• 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

jaydeehess said:
So they did not need as long as they thought then? Why do I feel that they decision is already made and is just being typed up and checked for spelling and grammar?
Click to expand...

I am sure they just need to paste a couple of standard paragraphs and insert names and dates. Something like "nothing new, plaintiff defaults, decision upheld". Not much need to check spelling an grammar then.
 
Oystein said:
German Law is not Danish Law, but probably more closely related than Common Law.

German Law knows two different legal remedies to a first instance decision in penal law cases:

a) Berufung (Appeal)
b) Revision

The Revision seems to be more like the Common Law appeal: In it, no evidence is introduced (exceptions exist), only the application of laws is tested. If the Revision finds the original decision to be faulty, the case is passed back to the original court. Otherwise, if the decision is upheld, ot becomes effective..
Click to expand...
That is as close to the Common Law position as you will get.

Oystein said:
A Berufung allows testing of both legal and factual arguments...
Click to expand...
Which potentially raises all sorts of problems when viewed from the perspective of someone trained in Common Law (AU version). Two examples will suffice - (1) it reduces the authority of the "decider of fact" (2) it risks "double jeopardy". Which is why my AU law trained brain is impatiently awaiting an explanation of both the case on appeal and the principles of Danish law.
Oystein said:
I do not know which of the two is more common in matters such as libel cases, and would not want to translate more details from these articles (difficult back and forth about what is possible, allowed, mandatory when...) without properly understanding all the terms.
Click to expand...
Which is my main reason for not doing my own research. Not the "legalese" but the primary language translation. Neither of my fluent versions of English (AU and UK(Yorkshire)) can handle translations from other languages.
Oystein said:
Legalese is foreign in any language, I fear!
Click to expand...
The big danger is the words that look familiar but have different meanings when used in law:
a) What the law calls an "objective test of factual evidence" would horrify an engineer or scientist;
b) The way legal process uses the term "burden of proof" can look one sided to those of us who accept "your claim - you prove it" (It isn't BTW but it sure looks one sided to any unwary lay person.) (A couple of members posting here will be familiar with some parody poeing on another forum which relies on that. Cue: Mark F and "HotRodDeluxe")
 
JayUtah said:
Agreed; a lot of our speculation is based on what we individually understand from Common Law, which has been shown in a number of ways in this thread to differ from Danish law. It would be helpful for a Danish lawyer to authoritatively analyze this trial.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Which is why I'm being very reserved in speculation. The "exceptions" allowing new evidence in the Common Law setting are rare and esoteric enough to confuse.

Without trying to cross apply CL principles to Danish code law.

Hence my "wait and see" policy.
 
Hard to know the motive here. Certainly whatever the result it will be spun by the truth movement to suit their mission... They will declare victory... as.. the fix was in and here is yet another example of what we have been saying about "officials" and the media. Or maybe some sort... we got to show the evidence in a court of law for the first time and so the world will take note.
Of course no one likes to be publicly called a jerk or insulted. And for the most part that would be bad form and even libel. But many public figures are the "victims" of all manner of insults and it goes with the territory of being a public figure. Madonna and Justin Bieber can do much when they are slatted.
But there is also the notion of establishing the "truth" of the truther claims... I don't dismiss them out of hand, but I don't think they have made a compelling case and most of their assertions are born of ignorance, poor observations, bias and distrust of authorities and so on. Free fall is just a misunderstood sign of CD... Or even near FF. No court of law will establish the truth in technical terms of what happened to the WTC. Courts don't do that.. and juries don't decide "science" and engineering.
I doubt if in a debate the two sides could even stipulate to ANY of the facts about what happened. And how can you sort of what happened if you can't agree on almost any of the observations and data?

Blame this on Jones and his crazy ideas...
 
I am in no way a lawyer. I wonder if the fact that the courthouse only had seats for 16 spectators and (thus the case was apparently given very little importance) might have a bearing on the informality of the judges and their "allowing" new evidence.
 
From reading various legal information websites, my impression is that when appealing a case to the Landsret, the trial essentially starts over. The two parties may introduce new evidence and they may rely on what was introduced as evidence or given as testimony in the first trial.

