horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still missing the point.

Thermal said:
He could do so at any point.
Click to expand...

No, he can't. His option to settle the case at any point expired. He now has to negotiate a settlement. And I don't get the impression that "no admission of guilt" is a likely term of the settlement with Chicago at this point.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Still missing the point.



No, he can't. His option to settle the case at any point expired. He now has to negotiate a settlement. And I don't get the impression that "no admission of guilt" is a likely term of the settlement with Chicago at this point.
Click to expand...

Wut? Settle the case = negotiate a settlement = resolve the matter out of court = whatever else you would like to call it. He can do so at any point, including during an ongoing trial.

eta: this is civil court, so the city doesn't care if he admits guilt now. It's just about monetary damages.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Wut? Settle the case = negotiate a settlement = resolve the matter out of court = whatever else you would like to call it. He can do so at any point, including during an ongoing trial.
Click to expand...
Still missing the point.

Thermal said:
eta: this is civil court, so the city doesn't care if he admits guilt now.
Click to expand...
And how do you know the city doesn't care? They sure are talking like they care.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Still missing the point.


And how do you know the city doesn't care? They sure are talking like they care.
Click to expand...

What is your point? You said the option of settling the case had passed, and his only option now is to negotiate a settlement. Those are exactly the same things, and they can be done before or even during litigation. What is the problem?

A conventional settlement agreement does not admit guilt. If the city is digging in because they refuse to settle and demand their day in court, that is a different matter.
 
No they are not the same. At one point he had the option to unilaterally settle the case. He does not have that option any longer.


And I don't care what you consider conventional, the city can insist on an admission of guilt even to settle it out of court.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
No they are not the same. At one point he had the option to unilaterally settle the case. He does not have that option any longer.


And I don't care what you consider conventional, the city can insist on an admission of guilt even to settle it out of court.
Click to expand...

Yes, he could have paid the full amount and been done. He could also offer the full amount now, or more, or less, and still be done if they accept. Both are means of settlement, which just means to resolve the matter prior to trial.
 
Payment prior to the civil case being filed would not be "settlement". It would be payment of a civil penalty or fine. Payment after the court case being filed would be more accurately described as a "settlement" and would likely be for less than the requested damages inside of the petition. In the latter case, the plaintiff would be settling for something less than it was legally entitled to, hence the term. You cannot, at lest in my experience using the terminology, settle a case by paying the exact amount you should have under the statute. IAAL.
 
The city can require a public admission that he concocted the hoax as part of any settlement along with whatever amount of money they will settle for. If this goes to trial and it is found that he concocted the hoax, the public admission will be moot and he will pay more than what he could have settled for.

He should have just kept his mouth shut after the charges were dropped because I’m pretty sure the city sent him a bill partly (mostly?) in order to get some kind of public acknowledgement that he hoaxed them. His public declaration of victory probably pissed them off.

He could have just paid the fine and been free to say whatever he wanted. “I’m paying the fine under protest, but I will be suing to recover it because I’m innocent,” and then quietly slink away. Now he’s in a position where no matter what he does, he basically has to admit to the hoax.

If I were the city, I’d take $1000 and a public admission.
 
Crawtator said:
You cannot, at lest in my experience using the terminology, settle a case by paying the exact amount you should have under the statute. IAAL.
Click to expand...

This is getting silly. Of course he could have settled the case by paying the exact amount he was asked to pay. It's perfectly accurate to use the word "settle" in it's ordinary meaning. Both myself, and now xjx388, are using settle, settled, and settlement perfectly accurately.

It's also largely beside the point I am making.
 
Last edited:
Now that I've read it, the lawsuit isn't even one tenth as entertaining as the one at www.lolsuit.com

Still, nice to see a brief compilation of the evidence they have against him.
 
Crawtator said:
Payment prior to the civil case being filed would not be "settlement". It would be payment of a civil penalty or fine. Payment after the court case being filed would be more accurately described as a "settlement" and would likely be for less than the requested damages inside of the petition. In the latter case, the plaintiff would be settling for something less than it was legally entitled to, hence the term. You cannot, at lest in my experience using the terminology, settle a case by paying the exact amount you should have under the statute. IAAL.
Click to expand...

But here, it is not a civil penalty or fine, nor is there an applicable statute; it is a civil demand for damages, no? 'Settling', as I hear the term means to settle the issue, synonymous with resolving the issue. Normally it would be settled for less than the claimants' full demand, but as used here, 'settle' is an okay-ish descriptor, I think?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
This is getting silly. Of course he could have settled the case by paying the exact amount he was asked to pay. It's perfectly accurate to use the word "settle" in it's ordinary meaning. Both myself, and now xjx388, are using settle, settled, and settlement perfectly accurately.

It's also largely beside the point I am making.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
 
Thermal said:
You keep saying this. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...

That if he had payed originally the city would have had to just take that money and he would be done. Now if he offers to pay the $130,000 they have the option to refuse.

That is the way in the which the situation has changed.

Further to that he is suggesting that he has the impression that the city would refuse such an offer and likely won't accept any offer that doesn't include an admission of guilt. Whether or not that impression is accurate I have no opinion on.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Here's my point.
Click to expand...

Okay, and I got that. I made a similar point earlier, that he would have been prudent to pay the $130k as a business decision and either lay it to rest, or pursue recovery after paying under protest. At least that locks the amount, +/- (other damages could still be awarded either way at a trial).

Lets start over: are you saying the city's demand amounts to a ruse, and they always intended to go to bat for a higher amount? That's certainly plausible, especially considering the 7 day repayment demand. 30 days is more customary.
 
xjx388 said:
The city can require a public admission that he concocted the hoax as part of any settlement along with whatever amount of money they will settle for. If this goes to trial and it is found that he concocted the hoax, the public admission will be moot and he will pay more than what he could have settled for.

He should have just kept his mouth shut after the charges were dropped because I’m pretty sure the city sent him a bill partly (mostly?) in order to get some kind of public acknowledgement that he hoaxed them. His public declaration of victory probably pissed them off.

He could have just paid the fine and been free to say whatever he wanted. “I’m paying the fine under protest, but I will be suing to recover it because I’m innocent,” and then quietly slink away. Now he’s in a position where no matter what he does, he basically has to admit to the hoax.

If I were the city, I’d take $1000 and a public admission.
Click to expand...

Since the charges were dismissed, and not disposed of, any admission of any of the elements of the hoax, could be used to re-introduce the charges.

There is no way he can admit to anything. Any payment would be of the "cheaper to pay than fight" with no admission of guilt.
 
Leftus said:
Since the charges were dismissed, and not disposed of, any admission of any of the elements of the hoax, could be used to re-introduce the charges.

There is no way he can admit to anything. Any payment would be of the "cheaper to pay than fight" with no admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

Not dismissed, nor disposed of, they were "deferred". Not "demurred", maybe some posters are confused?

I don't know what deferred means in legalese, but in plain English "deferred" means "delayed" or postponed. And I think could be used by the state prosecutor to delay action until the Feds have a shot at him. Maybe. In which case he may be 'deferring' the $130K until he finds out whether the Feds will eat all his funds with the cost of a defense.

The Feds won't comment on an active investigation. But they haven't announced that he is no longer a person of interest either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom