DDF'er Wins Huge CNN Defamation Trial!

[yuneeq]

JJ and I merged into one character long ago. Love have people asking me here in the Bahamas this week about my cruise last week or my trip to Zadun.

I was wondering if JJ mentioned your name right away to prevent it from happening here

In September 2013, I started Law School at the University of Pennsylvania. Just a few weeks later, Dan stole me away  and I started what’s been 12 awesome years working at DansDeals.

[yuneeq]

One thing I would like to clarify is that it seems to be agreed upon by both sides that charging Afghans to evacuate would be illegal and highly immoral. What’s the reason for that? I would think undertaking a dangerous operation and offering people an option to pay to save themselves is highly moral.

[Yehuda57]

One thing I would like to clarify is that it seems to be agreed upon by both sides that charging Afghans to evacuate would be illegal and highly immoral. What’s the reason for that? I would think undertaking a dangerous operation and offering people an option to pay to save themselves is highly moral.

I don't believe either side stipulated to it being illegal. In fact CNN tried their utmost to say black market didn't mean illegal. What was portrayed as immoral was dangling a life saving opportunity in front of someone you know can't possibly afford it, and then as they start getting their hopes up the cost is revealed. The jury sided with Zach that he didn't do that. Had he done that, it still wouldn't be illegal but it is certainly a jerk move to do. But in their zeal to show what a jerk he was, they crossed over into intimating it was illegal as well by calling it a black market.

[jj1000]

This gets into a lot of the pre-trial arguments.

As Vel mentioned in the podcast, he wasn't looking to defeat CNN pre-trial, but rather give them some mortal wounds.

In pre-trial he got ruled as a matter of law that Zach did not do ANYTHING illegal.

Therefore, CNN's only option at trial was to argue that the Black market doesn't mean illegal.

Hence they were all coached to say that, and they looked like idiots and the Jury saw it. They were backed into a corner, before the jury trial even started and couldn't fight their way out.

But before trial, CNN actually tried to argue that what Zach did was illegal according to Sharia law. Allowing women to travel alone, and others. Therefore, Zach was, in fact, on a Black Market of the local law (Shariah law).

Vel, of course crushed that argument and made them look like idiots for arguing it. CNN changed council shortly after that argument.

[Yehuda57]

This gets into a lot of the pre-trial arguments.

As Vel mentioned in the podcast, he wasn't looking to defeat CNN pre-trial, but rather give them some mortal wounds.

In pre-trial he got ruled as a matter of law that Zach did not do ANYTHING illegal.

Therefore, CNN's only option at trial was to argue that the Black market doesn't mean illegal.

Hence they were all coached to say that, and they looked like idiots and the Jury saw it. They were backed into a corner, before the jury trial even started and couldn't fight their way out.

But before trial, CNN actually tried to argue that what Zach did was illegal according to Sharia law. Allowing women to travel alone, and others. Therefore, Zach was, in fact, on a Black Market of the local law (Shariah law).

Vel, of course crushed that argument and made them look like idiots for arguing it. CNN changed council shortly after that argument.

By contrast, one of the things Vel lost pre trial was that Zach *did* advertise directly to Afghans. But Vel was able to contextualize that quite convincingly in his closing, so it did him no harm.

[yuneeq]

I don't believe either side stipulated to it being illegal. In fact CNN tried their utmost to say black market didn't mean illegal. What was portrayed as immoral was dangling a life saving opportunity in front of someone you know can't possibly afford it, and then as they start getting their hopes up the cost is revealed. The jury sided with Zach that he didn't do that. Had he done that, it still wouldn't be illegal but it is certainly a jerk move to do. But in their zeal to show what a jerk he was, they crossed over into intimating it was illegal as well by calling it a black market.

This gets into a lot of the pre-trial arguments.

As Vel mentioned in the podcast, he wasn't looking to defeat CNN pre-trial, but rather give them some mortal wounds.

