Genie Testifies

The owners tore down the building before getting a permit, so they broke the law.

The artists got the award because their rights were infringed by the rogue demolition.

As the judge said, the artists broke the law and the building was always going to be demolished.

Chadillac said:
Lol, we win suits over coffee being to hot. The most recent one was in NY, someone wrote graffiti all over a building the owner was going to tear down and rebuild. The "artist" got 7million.

We are the worst nation in the world in reguards to law, our judges are also terrible
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
The owners tore down the building before getting a permit, so they broke the law.

The artists got the award because their rights were infringed by the rogue demolition.

As the judge said, the artists broke the law and the building was always going to be demolished.
Click to expand...

You dont think vandalism being protected in court is strange? Why would someone who commited a crime be entitled to anything? It would be a city permit fine or whatever, has nothing todo with the "victim" who lost a few cans of spray paint.

Its similar to how we do it here, it doesnt matter the crime, its "why".

Concussions are looked at very bad on now here, head injuries are starting to become a thing (cte), her lawsuit was timed perfectly along with the results after.

I wouldnt be surprised if she got 6mil, equal to that of what she put in before being concussed.

Modeling could actually hurt her, since another means of revenue, didnt ruin her life (works better in court).
 
So if Lincoln's log cabin were extant and someone bought it and demolished overnight without a permit, you'd be happy about that?

And if the Vatican sold off the Sistine Chapel should the developer be allowed to re-paint the ceiling white just because he owns it?

Chadillac said:
You dont think vandalism being protected in court is strange? Why would someone who commited a crime be entitled to anything? It would be a city permit fine or whatever, has nothing todo with the "victim" who lost a few cans of spray paint.

Its similar to how we do it here, it doesnt matter the crime, its "why".

Concussions are looked at very bad on now here, head injuries are starting to become a thing (cte), her lawsuit was timed perfectly along with the results after.

I wouldnt be surprised if she got 6mil, equal to that of what she put in before being concussed.

Modeling could actually hurt her, since another means of revenue, didnt ruin her life (works better in court).
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know what she claims her injury is which would justify compensation? I don't understand how she could get any money out of this?
 
Bartelby said:
So if Lincoln's log cabin were extant and someone bought it and demolished overnight without a permit, you'd be happy about that?

And if the Vatican sold off the Sistine Chapel should the developer be allowed to re-paint the ceiling white just because he owns it?
Click to expand...

Look up Vandalism, criminals should never be protected. Your just being argurementative, goto match thread delpo in third
 
Pleb123 said:
Does anyone know what she claims her injury is which would justify compensation? I don't understand how she could get any money out of this?
Click to expand...

The judge split this Federal Court trial into two phases (which is routine in Brooklyn County when in state court): (1) liability and (2) damages.

The next phase of the trial is when medical and other testimony concerning injuries and damages will be presented.
 
Civil action is always full of ups and downs until the affair is settled! The best results is a settlement! Otherwise, it open it up for appeal by either side!
 
Bartelby said:
So you want the Sistine Chapel ceiling painted over white if that's what the owner desires?
Click to expand...

Historical overrides demolishion. I think its been around longer than spray paint purchased on a bogo deal.

If you want to compare the sistine chapel to outdoor graffiti, im not sure how to approach you this time.
 
The graffiti was quite valuable and of historical importance.

Not in the league of the Sistine Chapel, of course, but the principles are the same.

It's a pity but you seem incapable of analytical reasoning.

Chadillac said:
Historical overrides demolishion. I think its been around longer than spray paint purchased on a bogo deal.

If you want to compare the sistine chapel to outdoor graffiti, im not sure how to approach you this time.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
The graffiti was quite valuable and of historical importance.

Not in the league of the Sistine Chapel, of course, but the principles are the same.

It's a pity but you seem incapable of analytical reasoning.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, those images were painted on a canvas they didnt own. They had no resell value, thus no value at all.

You cannot reward people for vandalism or other crimes, no matter how hard your logic trys to. Your only promoting more bad behaviour in the end.

Genie is a slip and fall, unless she signed a disclaimer, its slam dunk. You can fall over here if you see they didnt put the sign up while mopping and win every time.

Our system is terrible now because it trys to rationalize the crime instead of punish for the actual action.

Criminal vs civil though, we can end now.
 
You can't demolish a building without a permit. It's illegal for all sorts of reasons.

Destroying something of artistic and/or historical significance is an argument you can make.

The owner broke the law.

You want untrammelled ownership rights, but most people are happy with extant legal limitations.
 
Last edited:
Tshooter said:
Her match on the day of the accident (which I think was the last match of the day) didn’t even end late compared to the later ending matches on other days. Of course players will use the facilities after a match. You clean the floor, you put down one of those ubiquitous yellow plastic warning stands. You don’t want them in there, lock it.

Has the USTA learned anything ? Let me put it this way. I was out at the NTC over the summer. There was construction material all over the place. There was NO LIGHTING after dark along a long portion of the way you had to walk to get from CT’s 4/5/6 to the east gate entrance. I had to use the light on my phone to avoid tripping over random construction material. It was a shockingly stupid situation.
Click to expand...

A clear dereliction of duty-why aren't attendants available all the time? To put a slippery solution down on a shiny floor surface & then just leave without locking up the room, or putting warning signs outside is incredibly negligent. Also were the cleaners that day made aware of the hazardous content of the solution that was being used for the first time? Is there suitable ventilation in the room? Are they supplied with protective equipment such as goggles, masks & gloves?
 
MatsPhilander said:
A clear dereliction of duty-why aren't attendants available all the time? To put a slippery solution down on a shiny floor surface & then just leave without locking up the room, or putting warning signs outside is incredibly negligent. Also were the cleaners that day made aware of the hazardous content of the solution that was being used for the first time? Is there suitable ventilation in the room? Are they supplied with protective equipment such as goggles, masks & gloves?
Click to expand...

(I edited my post with the match end time -- It was just about 945pm when her match ended. It wasn't even late.)

I agree by the way with the all the time as far as attendants.

If I was on the jury: 100% liability USTA. I'd like to talk to the jury after the case and hear what they were thinking.
 
Last edited:
Tshooter said:
(I edited my post with the match end time -- It was just about 945pm when her match ended. It wasn't even late.)

I agree by the way with the all the time as far as attendants.

If I was on the jury: 100% liability USTA. I'd like to talk to them after the case and hear what they were thinking.
Click to expand...

I think 10% on her part-while the company/promoters have overall responsibility we all have our own responsibility as employees/performers to ensure us & others are kept safe, walking into an abandoned room with no lighting, knowing floors are cleaned after players leave means she has to carry some of the burden-she should have gone to find somebody.
 
I think you are being a bit unkind as the slip happened almost immediately upon entering the room.

MatsPhilander said:
I think 10% on her part-while the company/promoters have overall responsibility we all have our own responsibility as employees/performers to ensure us & others are kept safe, walking into an abandoned room with no lighting, knowing floors are cleaned after players leave means she has to carry some of the burden-she should have gone to find somebody.
Click to expand...
 
She figures she would have won 2 majors by now if it wasn't for that accident. So she will be sueing for 50 million dollars. I hope USTA has it.
 
MatsPhilander said:
I think 10% on her part-while the company/promoters have overall responsibility we all have our own responsibility as employees/performers to ensure us & others are kept safe, walking into an abandoned room with no lighting, knowing floors are cleaned after players leave means she has to carry some of the burden-she should have gone to find somebody.
Click to expand...

Do you want to go home because I'm willing to sit forever. 100% liability USTA ! :p

Just kidding, we can move on. I'll take account of the 10% "discount" when we calculate the damages but don't tell anyone else I said that. ;)
 
Last edited:
Nostradamus said:
She figures she would have won 2 majors by now if it wasn't for that accident. So she will be sueing for 50 million dollars. I hope USTA has it.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that would be proved-her decline was well in place before the US as she had crashed out of the two previous slams in round one & her form had been poor all year.
 
Bartelby said:
The USTA claimed there were night lights, in any event, but that still means it was darkish.
Click to expand...

What are night lights? I only know about switches, if they were outside or just round the corner why didn't she switch them on? If they were on the other side of the room then that seems incredibly stupid. Or do they have lights that come on when somebody enters?
 
Interesting and a perhaps understandable denial of the request, but courts in other matters are all too keen on keeping business deals confidential.

marc45 said:
court's in session, and Genie has a request...

daniel kaplan‏ @dkaplanSBJ 1m1 minute ago
@geniebouchard lawyer asked judge to clear reporters out of court room for her testimony on her endorsement contracts. Judge Donnelly curtly said no, pointed out an open court room
Click to expand...
 
  1. reverse order....

  3. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 1m1 minute ago

    That definitely could be a factor. But then they spent around two hours this morning on opening arguments in the damages phase, which were incredibly detailed and verbose if knowingly all for naught. #BouchardVsUSTA


    Brad @ItsTheBGB
    Replying to @BenRothenberg
    Probably wanted USTA to be found liable first before settling, because more money.


  4. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 5m5 minutes ago
    Also, the judge in #BouchardVsUSTA additionally ruled against Bouchard's motion that her social media activity should be somehow inadmissible. Which, again, should have been no shock at all. Her social media is a massive, massive part of her profile.



  5. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 7m7 minutes ago
    And to be clear, this should have been fully obvious to Bouchard's team the whole time. You can't ask in court for lost endorsement money in damages without saying how much you earn in endorsements. #BouchardVsUSTA

    Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 12m12 minutes ago
  6. More than half an hour after #BouchardVsUSTA proceedings were supposed to resume, courtroom still empty. Assume settlement talks are happening in judge's chambers. Wouldn't be surprised if learning that her contract details would be public spooked Genie toward wanting to settle.

    Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 2h2 hours ago
  7. Also, and this is big, USTA is now disputing that Bouchard actually suffered a concussion. This is despite “concussion” being the cause the tournament published for her withdrawal from the 2015 US Open at the time. “She did have a bang to the head,” USTA says. #BouchardVsUSTA

  8. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 2h2 hours ago
    Ben Rothenberg Retweeted Ida

    Oh yeah. Some random kid who looks about 13 showed up to watch today. #BouchardVsUSTA

    Ida @dropshotsgalore
    Replying to @BenRothenberg
    Public court? even non-media is allowed in?


  9. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 2h2 hours ago
    A Bouchard lawyer asked that media be kicked out of the courtroom for any mention of details of her “confidential” endorsement contracts. The judge swiftly dismissed that notion, being that this is a public court. #BouchardVsUSTA

  10. Ben Rothenberg‏Verified account @BenRothenberg 2h2 hours ago
    #BouchardVsUSTA damages phase has begun. This will be the far more interesting part. USTA making it clear that Bouchard’s social media presence is going to be a massive part of its case, both to prove that she isn’t as anguished as she says, and that her brand is thriving.
 
just a thought, Genie is drawn to Serena, or Maria, in first round at the U.S. Open

the tournament can't push her to a back court...we have an insane crowd situation
 
marc45 said:
  • Also, and this is big, USTA is now disputing that Bouchard actually suffered a concussion. This is despite “concussion” being the cause the tournament published for her withdrawal from the 2015 US Open at the time. “She did have a bang to the head,” USTA says. #BouchardVsUSTA
Click to expand...

So USTA has been ruled negligent but they're now trying to scale down the 75%-25% accountability ratio?
 
hmm?

daniel kaplan‏ @dkaplanSBJ 27s27 seconds ago
Appears there may be a disagreement between @geniebouchard and her lawyer, who wants to accept latest USTA settlement, but Genie doesnt it appears. Judge is back in front of the court room. waiting for Bouchard

daniel kaplan‏ @dkaplanSBJ 11m11 minutes ago
High drama in the court room now with the parties, including @geniebouchard and the judge, deep in lengthy discussion at a sidebar, white noise covering their talks. is a deal in the offing?
 
Last edited:
Lol at her whining about keeping her endorsement amounts secret, that stuff has long been out there-

Eugenie Bouchard:

2016 Prize Money-$557,215
2016 ENDORSEMENTS: $5.5 million

The woman known as "Genie" has had her fair share of on-court struggles over the past three years, with Bouchard dropping from No. 5 in the world in Oct. 2014 all the way to No. 80 in the current rankings, but that hasn't stopped her from remaining one of the highest-paid female athletes on the planet.

While her WTA Tour earnings for 2017 aren't much in comparison to her contemporaries, where Bouchard makes up for it is in endorsements. Signed on as a spokesperson for Coca-Cola and Nike, among others, the 23-year-old pulled in an impressive $6.2 million last year according to Forbes, with a whopping 89 percent of that figure coming from non-tennis sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top