Jim Sterling in court.

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Albino Boo said:
Exley97 said:
Albino Boo said:
TrulyBritish said:
Albino Boo said:
There is no smoke without fire is not a defence. If you make a specific allegation then you have to be able to back it up with admissible evidence.
Ok, sounds fair. So is it possible for Digihom to actually win this suit? Just seems odd the court wouldn't account for their behaviour outside of this matter, but then I don't think they've actually done anything that's illegal have they? It's not illegal to "Asset Flip" as far as I know, so unless there's something illegal about them selling under multiple names? I mean, I'd say they're ethically wrong but that's not the same.
To be honest, I have no idea. I dont know the wording of the Arizona law so I don't know how shaded the burden of proof is for the case. The basic principle is that Sterling has to prove that his allegations are true and Digihom have to demonstrate to what degree they have been damaged by the allegations alone and not legitimate criticism.

Not accounting for issues outside the matter in hand is standard principle of English common law for the last 1200 years. It works both ways, someone with history of making false allegations and issuing retractions can be assumed to have made a false allegation again.
Actually, in libel/slander/defamation cases, it's the plaintiff/accuser who must prove that the statements made by the defendant are false. So in this case, Digital Homicide has to prove that it did not lift assets or steal artwork, not the other the way around. Also, DH has to prove that Sterling's statements caused the company harm, and that the statements were made without sufficient fact-checking or verification. In other words, if a judge determines that it's reasonable, based on the information available at the time, for Sterling to believe that DH stole assets, then he or she will likely toss the suit.

Two more things worth mentioning -- First, in at least one example, Sterling corrected one of his stories/videos to reflect the fact that some of the images were sold on Shutterstock, so the allegation that the images in question were taken without permission form the original artist was clarified/corrected. And usually, if a false claim or report is corrected within a timely manner, it's hard to prove libel (of course this depends on a judge's definition of "timely").

And second, I don't know how this will shake out, but it's possible that DH could be considered as what's known as a "limited-purpose public figure" since the company has been very public and outspoken about its spat with Sterling, which could be seen as courting the media limelight. And the standard for proving libel in cases of public figures, limited purpose or otherwise, is VERY hard in the U.S. In addition to the standards listed above, public figures must also prove "malice," i.e. that the person or publication that libeled (or slandered) them did so either knowing the information was false or with reckless disregard for facts, or that there was definitive intent to harm. I don't know that a judge would accept the argument that DH is a limited-purpose public figure, but if it was accepted, then DH's chances of winning, which were already slim, become much, much worse.
Small but significant point Arizona allows Sterling to be sued even if there is a retraction.
I think most if not all states allow that, but a retraction makes it harder to win a case, and it can have a diminshing effect on any damages that are awarded.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/arizona-defamation-law

There are retraction statutes for defamation law, but they usually dictate that a plaintiff must first ask for a retraction/correction before filing the lawsuit, which is the case in Arizona (or at least, it was -- the statute has apparently been muddied over the years).
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Ryotknife said:
Dizchu said:
Digital Homicide said:
Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.
Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?
...A woman successfully sued for 55 million dollars for emotional damage because someone recorded her while she was naked in a hotel. Somehow, the emotional damage she suffered from people seeing her naked is worth 5-10 times more than the average human life (EPA = 9 million, FDA = 8 million, DoT = 6 million)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html?_r=0

Emotional damages is boo coo bucks. If she lost her legs instead, she might get 1/5 of that money instead like this man.

https://www.montlick.com/montlick-blog/medical-malpractice/2093-man-files-10-million-lawsuit-after-weight-loss-surgery-leads-to-leg-amputation

Just think, you will work your ass off your entire life and not see even an remote fraction of that money over the course of your life, but if someone recorded you naked you would be set for life.
You do realized there is no way either of them saw that much money, in fact its certain that it will be reduced in appeals. It's not unusual for the amount to be reduced by 90% or the verdict turned around completely.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Odbarc said:
I hope Jim Fucking Sterling Son makes a video about his adventure through court and what a charade the entire process was for them to try because of the massive butthurt they felt and ran off to sue.
At a guess, he will probably not be able to do so until after the trial has been completed, if then. When you're being sued for inciting your legions of fans to harass someone (or at least not doing enough to stop your fans), making videos about DigiHom's bullshit would probably not look good in court.
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Exley97 said:
I think most if not all states allow that, but a retraction makes it harder to win a case, and it can have a diminshing effect on any damages that are awarded.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/arizona-defamation-law

There are retraction statutes for defamation law, but they usually dictate that a plaintiff must first ask for a retraction/correction before filing the lawsuit, which is the case in Arizona (or at least, it was -- the statute has apparently been muddied over the years).
Quick question, the link provided states in the "elements of defamation" part at the beginning:
"3) the statement was published to a third party;"
Where would a personal blog like thejimquisition.com stand in that context?
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
TrulyBritish said:
Exley97 said:
I think most if not all states allow that, but a retraction makes it harder to win a case, and it can have a diminshing effect on any damages that are awarded.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/arizona-defamation-law

There are retraction statutes for defamation law, but they usually dictate that a plaintiff must first ask for a retraction/correction before filing the lawsuit, which is the case in Arizona (or at least, it was -- the statute has apparently been muddied over the years).
Quick question, the link provided states in the "elements of defamation" part at the beginning:
"3) the statement was published to a third party;"
Where would a personal blog like thejimquisition.com stand in that context?
It's a personal blog, yes, but these elements were devised in a pre-Internet era where the concept of a personal blog didn't exist. Sterling's a member of the media. Maybe not a journalist, but certainly a media member/game critic. The fact that Jimquisition is his platform and not a third-party will not protect him from a libel claim.

And just to be perfectly clear, you can be sued for defamation whether you post libelous statements on a blog, an online new site, or a forum. I don't think the venue or third-party platform matters much. Here's an example of a libel suit filed against anonymous commenters on a forum: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury-awards-13-million-texas-defamation-suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071

And if anyone is interested, Patrick Klepek has apparently reviewed the docs and has a detailed description of the allegations (which IMO are flimsy at best) on Kotaku. Klepek notes that the complaint is very vague and sloppy (no surprise since DH filed it on its own with no attorney), and he also offers this interesting bit:

"This haphazard approach characterizes much of Digital Homicide?s response since this drama began in 2014. Just last night, a reporter from another outlet contacted me about their own interaction with the studio. When that reporter asked Digital Homicide for comment about the lawsuit, the company forwarded them my e-mail chain and told them to refer to that. In over 10 years of reporting, I?ve never seen that happen."
http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317

Wow...

EDITED for clarity
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Dec 11, 2012
2,384
16
13
Musou Tensei said:
I would wish for them to win but that is most probably not gonna happen :(
What a peculiar thing to say. Because... hang on, let me quote you from another thread:
Musou Tensei said:
I despise censorship
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.935467.23549672

And yet, here you are wanting a two-bit and inept game developer to win a lawsuit against a media critic, all because the media critic ...gasp... did his job and criticised something. Just let that sink in for a moment and imagine the precedent it would set.

I guess those anti-censorship beliefs aren't so important afterall?
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Exley97 said:
Yes. He's a member of the media. Maybe not a journalist, but certainly a media member/game critic.

And just to be perfectly clear, you can be sued for defamation whether you post libelous statements on a blog, an online new site, or a forum. I don't think the venue or third-party platform matters much. Here's an example of a libel suit filed against anonymous commenters on a forum: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury-awards-13-million-texas-defamation-suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071

And if anyone is interested, Patrick Klepek has apparently reviewed the docs and has a detailed description of the allegations (which IMO are flimsy at best) on Kotaku. Klepek notes that the complaint is very vague and sloppy (no surprise since DH filed it on its own with no attorney), and he also offers this interesting bit:

"This haphazard approach characterizes much of Digital Homicide?s response since this drama began in 2014. Just last night, a reporter from another outlet contacted me about their own interaction with the studio. When that reporter asked Digital Homicide for comment about the lawsuit, the company forwarded them my e-mail chain and told them to refer to that. In over 10 years of reporting, I?ve never seen that happen."
http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317

Wow...
Thanks, so in this case I guess broadly the internet is the third party, it just stood out as an odd thing on the page.

It's really strange to see two grown men act like this, I'm not surprised some people are theorising that at least one of them could be legitimately unwell they're that deluded in what they're doing. Some of the stuff that they claim happen (such as Jim referring to them as "the Romino Brothers" apparently being him trying to imply they're mafia like and them claiming people specifically sent Jehovah's Witnesses to their door) makes them seem a little paranoid. It's even more troubling when I remember that Robert at least has a wife and kids. I hope they don't get badly affected by all this drama.
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
Musou Tensei said:
I would wish for them to win but that is most probably not gonna happen :(
... why? (I mean why would you want them to win I don't need an explanation of why they probably won't because that's kind of obvious)