Jan Utzon was introduced as a witness in both trials, but in the second trial Harrit apparently realised that Utzon had already said all that was necessary in the first trial, so he was dismissed without saying a word.
 
Surprise, surprise: Harrit lost!

The Harrit fanclub on Facebook announced this 40 minutes ago:

Niels.Harrit.appreciation.society said:
The High Court have supported the verdict from City Court, Niels Harrit suffered a juridical loss. But he have how won in other ways, to mention one is the enormous support he have felt from people in the global 9/11 Truth Movement.
Thanks for your support, the fight to reveal the lies that started The War On Terror continues!!!
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the news Oystein.

The legal process under Danish Code law is still my main interest in this matter.

I'll have to wait till we see an English translation of the actual judgement - preferably with some interpretation by a legal person who comprehends both Danish and Common Law practices.
 
My attempt at a rough translation from the official statement (in Danish here):

The decision as to whether or not the statements made by Søren Villemoes are punishable by law must rely on the motive and context, which they are a part of.
[some quotes from the article, which criticizes the manager of a museum and a description of their context]

The article has the character of a critical opinion piece, regarding questions of social interest.

The court finds that the comments made by Søren Villemoes critical and provocative statements in the given context must be interpreted as Søren Villemoes' person opinion about the viewpoint of Niels Harrit and others, and thus a characterization of their opinions without also containing an evaluation of Niels Harrit's subjective conditions [NOTE: unsure of that particular translation]. Therefore, the use of the expression "Crackpots" ("tosser") cannot be interpreted [neither isolated or in context of the article] to be a violation against [the law of libel] as interpreted by article 10 in the European Human Rights Convention
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
Surprise, surprise: Harrit lost!

The Harrit fanclub on Facebook announced this 40 minutes ago:
Click to expand...


Über fanboy Josef Hanji writes this in the comments on that Facebook page (as per Google Translate with a few adjustments)
Josef Hanji said:
Weekendavisen [the newspaper] and Villemoes probably got some scars from this legal battle, if I were them I would not feel especially confident that the case has won them more prestige and support than the one Niels Harrit experienced.
Not least the collection of 15,000 US dollars over a week's time, has shown the backing Niels Harrit has in the world - and the support helps him now, where he also has to pay the defendants' legal costs.

There has been set a historic milestone, we must not forget - that the courts are politically controlled in this country is nothing new, the tripartite division of power has long, though not always worked in a symbiosis that oppressed the common man.

Separated tripartite division of power? - Sorry folks, it's just some crap we pour into the ears of the students in social studies lessons
Click to expand...


There is also a comment about how "the regime of Denmark decides who gets to win cases against them" :)
 
Sore losers - as always, as expected.

Somehow, Hanji fails to see that the Court argues the case and the law, and discusses what is and isn't "libel" under the law - things Harrit forgot to do in the courtroom.

Nice to see Harrit has been ordered to "pay the defendants' legal costs".
 
Oystein said:
Sore losers - as always, as expected.

Somehow, Hanji fails to see that the Court argues the case and the law, and discusses what is and isn't "libel" under the law - things Harrit forgot to do in the courtroom.

Nice to see Harrit has been ordered to "pay the defendants' legal costs".
Click to expand...

Wow, I foresee a lucrative way to separate Truthers from their Gage lunch money donations. I know for a fact there are Skeptics about with law degrees...
 
KDLarsen said:
A brief blurb on the days events in court, courtesy of the English-language version of the University of Copenhagen student newspaper:
http://universitypost.dk/article/courtroom-drama-911-crackpot-libel-case
...
Click to expand...

I had emailed the author of that article, Mike Young, a few questions right after ot came out, and he replied today.
I won't indulge in details yet, just want to put out two things that slightly soften a stance I have taken so far:

He affirms that Harrit did discuss the legal definition of "libel" under Danish law wrt to the case at hand; and the judges showed some "interest, perhaps even sympathy towards the scientific and technical arguments brought fourth by Harrit and Utzon".
 
I'm sure there will be truthers celebrations all around the world tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom