I find it interesting that several issues are not even mentioned in the article (although it suspect they were at least tangentially raised in the court action). Some technical, some conceptal.

Jurisdiction:, what jurisdiction did a Broward Circuit Judge or Court have over the Defendant.

Court of Convenience: The issue was waved against a financial weaker party in a forum that was particularly non convenient, especially in light of circumstances outside the control of the defendant.

First Amendmant v. Defamation: did the comments made qualify as defamation (being mean, or wrong is not enough). WE can presume that thy were, but since there was no defendant, or counsel present, who was there to object?

I would reasonably expect almost any attorney to be able to raise a sufficient argument to the judge to have the jury verdict reduced. $11M
verdict against a woman who can't afford an attorney, and is a victim of Katrina is certainly not going to ever reasonable be able to be expected to pay such a verdict, and I fail to see the 'greater good' of a token verdict.

I am not suggesting that the plaintiff was wrongto file, or shouldn't of won, I just found the article lacking (kind of like enjoying a sample at the bakery, and then finding out everything is sold).