GI Suing Moore Appeared w. Ted Kennedy in 2004

apotropoxy · #1 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Remarks of Edward M. Kennedy
Member, United States Senate (D-MA)
Washington, D.C., January 14, 2004
Thank you General Nash for that generous introduction.
General Nash had an impressive career in the U.S. Army. His experience and expertise in conflict prevention and post-war reconstruction from his leadership in the Balkans has greatly assisted the debate on post-war Iraq.
I'm grateful to him for his impressive public service, and for joining us today.
I'd also like to thank Brian and Alma Hart and Sergeant Peter Damon for coming today. The Hart's son, John, was killed in Iraq this fall on patrol in an unarmored Humvee. Sergeant Damon lost both his arms serving in Iraq. We honor their service and their sacrifice. (…)
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=20550

Do you suppose that Sgt. Damon didn't know Sen Kennedy's politics?

Rebellion · #2 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 12:27 PM

The Chicago White Sox appeared at the White House, one of their sluggers HATES Bush. And what does that mean? Nothing.

apotropoxy · #3 (**permalink**) 06-02-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion";p=&quot

The Chicago White Sox appeared at the White House, one of their sluggers HATES Bush. And what does that mean? Nothing.

It means that the White Sox player is an astute observer of the political scene and thought it best to be a good teammate and not to detract from a celebratory event.
Incidentally, the event Damon appeared in was a Democratic campaign event with Howard Dean.

BigBill · #4 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Do you suppose that Sgt. Damon didn't know Sen Kennedy's politics?

Do you suppose Sgt Damon may have been ordered to appear?
Do you suppose that Sgt Damon might disagree with Kennedy's politics but might find it an honor to be on the same dais with a US Senator and the brother of the late, great JFK?
Do you suppose Sgt Damon might resent being falsely represented as supporting an anti-military propaganda ploy?

If a woman can get millions for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on her tush, Sgt Damon is surely worthy of a few tens of millions for such a false representation of his honor.

apotropoxy · #5 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 08:15 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBill";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Do you suppose that Sgt. Damon didn't know Sen Kennedy's politics?

Do you suppose Sgt Damon may have been ordered to appear?

Are you suggesting that Damon was ordered by his brass to appear at Democratic campaign function? This is a joke, right? But let's play along with your absurd notion for a moment. If he were actually required to be there then he will most certainly say so in depositions and/or at the trial.

Quote:

Do you suppose that Sgt Damon might disagree with Kennedy's politics but might find it an honor to be on the same dais with a US Senator and the brother of the late, great JFK?

He might. Do you think that this is likely?

Quote:

Do you suppose Sgt Damon might resent being falsely represented as supporting an anti-military propaganda ploy?

I think we was a supporter of the Dems. That's why he appeared with Kennedy and Dean etc. I think he changed his tune when some swiftboater convinced him that he could make millions by suing Michael Moore.

Quote:

If a woman can get millions for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on her tush,

Read the actual details of the case:

Quote:

The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Your posting of this distortion allowed me to set the record straight. Thanks!

Quote:

Sgt Damon is surely worthy of a few tens of millions for such a false representation of his honor.

Well, he's got some 'splainin' to do.
1. Why did he file the suit after so many years?
2. Since his political views were not represented in the film, how is it he thinks those views were distorted?
3. Why did he agree to be seen on a Democratic rally seated on the dais along with high-profile doves like Kennedy and Dean?
4. What damages did he really sustain? He is not identified in Moore's movie. He only became known to the public when he filed his suit.
5. Being interviewed by a major news outlet might put him into the category of a "public figure." If that is the case then he will have a much higher hurdle to jump if he wishes to succeed. (See: Times v. Sullivan)

I predict that we will hear no more from Sgt. Damon.

BigBill · #6 (**permalink**) 06-07-2006, 09:33 AM

[quote="apotropoxy";p="245207"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBill";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Do you suppose that Sgt. Damon didn't know Sen Kennedy's politics?

Do you suppose Sgt Damon may have been ordered to appear?

Are you suggesting that Damon was ordered by his brass to appear at Democratic campaign function? This is a joke, right? But let's play along with your absurd notion for a moment. If he were actually required to be there then he will most certainly say so in depositions and/or at the trial.

Quote:

Do you suppose that Sgt Damon might disagree with Kennedy's politics but might find it an honor to be on the same dais with a US Senator and the brother of the late, great JFK?

He might. Do you think that this is likely?

Quote:

Do you suppose Sgt Damon might resent being falsely represented as supporting an anti-military propaganda ploy?

I think we was a supporter of the Dems. That's why he appeared with Kennedy and Dean etc. I think he changed his tune when some swiftboater convinced him that he could make millions by suing Michael Moore.

Quote:

If a woman can get millions for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on her tush,

Read the actual details of the case:

Quote:

The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Your posting of this distortion allowed me to set the record straight. Thanks!

Quote:

Sgt Damon is surely worthy of a few tens of millions for such a false representation of his honor.

Well, he's got some 'splainin' to do.
1. Why did he file the suit after so many years?
2. Since his political views were not represented in the film, how is it he thinks those views were distorted?
3. Why did he agree to be seen on a Democratic rally seated on the dais along with high-profile doves like Kennedy and Dean?
4. What damages did he really sustain? He is not identified in Moore's movie. He only became known to the public when he filed his suit.
5. Being interviewed by a major news outlet might put him into the category of a "public figure." If that is the case then he will have a much higher hurdle to jump if he wishes to succeed. (See: Times v. Sullivan)

I predict that we will hear no more from Sgt. Damon.

You assume the worst about Sgt Damon.

Assume this - here's a small town guy - a regular blue collar joe - a reservist - goes to Iraq, sustains injuries and loses both arms and spends the following year or so in hospitals and rehab.

He finally goes home where his townsmen built a home for him and his family - he's welcomed open armed with free lifetime mebership by the local DAV, VFW, AL and other fraternal organizations. This is a small rural town south of Boston and just west of Plymouth with local history and bloodlines going back to the Pilgrims. The population tends to be conservative and leans Republican. Those who served are held in very high esteem and those who denigrate the military are frowned upon. Michael Moore is not well liked in Middleboro, MA.

You can bet that nearly everyone who knows Sgt Damon encouraged him to sue Moore for slander.

By the way, call it circumstance, but I live in the same town.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode