.
.
.
A blogger using the Nom de Plum “Johnny Northside” was found liable for $60,000 regarding allegations he made about University of Minnesota employee and community leader Jerry Moore. In the blog Mr. Moore was linked to a mortgage fraud at a time when he had been hired by the University of Minnesota to study mortgage foreclosures. Here is the kicker, the allegations in the blog were ALL TRUE. As a result of these true allegations, Mr. Moore was terminated by the University of Minnesota. Evidently not liking the truth, Mr. Moore turned around and sued Johnny Northside alleging that the blog had “intentionally inflicted emotional distress,” and a jury awarded Mr. Moore $60,000 at trial. Unbelievable.
One of the disintegrating values in America today is the concept of personal responsibility. Nowhere is that disintegration more clearly seen than in a verdict in which someone linked to Mortgage Fraud whines to a court that the truth hurt his feelings AND WINS!!!
It is my understanding that journalistic associations across America and stepping in to participate in the appeal of this case. Hopefully this miscarriage of justice will be overturned preventing a whining baby from recovering for having his feelings hurt over the truth – and by the way, a truth directly relevant to the job for which he was hired.
This is not an example of the demise of western civilization. It is an example of a bad jury. This verdict will be overturned on appeal.
There are any number of legal details that are not part of this article. Until we get them, it’s a waste of time.
I can offer as many “legal details” as you would like Rapscallion – what would you like to know?
To start with, what were the jury instructions? And what were the jury’s findings in regards to each instruction?
Aahh…Minneapolis/St Paul…my wife’s hometown and a place I was at for a few years.
I know Johnny Northside. Met him a few times during my stay in the Twin Cities. He’s is a pretty straight shooter who has been critical of the way the University of Minnesota is managed or mismanaged for years. He’s also been a thorn in the side of the Minneapolis City Council and the Minneapolis Police Dept for years. Johnny is pretty much the Twin Cities version of M. Scott Moxley.
Jerry Moore on the other hand…what would you like to know? I have contacts at the City Pages (the Twin Cities equivalent of the OC Weekly) that can attest that he is as dirty as they come.
If the judge was in Minneapolis, it wouldn’t surprise me that they ruled in favor of the plantiff. Up there, you are pretty much guilty until proven innocent. The justices are real big government statists there.
$60,000! Imagine what the FibOC will get from Pedroza when the case goes to trial in two months!
Do a Google search on J. Beckstrand or Novastar Mortgage if you want to find out how “ethical” Jerry Moore is. J. Beckstrand was an unscrupulous mortgage broker in Minneapolis that Johnny Northside constantly skewered on his blog.
Thanks for congering up some unscrupulous names from my time in Minneapolis, Geoff..LOL
This case is a good example of why attorneys often recommend settling out of court, especially when a rather low amount of money will put the issue to bed. Get a damages case before a jury and the odds are the jury will feel enough sympathy for the plantiff to award him or her something. Double, triply, true if the defendant is a government entity. It is also an illustration of why some attorneys find clients to file claims and suit, in hopes of a settlement out of court for a 5 figure amount rather than throw the dice with a jury. Quite a racket. Trial lawyers bonanza.
Those are the usual talking points about trial lawyers, and of course they are without foundation. In Orange County, particularly, juries are notoriously stingy regarding plaintiffs, as the jury pool has been tainted, by and large, by the group mindset that people who file damages claims are scammers and their lawyers are shysters. In the meantime, the civil defense bar, and especially those who represent insurance companies, just milks this routine, and have no trouble billing excessive amounts instead of working towards a legitimate settlement. It is quite a racket, but you’re blaming the wrong side.
Great insight into your true perspective Rapscallion.
Well, thanks. Was there a point there?
Yes, you someone who views the world from the perspective of the plaintiff’s bar. Nothing right or wrong with that, merely interesting.
Actually, those are the facts–no perspective needed. The last I heard, 80% of medical malpractice cases, for example, are defensed in OC. Considering the difficulty and expense involved in pursuing such cases, (and with the grossly unfair aspects of MICRA) you can’t tell me that 80% of the cases are unmeritorious. So, where do we point the finger?
Not my line of work, but you are not talking facts, you are using them to make an argument and stating the argument as if it is fact. For all I know, 80% of the cases are unmeritorious. I have no idea if the 80% figure you state as “fact” is true.
It was discussed at a recent OCTLA meeting, and looking at Verdicts and Settlements it’s right in there. Does not common sense tell you that this number is aberrant?
Why would common sense tell me that the number is aberrant? Are you saying that it is impossible for a group of people who only make money when they bring and win a case to try and stretch the envelope? Or are we just coming to a point when people are tired of trying to find a scapegoat for every wrong. Just because you have a bad medical outcome doesn’t mean that there was malpractice. I don’t really have a dog in this fight since my only connection to the medical community is as a consumer.
Of course, if you have a bad prognosis that does not mean there was malpractice. However, there are serious mistakes that take place that fall below the standard of care, and the seriously injured patient will likely find little justice in the current system. How this is scapegoating “for every wrong” is beyond me.
Still waiting for the facts about the lead article, by the way.