Quantcast

Andrew Shirvell Ordered to Pay Gay Student $4.5million

bricklyn 2012/08/18 23:14:44
You!
Add Photos & Videos

A former assistant attorney general who was fired for his hate
campaign against a gay Michigan university student has been ordered by a
jury to pay $4.5million to the victim in a decision handed down
Thursday.


Reports the Detroit Free Press:


Armstrong, who graduated in 2011, won on
all counts and was awarded $4.5 million, Armstrong’s attorney, Deborah
Gordon, told the Free Press.


Shirvell, who is unemployed and acted as
his own attorney, said he’ll appeal the case all the way to the Supreme
Court if he has to, claiming it will be a “landmark” First Amendment
case.


“It’s absolutely, 100% outrageous,” he told the Free Press. “It’s way excessive.


“The whole case is about politics. Every
conservative Christian in the nation should be scared from this. This is
the radical homosexual lobby trying to make an example out of me. Every
conservative Christian in the nation should know that they are going to
come after you if you object to their lifestyle, that they are going to
crucify you in the public arena.”


Gordon disputed that.


“Who is this radical homosexual lobby? Is it me?


“This man had to be held accountable. It was the wrong thing to do. He lives in a delusional world.


“There were some conservative Christians on the jury, and they spoke very forcefully about why they had to issue this judgment.”


In 2010 Andrew Shirvell, formerly assistant attorney general to Mike
Cox, created an online campaign against Michigan University’s
then-student body president Chris Armstrong called the “Chris Armstrong
Watch” blog.


As Care2 reported at the time,
Shirvell, a Michigan alumnus, made several demonstrably false and
defamatory claims against Armstrong, not least of which was that
Armstrong, who is openly gay, was leading a homosexual agenda against
Christian rights at the university. He also assailed Armstrong with
accusations of facilitating underage drinking, unlawful sex parties, and
that he had “elitist” KKK ties–all of this designed to pressure
Armstrong into resigning.


AG Mike Cox began an investigation and later fired Shirvell after he
learned of evidence that Shirvell had used the department’s computers in
order to wage his campaign, something that clearly fell outside the
bounds of political speech.


Indeed, Cox’s office issued the following as part of statement
explaining why Shirvell had been fired, the charges being quite damning:


[Shirvell] showed up at the home of a
private citizen [Armstrong] three separate times, including once at 1:30
A.M. That incident is especially telling because it clearly was about
harassing Mr. Armstrong, not engaging in free speech.


Further engaged in behavior that, while
not perhaps sufficient to charge criminal stalking, was harassing,
uninvited and showed a pattern that was in the everyday sense, stalking.


This included:


* Harassing Armstrong’s friends as they were socializing in Ann Arbor;

* Numerous calls to Speaker Pelosi’s office, Armstrong’s employer, in an
attempt to slander Armstrong – and ultimately attempting to cause
Pelosi to fire Armstrong;

* Attempting to “out” Armstrong’s friends as homosexual – several of whom were not gay.


Chris Armstrong subsequently filed a complaint with the Attorney
Grievance Commission, before deciding to take the matter to court when
Shirvell refused at every turn his offers to settle the case if Shirvell
would only admit to wrongdoing.


Trial events saw Shirvell reprimanded by the presiding judge after
Shirvell repeatedly attempted to have the majority of charges against
him dropped, wasting court time with challenge after challenge. When
Shirvell became irate at his lack of success the presiding judge
commented that Shirvell had proved the old adage that a person should
not represent themselves in court.


Shirvell, regardless, filed repeated motions to get the suit tossed before it went before a jury and then reportedly
filed a motion to have the judge compel Chris Armstrong to testify
about his religious beliefs and sex life, maintaining that it would
expose Armstrong’s homosexual, anti-religious campaign.


As noted above, Shirvell plans to appeal.


Read More: http://www.care2.com/causes/andrew-shirvell-ordere...

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • art1ej 2012/09/10 12:52:10 (edited)
    The judgement is right
    art1ej
    What Shirvell did was wrong but i think 4.5 million is abit much but hey it'll teach him & people like him not to do this...this is more than just this kid being gay but he made claims that were false & that could affect that kids life.....
    No one has to accept someone for being gay but it in no way had anything to do with anyone but him.....
  • dustin.oubre 2012/08/19 03:51:16
    I think
    dustin.oubre
    While the judgement in favor of the student was right, I think $4.5 million is a bit too much.
  • bricklyn 2012/08/18 23:16:04
    The judgement is right
    bricklyn
    +1
    Religion is no excuse for bigotry and hate. You have to be accountable for your actions and this man is and example of christian hate
  • Simmeri... bricklyn 2012/08/18 23:52:14
    Simmering Frog
    Aren't you the real hater just by the overtone of your post?
  • bricklyn Simmeri... 2012/08/19 16:50:48
    bricklyn
    Apparently the truth is hard for you to accept. This kid of christian attitude has been going on for a very long time.
  • Simmeri... bricklyn 2012/08/19 17:00:06
    Simmering Frog
    And your progressive attitude is extremely obnoxious and has been going on just recently.
  • bricklyn Simmeri... 2012/08/19 17:10:28 (edited)
    bricklyn
    I do not have a progressive attitude. I believe in human rights and respect for all people. That is something that people like you refuse to accept.

    The religious abuse of acceptable standards of behavior toward all people have denegrated humanity for centuries.
  • Simmeri... bricklyn 2012/08/19 17:16:40
    Simmering Frog
    You talk like a progressive and even claim to be a progressive on your profile. Then you contradict yourself (lie) claiming you don't have a progressive attitude.. Then you go on with business as usual. At least make an effort to lie. There's no bigger waste of time than trying to hold a conversation with a lazy progressive.
  • bricklyn Simmeri... 2012/08/20 00:09:14
    bricklyn
    I do not claim to be progressive at all.

    I have different opinions that you do, that does not make me progressive. Canadian poliltics is very different then American is There are 2 main parties, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. I am in the later category.

    However, you have nicely tried to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand which is HUMAN RIGHTS and EQUALITY.

    People of your ilk have always been on the side of refusing human rights to any group you do not approve of.
  • Simmeri... bricklyn 2012/08/20 00:22:32
    Simmering Frog
    Marriage is not a right.
  • bricklyn Simmeri... 2012/08/20 00:53:46
    bricklyn
    YES IT IS.


    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.
  • Simmeri... bricklyn 2012/08/21 21:18:56
    Simmering Frog
    No it's not.
  • bricklyn Simmeri... 2012/08/21 23:25:28
    bricklyn
    That is EXACTLY what the Supreme judgement stated.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/20 20:31:29

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals