a more fitting name than knave could not be found

“If I am required to enter a remedy that is ‘consistent with the jury’s findings,’ I cannot order remedy that ‘disregards the jury’s implicit finding’ that Professor Churchill has suffered no actual damages that an award of reinstatement would prospectively remedy,” Judge Naves wrote.

When a plaintiff states remunerative compensation is not his goal and a jury finds in his favor but only for $1, to read sub silentio into the jury's award of "only" $1 that no harm was done exhibits either a paucity of fealty to the rule of law (which I suspect is the case in this situation) or strong desire to be overturned by a higher court rather than taint one's POLITICAL career as a judge in the future.