and the purported injuries to his reputation and emotional well-being that, he claims, ensued. If Mr. Unsworth wants to offer that evidence, Mr. Musk has to be given the right to present evidence to the contrary, including evidence that Mr. Unsworth has not been harmed. But Mr. Unsworth does not want the jury to know that. Why? Because Mr. Unsworth Has Put At Issue His Reputation And Any Harm To It, He Cannot Keep The Jury From Hearing That He Has No Evidence Of Harm. Mr. Unsworth intends to tell the jury his story of victimization by Mr. Musk, Because he has no facts or evidence that anyone in the world thinks he is a pedophile or believes what Mr. Musk said about him. (Michael Lifrak Opposition Declaration(“Lifrak Decl.”) Ex. 1 (Unsworth Tr. 94:20-95:1).) And his experts, who could have conducted surveys or focus groups on the issue, are similarly unable to identify anyone who believes what Mr. Musk said or thinks any less of Mr. Unsworth as a 2 result. (Lifrak Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (Rose Tr. 183:14-184:6; Jansen Tr. 33:6-13).)
To prepare to rebut elements of Mr. Unsworth’s claim, Mr. Musk has adduced evidence that Mr. Unsworth has not been harmed. For example, after Mr. Musk said everything Mr. Unsworth is suing him over, Mr. Unsworth received extensive praise and publicity around the world: The Queen of England bestowed Mr. Unsworth with the Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (“MBE”) title, the King of Thailand honored him with the Royal Thai Insignia—King Commander (second class) Most Admirable Order of Direkgunabhorn, the British Royal Humane Society awarded him the Certificate of Commendation, and the British Chamber of Commerce Thailand awarded him its Social Impact Award (on behalf of the UK team involved in the rescue). (Lifrak Decl. Ex. 4 (Response No. 4).) Mr. Unsworth has been invited to speak at numerous events, contributed to books, and participated in two documentaries. (Id. at Response Nos. 3, 5, 7.) The objective evidence shows that no third parties have acted as if they thought any less of him because of Mr. Musk’s statements. The jury is entitled to hear this evidence.
1 To be clear, however, Mr. Musk has no intention of asking Mr. Unsworth about child pornography, and has already agreed to refrain from asking about adult pornography. Nonetheless, because Mr. Unsworth has the burden to prove the falsity of Mr. Musk’s statements, and without knowing what doors Mr. Unsworth may open in the process, Mr. Musk requests the Court reserve his right to raise this issue if the need arises, with the Court’s permission.
わけがわからない (スコア:0)
>マスク氏側の弁護士はアンスワース氏が大英帝国勲章(MBE)を受け、タイ国王からも賞されたこと、テリーザ・メイ英首相(当時)と一緒に写真を撮っていること、学校から講演を依頼されていることなどを挙げ、誰もアンスワース氏を小児性愛者だと思っていない証拠だと主張。
訴えられているのはマスク氏であって、英国女王でもタイ国王でも英首相でも学校関係者でもないのに、
なんでこれで説得できるんだろう?
マスク氏の発言が名誉毀損ではない証明になってないよね?
わけがわからない。
Re:わけがわからない (スコア:1)
多分この辺の記述じゃない?
Varnon Unsworth v. Elon Musk Case 2:18-cv-08048-SVW-JC
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7887513/vernon-unsworth-v-elon-musk/ [courtlistener.com]
の書類番号106
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.723137/gov.uscou... [courtlistener.com]
and the purported injuries to his reputation and emotional well-being that, he claims, ensued. If Mr. Unsworth wants to offer that evidence, Mr. Musk has to be given the right to present evidence to the contrary, including evidence that Mr. Unsworth has not been harmed. But Mr. Unsworth does not want the jury to know that. Why? Because Mr. Unsworth Has Put At Issue His Reputation And Any Harm To It, He Cannot Keep The Jury From Hearing That He Has No Evidence Of Harm. Mr. Unsworth intends to tell the jury his story of victimization by Mr. Musk, Because he has no facts or evidence that anyone in the world thinks he is a pedophile or believes what Mr. Musk said about him. (Michael Lifrak Opposition Declaration(“Lifrak Decl.”) Ex. 1 (Unsworth Tr. 94:20-95:1).) And his experts, who could have conducted surveys or focus groups on the issue, are similarly unable to identify anyone who believes what Mr. Musk said or thinks any less of Mr. Unsworth as a 2 result. (Lifrak Decl. Exs. 2, 3 (Rose Tr. 183:14-184:6; Jansen Tr. 33:6-13).)
To prepare to rebut elements of Mr. Unsworth’s claim, Mr. Musk has adduced evidence that Mr. Unsworth has not been harmed. For example, after Mr. Musk said everything Mr. Unsworth is suing him over, Mr. Unsworth received extensive praise and publicity around the world: The Queen of England bestowed Mr. Unsworth with the Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (“MBE”) title, the King of Thailand honored him with the Royal Thai Insignia—King Commander (second class) Most Admirable Order of Direkgunabhorn, the British Royal Humane Society awarded him the Certificate of Commendation, and the British Chamber of Commerce Thailand awarded him its Social Impact Award (on behalf of the UK team involved in the rescue). (Lifrak Decl. Ex. 4 (Response No. 4).) Mr. Unsworth has been invited to speak at numerous events, contributed to books, and participated in two documentaries. (Id. at Response Nos. 3, 5, 7.) The objective evidence shows that no third parties have acted as if they thought any less of him because of Mr. Musk’s statements. The jury is entitled to hear this evidence.
1 To be clear, however, Mr. Musk has no intention of asking Mr. Unsworth about child pornography, and has already agreed to refrain from asking about adult pornography. Nonetheless, because Mr. Unsworth has the burden to prove the falsity of Mr. Musk’s statements, and without knowing what doors Mr. Unsworth may open in the process, Mr. Musk requests the Court reserve his right to raise this issue if the need arises, with the Court’s permission.