Do you just not Jim Sterling or do you genuinely think DigiHom are in the right in this case?
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
Worgen said:
Ryotknife said:
Dizchu said:
Digital Homicide said:
Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.
Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?
...A woman successfully sued for 55 million dollars for emotional damage because someone recorded her while she was naked in a hotel. Somehow, the emotional damage she suffered from people seeing her naked is worth 5-10 times more than the average human life (EPA = 9 million, FDA = 8 million, DoT = 6 million)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html?_r=0

Emotional damages is boo coo bucks. If she lost her legs instead, she might get 1/5 of that money instead like this man.

https://www.montlick.com/montlick-blog/medical-malpractice/2093-man-files-10-million-lawsuit-after-weight-loss-surgery-leads-to-leg-amputation

Just think, you will work your ass off your entire life and not see even an remote fraction of that money over the course of your life, but if someone recorded you naked you would be set for life.
You do realized there is no way either of them saw that much money, in fact its certain that it will be reduced in appeals. It's not unusual for the amount to be reduced by 90% or the verdict turned around completely.
according to the article, she sued for 75 million, but was awarded 55 million. Im aware of parties settling out of court for significantly less, and im aware of lawsuits where they dont get the money they are asking for (such as this one). It would not surprise me if high balling is a common tactic.

I am not aware of cases where the lawsuit is reduced by 90% after a jury awarded a certain amount to her. I could understand that being the case in instances where the offending party doesnt have anywhere near that much money, such as an individual.

In the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case, the person originally only asked for 20,000 dollars from McDonalds. In the end, the court "awarded" her 3 million dollars. Awarding suggests me to that is the amount she is given (before fees and taxes of course), but I am not a lawyer.

If you could shed some light on this topic, I would be interested if you dont mind. I do stand behind my opinion that how lawsuits are done in this country is pretty effed up.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Heh. You know that line about "there's no such thing as bad publicity"?

It isn't true.

Hope you've enjoyed being a crap games publisher, DH, because I don't think that's going to be possible any more.
 

doggy go 7

New member
Jul 28, 2010
261
0
0
Hades said:
There's an update OP, they've taken away the crowdsourcing button "Due to harassers donating amounts specifically to cause charges rather than donations and charge backs to cause financial fees we will be seeking another avenue for donations."

Also they've put a responce to the feedback up (quoted in full in the spoiler)

After reading the onslaught of feedback I wanted to write a quick explanation here of the context of the current lawsuit. I have seen countless posts stating this lawsuit is in relation to opinion and criticism when in fact it has nothing to do with it. This is not about someone not liking our games this is about someone printing defamatory and false information to you the public and convincing you something is true when it is not and causing massive damage to us in the wake. This is not about you as a normal individual hopping onto the internet and posting an opinion that may upset someone. This is about holding media figures and news outlets to a sense of duty to print factual information not just something to collect views and hits from.

Think of it like this, when you log on to the internet and say whatever comes to mind about someone else it's like walking down the street and you may accidently or purposely walk into someone. Most of the time it's just shrugged off with a hey watch where you are going. Now when you are a media figure printing articles with information you say is fact with 300,000 followers you are no longer just a person walking down the street you are a semi and can cause extreme damage to those you run into. Defamation has become even more relevant with the boom of the internet not just in the context of amount of articles but the way in which those articles are distributed. When a newspaper printed an article that held defamatory material it was distributed and that was it since that days paper had a limited quantity to distribute. Articles and videos of todays news are in fact a neverending printing press exposing the same defamatory statements over and over to new individuals every single day.

If you stop and think about what I have said here you will realize this is to protect you as well, you could be the next person an irresponsible semi driver plows into on the internet highway.

The gist being that Jim just casually said some lies (despite accurately reporting on facts) and thus ruined their lives unfairly (as opposed to criticising sub-par products). Obviously they're still wrong, but I think this is the best insight into just how deluded these guys are. I particularly like the last line
If you stop and think about what I have said here you will realize this is to protect you as well
As opposed to us stopping to think about what they said and realising that it's utter bullshit.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Musou Tensei said:
I would wish for them to win but that is most probably not gonna happen :(
Why? Digital Homicide winning would show just how broken and stupid the law can be.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Worgen said:
Ryotknife said:
Dizchu said:
Digital Homicide said:
Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.
Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?
...A woman successfully sued for 55 million dollars for emotional damage because someone recorded her while she was naked in a hotel. Somehow, the emotional damage she suffered from people seeing her naked is worth 5-10 times more than the average human life (EPA = 9 million, FDA = 8 million, DoT = 6 million)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html?_r=0

Emotional damages is boo coo bucks. If she lost her legs instead, she might get 1/5 of that money instead like this man.

https://www.montlick.com/montlick-blog/medical-malpractice/2093-man-files-10-million-lawsuit-after-weight-loss-surgery-leads-to-leg-amputation

Just think, you will work your ass off your entire life and not see even an remote fraction of that money over the course of your life, but if someone recorded you naked you would be set for life.
You do realized there is no way either of them saw that much money, in fact its certain that it will be reduced in appeals. It's not unusual for the amount to be reduced by 90% or the verdict turned around completely.
according to the article, she sued for 75 million, but was awarded 55 million. Im aware of parties settling out of court for significantly less, and im aware of lawsuits where they dont get the money they are asking for (such as this one). It would not surprise me if high balling is a common tactic.

I am not aware of cases where the lawsuit is reduced by 90% after a jury awarded a certain amount to her. I could understand that being the case in instances where the offending party doesnt have anywhere near that much money, such as an individual.
Actually, the hot coffee case, liebeck v. Mcdonald's restaurants, saw the original amount awarded to the plaintiff reduced by 80% by the judge.

Ryotknife said:
In the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case, the person originally only asked for 20,000 dollars from McDonalds. In the end, the court "awarded" her 3 million dollars. Awarding suggests me to that is the amount she is given (before fees and taxes of course), but I am not a lawyer.
It was actually jury that award $2.7 million in punitive damages, based on the plaintiff attorney's suggestion that Mcdonald's fork over two days worth of total coffee sales. As stated above, the judge reduced the punitive damages, so with compensatory damages, the plaintiff received around $650,000 total. Mcdonald's appealed, and they later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Here's a pretty interesting NYT video recapping the case and the common misconceptions about it. There's also a great documentary on the case called "Hot Coffee" that not so subtly suggests Mcdonalds and tort reform supporters ran a smear campaign on the woman and generated slanted media coverage of the case to undermine the complaint.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?playlistId=100000002148738
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Worgen said:
Ryotknife said:
Dizchu said:
Digital Homicide said:
Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.
Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?
...A woman successfully sued for 55 million dollars for emotional damage because someone recorded her while she was naked in a hotel. Somehow, the emotional damage she suffered from people seeing her naked is worth 5-10 times more than the average human life (EPA = 9 million, FDA = 8 million, DoT = 6 million)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html?_r=0

Emotional damages is boo coo bucks. If she lost her legs instead, she might get 1/5 of that money instead like this man.

https://www.montlick.com/montlick-blog/medical-malpractice/2093-man-files-10-million-lawsuit-after-weight-loss-surgery-leads-to-leg-amputation

Just think, you will work your ass off your entire life and not see even an remote fraction of that money over the course of your life, but if someone recorded you naked you would be set for life.
You do realized there is no way either of them saw that much money, in fact its certain that it will be reduced in appeals. It's not unusual for the amount to be reduced by 90% or the verdict turned around completely.
according to the article, she sued for 75 million, but was awarded 55 million. Im aware of parties settling out of court for significantly less, and im aware of lawsuits where they dont get the money they are asking for (such as this one). It would not surprise me if high balling is a common tactic.

I am not aware of cases where the lawsuit is reduced by 90% after a jury awarded a certain amount to her. I could understand that being the case in instances where the offending party doesnt have anywhere near that much money, such as an individual.

In the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case, the person originally only asked for 20,000 dollars from McDonalds. In the end, the court "awarded" her 3 million dollars. Awarding suggests me to that is the amount she is given (before fees and taxes of course), but I am not a lawyer.

If you could shed some light on this topic, I would be interested if you dont mind. I do stand behind my opinion that how lawsuits are done in this country is pretty effed up.

I don't know why the McDonald's case is so often misquoted, it has to be one of the most misunderstood court cases out there. She wasn't awarded 3 million by the court, the jury decided on 3 million and the judge reduced it to somewhere around 600 thousand instead. These cases can be ridiculous, but it is often purposely misrepresented by media only reporting what the jury awards and not actually what the judge decides and enforces.

Though yes, the court system is sometimes as ridiculous as it seems, but the media doesn't help by pushing false numbers on us and forgetting to follow up with the actual award amounts handed down by the court rather than just whatever a jury decides. In most cases the judge only has to take what the jury says under advisement, the jury gets to decide guilt/innocence to an extent, but they do not get final say on award amounts for damages, the judge can agree with the jury but he's under no obligation to do so, the news tends to prefer reporting the jury award amount for obvious reasons.

