re: #100 WhatEVs

Someone help me out if I read this wrong (it’s very short - see link below).

Mr. Burns (yeessssss?) uses State ex rel. Selimanovic v. Dierker on page 2 of this petition for a jury trial for Chucky v Gawker, yet if you read the case law - which, btw, is for legal malpractice (Oh, Irony! You sly dog!) - for a wrongful change of venue, holding that the venue should not have been allowed to be changed by the court because of where the tort “injury” (or “trauma or exposure occurred”) first happened.

How on earth that applies to Johnson v Gawker for proper venue? Is there proof that the first person reading the Gawker article lived in MO? Is this what his attorney is claiming?

The ongoing bitch and moan about people commenting on the Gawker article absolutely crack me up. It’s all…”MOM! THEY’RE SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT MEEEEEEEEE!”

Seriously, way too funny.

Is he suing for blog comments? oh my.