In pre-trial he got ruled as a matter of law that Zach did not do ANYTHING illegal.

Therefore, CNN's only option at trial was to argue that the Black market doesn't mean illegal.

Hence they were all coached to say that, and they looked like idiots and the Jury saw it. They were backed into a corner, before the jury trial even started and couldn't fight their way out.

But before trial, CNN actually tried to argue that what Zach did was illegal according to Sharia law. Allowing women to travel alone, and others. Therefore, Zach was, in fact, on a Black Market of the local law (Shariah law).

Vel, of course crushed that argument and made them look like idiots for arguing it. CNN changed council shortly after that argument.

Not sure if you both are saying the same thing. JJ - Are you implying that that Zach didn't do anything illegal or that the act of rescuing Afghans for pay is always legal even if he preyed on Afghans? In other words - ignoring Sharia law - if Zach was actually as bad as CNN media members considered him, would the legality of Zach's actions be in question?

And not related to the verdict, but does anyone here agree with the premise that it would be immoral for Zach to get paid by Afghans if his costs are listed upfront?

[Just A Jew]

And not related to the verdict, but does anyone here agree with the premise that it would be immoral for Zach to get paid by Afghans if his costs are listed upfront?

Profiteering or price gouging are generally frowned upon and considered unethical practices, regardless of whether prices are listed upfront or not. It's a pretty gray area, though, especially in a free market society.

[Yehuda57]

Not sure if you both are saying the same thing. JJ - Are you implying that that Zach didn't do anything illegal or that the act of rescuing Afghans for pay is always legal even if he preyed on Afghans? In other words - ignoring Sharia law - if Zach was actually as bad as CNN media members considered him, would the legality of Zach's actions be in question?

The judge ruled that Zach did nothing illegal, that was never in question and didn't need to be argued in front of a jury. CNN couldn't claim in the case that his actions were illegal, as the judge had already ruled they were not. It was up to the jury to decide if CNN's report stated or implied his actions were illegal.

And not related to the verdict, but does anyone here agree with the premise that it would be immoral for Zach to get paid by Afghans if his costs are listed upfront?

Your hypothetical is getting paid for services with a price  - even high - listed up front  - I don't think anyone would have an issue with that, how could you?

But if you look at the report and try to not to think about what came out at trial (and even put aside illegality and black market) then Zach:
1) Preyed on desperate Afghans - he was looking for people who's lives were at risk and were desperate to get out, knowing full well they'd throw every penny they could at him, and so he charged well beyond their means.
2) Was not just charging a lot, but charging well beyond what anyone could consider a reasonable price, and could not account for costs - and was basically just trying to make as much as he could off their desperation.
3) Couldn't show any proof of actually getting anyone out, with the strong implication he was taking money but not actually providing the service.

If that had turned out to be true, I'd agree with them, that's pretty scummy.

[Just A Jew]

Your hypothetical is getting paid for services with a price  -even high - listed up front  - I don't think anyone would have an issue with that, how could you?

Lol, you just came to the conclusion that, under certain circumstances,

I'd agree with them, that's pretty scummy.

[yuneeq]

Profiteering or price gouging are generally frowned upon and considered unethical practices, regardless of whether prices are listed upfront or not. It's a pretty gray area, though, especially in a free market society.

Vel kept repeating the distinction that corporations are paying for it, so it’s okay. I don’t understand why that would matter from a moral standpoint. The same profiteering and gouging accusations should apply.

Unless it’s strictly an emotional argument for the court, and he may otherwise agree there’s no distinction and everything is moral.

[yuneeq]

The judge ruled that Zach did nothing illegal, that was never in question and didn't need to be argued in front of a jury. CNN couldn't claim in the case that his actions were illegal, as the judge had already ruled they were not. It was up to the jury to decide if CNN's report stated or implied his actions were illegal.

