• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

KDLarsen said:
That is indeed what he should be doing. Alternatively (I think), he should have focused his efforts on showing how the county court erred in its application of the law.
Click to expand...

If you wouldn't mind, how were they in error (forgive any ignorance I have for Danish law)?
 
DGM, if you watch the YT clip in post 407 it's pretty clear his intentions were to only give his presentation to his witnesses and judges in the hope he will gain followers.

I don't think he even understood why he was going to court.
 
Spanx said:
DGM, if you watch the YT clip in post 407 it's pretty clear his intentions were to only give his presentation to his witnesses and judges in the hope he will gain followers.

I don't think he even understood why he was going to court.
Click to expand...
I did watch that. I also know that the Danish laws are somewhat strict on what a journalist can say about a person without having to justify their comments. Harrit seemed to be playing on this angle.
 
DGM said:
If you wouldn't mind, how were they in error (forgive any ignorance I have for Danish law)?
Click to expand...
They weren't, but at least it wouldn't have been a waste of the court's time, seeing as the judges will pretty much ignore all the crap Harrit presented instead.

And if Harrit had realised that, he could have saved the money he will now have to pay to cover Willemoes' attorney costs.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
They weren't, but at least it wouldn't have been a waste of the court's time, seeing as the judges will pretty much ignore all the crap Harrit presented instead.

And if Harrit had realised that, he could have saved the money he will now have to pay to cover Willemoes' attorney costs.
Click to expand...

No chance of a despute resolution with Harrit, he went the whole hog and presented non-sense.
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
They weren't, but at least it wouldn't have been a waste of the court's time, seeing as the judges will pretty much ignore all the crap Harrit presented instead.

And if Harrit had realised that, he could have saved the money he will now have to pay to cover Willemoes' attorney costs.
Click to expand...
From my understanding. Harrit screwed himself by soliciting the journalist response. He put himself out there to be judged. Willemoes did not go after Harrit he was only commenting on what he felt was in public record. If Willemoes had started this out of whole cloth without Harrit initiating the event he would have had to support his comments as to the content.

This is my understanding of the lower court ruling.
 
DGM said:
From my understanding. Harrit screwed himself by soliciting the journalist response. He put himself out there to be judged.
Click to expand...

Specifically, he put himself out there to be judged by journalists -- people who cannot reasonably be expected to apply expert scientific judgment and who reach large audiences. Hence he has to consider the consequences of inexpert judgment rendered widely -- a judgment he explicitly invited.

Naturally I'm sympathetic to the idea that a journalist should have a suitable basis for what he publishes, and I gather that Danish law is strict on this point. So I guess we'll see what the judges determine would be a suitable basis for the statement. It seemed to me more like an offhand comment, and I surmise a suitable basis might include what was generally known or being said about Harrit.

I don't know how Danish appeals work, but I'm betting that rehashing his case in chief during oral arguments was probably not advisable. I'm betting he should have presented arguments showing how the lower court erred. If, as it has been reported here, he was simply looking to get his 9/11 arguments heard in some sort of court, then I bet the judges will disregard all or most of it.
 
The one thing that is for certain, nobody knows what the judges decision is although I expect the Truther spin will include much hope for the verdict being in Harrit's favour.

IMO for what it's worth, the "evidence" presented by Harrit is not relevant to the case and cannot be verified as factual. The so called evidence was created by Harrit and verified by Harrit, I'm not so sure a judge would take this seriously. They may however do a bit of their own research on Harrit and find he only has a standing on conspiracy sites.

Who knows what they will do or think ?
 
Thank you Steen (edit) and Claus.

Sounds like Harrit continued where he left off in the county court, where iirc both the judge and Søren K. Willemoes' attourney had to assist him in the proper legal language.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steen... It's hard to understand exactly the vibes of the court proceeding, but it seems as if Niels was trying to present his arguments for NT and CD as the being valid and so referring to him for making those arguments as a crackpot was libelous. He needed, to show the court, he believed that his work was "serious science"... It hardly seems possible in a brief court hearing. NH has earned the label of a bit of a loose canon because his work in not rigorous and he ventures into areas he has no expertise especially political motives such as the "inside job". I think he will not prevail in this case.
 
Steen Svanholm said:
Claus Larsen and I (911facts.dk) were at the High Court hearings yesterday.

Read our take on it here in English:

http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023

Kind regards,
Steen
Click to expand...

Thanks, it's good to hear from someone who was actually there.

Wish I had been there, I'm looking forward to Harrit's youtube video which should be out soon, let's see how the two versions of events compare.

So glad Harrit bought his bag of dust (what was he thinking of )
 
I didn't know you were going to witness the court hearings - excellent that you you did!

Wow. I understand now why Villemoes feels sorry for Harrit.
They collected 15,000 US$ for Harrit's legal troubles, and he doesn't hire an attorney to look up libel cases for him?? What tosse is so stupid??
 
So interesting.

I certainly hope that we can keep calling that crackpot a crackpot!



The vigor with which he is referred to as "professor" and "doctor" is by the way amusing.

His level of education is "Licentiate", which is something along the way of a forerunner of the Ph.D.
Licentiate degrees generally have fewer requirements than Ph.Ds


To be called a "doctor" in Denmark, you have to have a higher doctorate level..... He does not have such a degree.

With regards to the "professor", he has as far as I can see, never held the position of professor anywhere.
His job description has been "lecturer", which is often translated as "assistant professor", but is a far cry from being a "full professor".

His area of science was by the way protein chemistry and organic chemistry.
http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=da&q=niels+harrit+&btnG=
 
Steen Svanholm said:
Claus Larsen and I (911facts.dk) were at the High Court hearings yesterday.

Read our take on it here in English:

http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023

Kind regards,
Steen
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot, Claus and Steen.

It's like déjà vu all over again. Pretty much the same that happened with Pedro Amorós here, except that Amorós had a lawyer, who focused on the authenticity of the "faces of Bélmez", trying to prove that Amorós' theories were sound and that the reporter (Javier Cavanilles) had no basis for saying that the faces were a fraud, rather than on what was actually judged (libel).

Of course, the sentence didn't rule on the authenticity at all. It was not its task.

And Harrit is down the same road.
 
Oystein said:
I didn't know you were going to witness the court hearings - excellent that you you did!

Wow. I understand now why Villemoes feels sorry for Harrit.
They collected 15,000 US$ for Harrit's legal troubles, and he doesn't hire an attorney to look up libel cases for him?? What tosse is so stupid??
Click to expand...

Oystein, do you know for sure that they managed to raise that much? I know they aimed at that amount but how can we know they reached it?
 
Steen Svanholm said:
Oystein, do you know for sure that they managed to raise that much? I know they aimed at that amount but how can we know they reached it?
Click to expand...


Here's a link to the request to Help Raise $15K

And here's the update saying they'd reached their fundraising goal

It's anybody's guess as to where the money came from: genuine donations from supporters? Existing AE911Truth money cannily shuffled around/re-allocated? Single donation from a rich madman? It wouldn't surprise me if a only fraction of the full amount was raised, and it also wouldn't surprise me if no money at all was raised.



(good work on the coverage of Harrit's court appearance, an entertaining read)
 
Last edited:
Steen Svanholm said:
Claus Larsen and I (911facts.dk) were at the High Court hearings yesterday.

Read our take on it here in English:

http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023

Kind regards,
Steen
Click to expand...

Thanks! The delusions of grandeur are fun to see in print:

He brought up a point about Newton and Galileo, to which he said “Perhaps we missed that point”, a point he himself should have made in the beginning.

...

Harrit rounded off by bringing up Galileo, whose sad story of ecclesiastical persecution and humiliation was not comparable at all to Harrit’s own situation, because Harrit certainly acknowledged that he was just a lowly retired scientist.
Click to expand...

:sdl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom