not that there's anything wrong with that.

I remember seeing an interview with him ages ago.... he was SO IN LOVE with Armstrong! It was so obvious.

his internal battle outward.

I hope he finds peace within himself eventually but failing that he should leave openly gay people out of his internal drama.

I mean, Shirvell is a smart guy, and should know better. But his hate overcame his good judgement, and he became obsessed.

Every last penny.

PB

It's here:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/jury-will-hear-trial-involving-gay-u-m-student-lawyer/#.UC1-LRwkBBA

cause he sucks at the attorney thing.

"An attorney for Chris Armstrong says she would drop the case if
ex-Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell apologized."

What a moron, 4.5 million worth.

I doubt the guy will ever pay the first dime.

He was fired from his job and had to defend himself in this trial. The plaintiff will be lucky to collect anything.

Hopefully the plaintiff got an intentional tort finding and knows how to keep this judgment from being discharged in a bankruptcy.,

I got a 20K judgment against a guy who defrauded me...20 years ago. I am still waiting for the first payment.
It's a tough call for me...I'd like to get back some or most of what I lost but I'm not in favor of debtor's prison either. Nor would I want the government to reimburse me for it, thinking what a horrible precedent -that- might engender. Hence my previous comment.

I got ripped off by a piece of shit whom I would enjoy seeing hanged drawn and quartered. Less about the money and more about making me look like a chump.

(omg did I say dead issue?)


Yes, I did.

He defended himself in the trial because he was a complete idiot, not because he was poor.

Sounds like it did not take the jury too long to decide, either....

That's the message I get when I click your link...

The comments are despicable but..... I'd say..... protected speech. Lots of gay-haters call gays "perverts". It's an opinion about homosexuality.... which.... as ignorant and contemptible as it is.... violates no laws ( that I know of) and can't possibly be "defamatory" since the target is openly gay.

What's the stalking and privacy invasion about? Perhaps there's more than meets the eye here.

(I'm not minimizing the homophobia aspect; just wondering where, exactly, free speech cuts off.)

I agree - while the guy's comments are offensive and ignorant, have we gotten to a point that we can begin punishing people for expressing an opinion, no matter an abhorrent or offensive one?

from the post - I did not read anything not in the OP.

A self loathing gay man for sure.

Don't heterosexuals ever do *anything* wrong?

Give us all a break on this "closet case" stuff, okay?

His harassment of Armstrong was enough, but he spent months and months making all sorts of increasingly outlandish claims about him as well.

And Shirvell's statements most certainly were defamatory, as he's made any number of claims about the kid he was after rather than just "OMG teh ghey!" If you actually read anything about the whole process that part would be obvious.

He was also doing these things while, and as, the state deputy attorney general. There's not even the tiniest room to defend him here.

... none of this is evidenced by anything in the link. OTOH... if he were accused of molesting underaged kids... and there is a *hint* in either the supplied link or something I saw somewhere else that Shirvel was going ( or maybe *went*?) in this direction... that would be completely different scenario. And I'd have no problem w. the civil judgment.


>>>>>He was also doing these things while, and as, the state deputy attorney general. There's not even the tiniest room to defend him here.>>>>

Seems to me a different issue entirely. Perhaps the plaintiff should/could successfully sue the state.


Listen, I LOATHE what the guy said and how he thinks. I would most probably loathe the guy HIMSELF, if I knew him. If he said and did things beyond those which are described in OP...and in the link supplied... let's hold him liable. Moreover, let's hold the *state* liable if it, as Shirvel's employer, should have muzzled him ( I suspect it *should* have , legally... though "I ain't a lawya!&quot , go for it!!

But OP simply says "defamation". The closest thing to evidence provided in this regard is that S. accused the plaintiff of being a "pervert" on the basis of the plaintiff's advocacy of a "radical homosexual agenda".

That's *opinion*; not a destructive lie about another person's character or person ( I think that is more or less the legal essence of "defamation", though I could be wrong - not being a "lawya".).

"Opinion" should be protected ( and IS, far as I know), legally.

Obviously there's more to the story.... which it sounds as though you are more familiar with than am I.

BTW.... I'm gay and have done tons of work on lgbt issues over many years. So I don't minimize the gravity of Shirvel's malevolent bullshit. I'm simply saying that free speech is important also. Seems to me we should be able to keep two seemingly contradictory things in our heads at the same time... like "walk and chew-gum" .

Or will he be paying for the rest of his life.

This is a good decision. He spoke evil and now will pay the price.

That is physical threat and I don't like that escalation one bit.

I think showing up at the guys house three times(once at 1:30 AM!) was a key part of the suit.

I feel I have the right to call you all sorts of names (even poopy-head), however, the minute I show up outside your house at 1:30 AM to harass you, I stepped over the line and need to be slapped down.


Macoy

This guy Shirvell sounded so gay, gayer than a Judy Garland impersonator.

He was IN LOVE with Armstrong and that's the only way to get the attention. Either that or he's so far in the closet he's actually come out the other side.

Shirvell, you are gay, and God, who created you, doesn't make mistakes.

You really should self-delete your whole post. It is beyond offensive.

I really called her out on it. Like this asshat Shirvell, she said gays are"radical" and that's what she really doesn't like about their demand for legalizing gay marriage. I said if they're radical, it's because they don't have equal rights, such as the right to marry whom they please. She then went off on, "I don't believe in gay marriage because God doesn't allow it." I said that argument doesn't hold water, since many people don't believe in God anyway. She then brought up the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, with handsome angels tempting the humans. I said that's a Bible story, it's not real. She disagreed. I said, where is he, then? We've been to the moon, the planets and photographed galaxies a million light years away, and there is no physical evidence of God.

Then, as proof, she told me about all the people she's seen exorcised who fell on the floor and spoke in tongues because God had anointed them. I said I could fall on the floor, too, and speak gibberish.

Our friendship is somewhat strained since that conversation.