I feel like my question keeps getting misunderstood. I’m not asking if Zach did anything illegal, as it’s clear he didn’t. I’m asking if Zach was hypothetically charging afghans would the judge still rule in pre-trial that nothing illegal was committed? I’m asking about the law, not about Zach specifically. It would also illuminate the egregiousness of CNN’s black market accusations.

Your hypothetical is getting paid for services with a price  - even high - listed up front  - I don't think anyone would have an issue with that, how could you?

But if you look at the report and try to not to think about what came out at trial (and even put aside illegality and black market) then Zach:
1) Preyed on desperate Afghans - he was looking for people who's lives were at risk and were desperate to get out, knowing full well they'd throw every penny they could at him, and so he charged well beyond their means.
2) Was not just charging a lot, but charging well beyond what anyone could consider a reasonable price, and could not account for costs - and was basically just trying to make as much as he could off their desperation.
3) Couldn't show any proof of actually getting anyone out, with the strong implication he was taking money but not actually providing the service.

If that had turned out to be true, I'd agree with them, that's pretty scummy.

Personally I don’t care about 1/2. If someone can provide a service that no one else can, they are welcome to charge whatever they want, especially if it requires special expertise, is risky, and customers can be difficult to find. If he was actually earning 60% margins, that’s not expensive at all, considering the highly specialized service.

For #3, either he’s honest or not. If he wasn’t actually rescuing anyone or lied about it, there’s no question it’s immoral and probably illegal too.

[jj1000]

Vel kept repeating the distinction that corporations are paying for it, so it’s okay. I don’t understand why that would matter from a moral standpoint. The same profiteering and gouging accusations should apply.

The clip said "Preying on desperate Afghans." IIRC.

Vel showed that was a lie. It wasn't deliberately targeting Afghans at all.

If Zach was hypothetically charging afghans would the judge still rule in pre-trial that nothing illegal was committed?

Still would have ruled that nothing illegal was done. Wouldn't change that part of the case.

A jury could be convinced he is a jerk for marketing to Afgahsn who can't afford him, like tossing a life raft and then saying pay up first. But to offer it to a corporation, that is a small line item in a large budget and they can pay if they want to.

If the jury thinks he is a jerk, he gets less money.

[yuneeq]

The clip said "Preying on desperate Afghans." IIRC.

Vel showed that was a lie. It wasn't deliberately targeting Afghans at all.
Still would have ruled that nothing illegal was done. Wouldn't change that part of the case.

A jury could be convinced he is a jerk for marketing to Afgahsn who can't afford him, like tossing a life raft and then saying pay up first. But to offer it to a corporation, that is a small line item in a large budget and they can pay if they want to.

If the jury thinks he is a jerk, he gets less money.

Got it, thanks for clarifying

[shapsam]

https://twitter.com/ThomasMHern/status/1905077200266702945

[jj1000]

https://x.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1905310176573354436

[theblaide]

Zach is now suing the AP but switched lawyers to Pike & Lustig.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/navy-veteran-who-proved-cnn-defamed-him-sues-associated-press-says-he-falsely-painted-smuggler

[zh cohen]

Zach is now suing the AP but switched lawyers to Pike & Lustig.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/navy-veteran-who-proved-cnn-defamed-him-sues-associated-press-says-he-falsely-painted-smuggler

Sounds weak to me (based on the information in the Fox article). Webster has two definitions for "smuggle" and the second is "to convey or introduce surreptitiously" which does not include illegality.

[yelped]

Sounds weak to me (based on the information in the Fox article). Webster has two definitions for "smuggle" and the second is "to convey or introduce surreptitiously" which does not include illegality.

So, in that case it would mean that he wanted Velvel to continue and he didn't want to because it's a weak case?

[zh cohen]

So, in that case it would mean that he wanted Velvel to continue and he didn't want to because it's a weak case?

No. While that is one possible explanation, there can be many other reasons why either one of them would choose not to continue.