, i mean out,and the premature celebratory festive wonderment of it all will end with an enourmous amount of aromatic excretement being exhaled. Good Day.
Post a Comment