OT: even if the lawsuit has little chance of succeeding, digital homicide is likely still wasting Jim's time and money, I can only hope for a quick resolution, or that they drop the charges when they realize no one is going to pay for a lawyer for them, even frivoulous lawsuits can be expensive for the winning side. My only hope is that those brothers are not so morally bankrupt that they would knowingly file frivoulous claims just to hurt Jim financially by dragging him into hiring professional legal help while they just represent themselves.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
There's an update OP, they've taken away the crowdsourcing button "Due to harassers donating amounts specifically to cause charges rather than donations and charge backs to cause financial fees we will be seeking another avenue for donations."

Also they've put a responce to the feedback up (quoted in full in the spoiler)
Yeah I had to laugh when I read that, not sure about the true legal stand point, a lot of folk here seem to be referencing one or two specific articles posted by JS that claim they stole assets when in fact they had legit bought them and even with a retraction DH still have a potential case in certain fucked up parts of the US. In that case well yeah as fucked up as it is and seeing just how retarded the legal system can get sometimes then yes maybe just maybe they have a case, like I said a totally messed up slap yourself in the face because you just can't believe it kind of case but a case all the same.

The thing is the message they have posted on their website reads like JS has run a controlled and directed hatred campaign aimed solely at DH which any one who's watched this article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPZIRPTeu4

knows is utter bs, you could even go as far as to say he liked the game certainly not the actions of someone as they are trying to portrait him.

No matter reading the above quoted statement seems to suggest that these bunch of clowns will be lucky to even reach the funding goal needed to mount the case.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Exley97 said:
EternallyBored said:
Thank you both for your comments. Although it does make it harder to comment on future lawsuits if the media reports on the topic are sensationalized.

American journalism!
As an American journalist myself, after watching that NYT video again just now, we absolutely deserve that criticism. What was done to that woman was fucking shameful, and no one in the media, let alone politicians like John Kasich, ever apologized for getting the story so wrong. Certainly not one of profession's better moments.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Ryotknife said:
Worgen said:
Ryotknife said:
Dizchu said:
Digital Homicide said:
Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.
Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?
...A woman successfully sued for 55 million dollars for emotional damage because someone recorded her while she was naked in a hotel. Somehow, the emotional damage she suffered from people seeing her naked is worth 5-10 times more than the average human life (EPA = 9 million, FDA = 8 million, DoT = 6 million)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html?_r=0

Emotional damages is boo coo bucks. If she lost her legs instead, she might get 1/5 of that money instead like this man.

https://www.montlick.com/montlick-blog/medical-malpractice/2093-man-files-10-million-lawsuit-after-weight-loss-surgery-leads-to-leg-amputation

Just think, you will work your ass off your entire life and not see even an remote fraction of that money over the course of your life, but if someone recorded you naked you would be set for life.
You do realized there is no way either of them saw that much money, in fact its certain that it will be reduced in appeals. It's not unusual for the amount to be reduced by 90% or the verdict turned around completely.
according to the article, she sued for 75 million, but was awarded 55 million. Im aware of parties settling out of court for significantly less, and im aware of lawsuits where they dont get the money they are asking for (such as this one). It would not surprise me if high balling is a common tactic.

I am not aware of cases where the lawsuit is reduced by 90% after a jury awarded a certain amount to her. I could understand that being the case in instances where the offending party doesnt have anywhere near that much money, such as an individual.

In the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case, the person originally only asked for 20,000 dollars from McDonalds. In the end, the court "awarded" her 3 million dollars. Awarding suggests me to that is the amount she is given (before fees and taxes of course), but I am not a lawyer.

If you could shed some light on this topic, I would be interested if you dont mind. I do stand behind my opinion that how lawsuits are done in this country is pretty effed up.
Actually the McDonalds suit was reduced to about 640,000. Unfortunately I can't remember which suit was reduced by so much, I think it was a texas medical suit that awarded the person like 100 mil or so then it got either bumped down to like 100,000 or overturned. I just don't remember but I think it was used as an excuse to push through medical tort reform down here.
 

CritialGaming

New member
Mar 25, 2015
2,170
0
0
They are now sue Jim Sterling, for calling them out on their bullshit. How the fuck can anyone look at this seriously. I hope Sterling and his lawyer eat this company alive.

http://kotaku.com/angered-game-developer-sues-game-critic-jim-sterling-fo-1765484317 Here is the article.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2016cv00604/969057 Here is the link to the lawsuit filing.

Fuckers man.

This post is the beginning of another thread on this topic merged with this one. Some posts from that thread may not line up with posts from this thread. -Mod