You’ve heard about the Michael Moore lawsuit, right?
Published by Mike Stark June 5th, 2006 in UncategorizedIf not, let me fill you in.
An entirely sympathetic plaintiff - a soldier that lost both arms in Iraq - has sued Michael Moore for putting him in his movie without first obtaining permission. He says he never would have given permission because George Bush is his hero and he supports the war or some such nonsense…
So he’s suing Michael Moore - for $85 million. Every right-wing douchebag with a radio show had had this guy, or his lawyer, on as a guest - whenever they could find time to stop talking about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits.
Well, I talked to the lawyer last night. Here is the audio.
Another thing: I didn’t know “shyster” was a Jewish epithat. And for the most part, it isn’t. According to ost sources, any kind of derision towards Jews isn’t mentioned until the very last definition… Some dictionaries don’t even mention it at all - so I think this was just another deflection attempt by a radical right wing host.
Anyway, I felt I had to explain that.
And as to the lawyers pathetic response…
Every lawsuit is brought as a response to violations of somebody’s “right”. The question isn’t whether or not your lawsuit is “legal” - the lady that won hundreds of thousands of dollars from McDonalds because her coffee was too hot when she spilled it on herself had a “legal” lawsuit - that she won… No, the question, as far as I’m concerned is this: Doesn’t it stretch the boundaries of what is reasonable to sue someone for $85 million because you didn’t like what they said?
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Can’t wait to hear it, but the audio doesn’t work.
Arent the repubs always whining about how letigious America has become?
I guess they only whine when the lawsuits are brought against them and their corporations.
It’s alright if you are suing the democrats and the liberals.
i don’t know what you mean by OST Sources. but i looked at onelook.com and found that shyster’s 2 possible origins are consistent with this wikisource http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster . I actually, didn’t consciously realize that it was a derogatory term for jewish people either, but my life experience has taught me that most people don’t take derogatory terms seriously unless it’s directed at them or their people. I think it was good of mike to acknowledge that he could have made an error instead of just dismissing it.
tony marques Jun 5th, 2006 at 9:16 am
you are absolutely right. as a matter of fact, in florida there was a law passed to put a cap on the amount you could sue for medical malpratice. this was pushed by jeb and his friends
Not trying to be a know-it-all (I was COMPLETELY clueless until a lawyer friend turned me onto some info) I would just recommend to everyone to research that McDonald’s suit.
First, the disinformation and mis-characterization of the facts of the case are just absolutely astounding. If you are like me, you will ask, “Alright…what the heck else in my universe is completely backwards from what I thought…”
Second, if this is an example of a “frivolous suit” then we need a whole lot more of them.
As for the suit in question, I am torn on it. First, I give mad crazy wild props to service-folks (I know the cons can’t get their heads around that, but I love those guys and gals to death, just ashamed at what they are being ordered to do…I would bet a year’s salary that I have more active serving *friends and family* - not associates - than any of these wingnuts and not one of them has ever claimed I was anything less than a Great American…) so I give them a LOT of freedom from my judgement.
Second, the amount seems not unreasonable when taken into account the amount of money that was taken in using his likeness.
Third, if he was genuinely mis-characterized, that is pretty alarming to me. I don’t care what side you are on and what side I am on, **if** we start using these guys as our poster children and start twisting their words, etc, then this is a big deal for me.
On the other hand, if there was no true mis-characterization, no twisting, no sleaziness or anything like that, then this guy has used up all his freedom-from-my-judgement room. You can’t say something and then turn around and say “Uh-uh!!!” when it is put in a larger context as long as your personal message was not altered, etc.
I am waiting for fallout from something else. Go check out
“Army Gollum” (not sure on the policy here for posting URLs, but you can find it on any major ‘videos’ site). Not only is it truly funny, but it is one of those things that hits you while you are shooting milk out your nose, “Crap…that is one of the more profound thoughts I have heard in awhile…” I am just waiting for some fall out on that one. Some brass or CO is going to come across it, the kid is gonna get in trouble, then he is gonna try to sue or something or other. Still, a couple buddies with cam is not the same as Micheal Moore and a studio.
I’m sorry, but one of the kneejerk reactions that these guys have is to jump on the so-called namecalling as a diversion from the actual point being made. It’s one of the reasons why it never pays to use a derogatory term (even if true) around these nuts because they latch on it like enraged pitbulls.
That said, it IS hypocritical (and typical) for this guy - who is so devoted to Bush - to push for a lawsuit and one of such an outrageous amount. I don’t care how sympathetic he is with his war wounds. It just figures that someone “got” to him in classic Rovian fashion. It seems all too convenient for someone who said one thing on national television to be offended when it is used in the same context in another venue. He may not agree with Michael Moore, but what did Moore do that was against the spirit in which the guy spoke? It’s not like he put words in his mouth, right? I tell you, these guys just don’t quit coming out of the woodwork, do they? Yeesh.
Will this nightmare ever end??
schyster is from the german word Scheisser…as in bitch, or son of a bitch
it does not originate from the shakespearean shylock…a term that the mafia continues to use to this day to describe a money lender…as in “Hesh is a Shy”
The schyster was trying to disarm you….but if you watch a clip of the scene that his client is in….no mention of his clients views towards the war are ever mentioned.
Being included in an anti war movie does not make one anti war.
This suit will be tossed from court.
He got two similar terms confused.
“Shylock” is the word he was trying to accuse you of using.
Shyster’s hardly complimentary, as it’s etymology shows, but except for it’s connection to German, and so Yiddish there’s not really a historical connection to anti-semitism.
Plain old obfuscation or ignorance, take your pick.
great work, Mike, though I do want to underscore what a previous commenter said about that mcdonalds suit.
that was an elderly woman who had to have skin grafts onto her genitals due to boiling hot coffee. it wasn’t really even close to being a frivolous suit. In fact I think that’s worth mentioning whenever a wingnut brings this up as a reason for tort reform, and they almost always do. I tell em to imagine if that was their grandmother. even better, imagine if it was them.
I haven’t heard one give a good response to that yet.
One other thing about the McDonald’s suit - from what I understand, the jury also hated McDonald’s lawyers because they were so smug. They showed no compassion for the woman, whose injuries were real.
“I didn’t know “shyster” was a Jewish epithat”
—
It is or was back in the bad old days. You learn something new every day. People sue for this stuff all the time. If Micheal moore did mis-represent this guys views or use his image in a way he would not support, then he has a case. It goes both ways. Personaly i see no great difference between Anne Coluter and Micheal Moore except of course for the targets.
How dare Michael mOORE challenge Bush. Bush is kills for Jesus! Everyone of you libtards whine cause Bush makes so much money but he spends it killing for Jesus so it is very good!
Every leftwing Buffoon had that fact twisting Moore on thier show when he first put out his fictionary film. He hasn’t done a single film where he had the facts right. His film about Detroit had 40,000 unemployed it was only 5,ooo. He shrugged off the difference. All of this idiots films are like this. As an Independent I love my local Democrats and hate the National Dems. Apparently there are a lot of military hating people out there that don’t care about our personel, or veterans, otherwise they would keep thier mouths shut until they find out what all the facts are. Also not one liberal show highlighted this vet.
Wait - these are fake trolls, right? I mean, between the misspelling and the death threats ….
At any rate, please check out my lineup of the wingnut sites here on the bank surveillance program - note that the WSJ hates America too!
And dude - keep dialing. It’s important.