This would be a good question for Nick, but if a court has already ruled that the statements are defamatory and the defendant at that point still refuses to retract them, could the damages resulting from those statements potentially continue to pile up? I'd assume that attempting to collect them would necessarily involve a second lawsuit, so it might not be worth pursuing it unless there was a good chance of actually collecting something from them.
If a retraction is ordered by the courts and the defendant refuses to issue it, there is no second lawsuit required. If Vic and his lawyers make a good faith effort to gain such retraction and it is not issued, or the defendant categorically refuses to issue it, then they can return to the court which may hold the defendants in contempt of court. Now this is where it gets interesting. Civil contempt of court may carry criminal or civil penalties. The party charged with contempt will more than like be notified of the charge and a hearing will be held. As I've already explained, in this case, as the refusal to carry out court orders will actually damage Vic, it could be considered criminal contempt. But contempt is handled differently than a normal trial. For one a contempt trial is
entirely at the prerogative of the court. In other words, the judge decides the contempt case, and there is no jury involved. So the judge who issued the order may also be the one deciding if the defendants are in contempt of court. In criminal contempt, the charge must be true beyond a reasonable doubt, just like other criminal cases. However, because there is no jury, only the judge hears the evidence, and if decides its contempt, then the punishment, whether it be a fine or even jail time, is imposed unconditionally (no appeal outside of procedural issues nor are there special stipulations). Civil contempt is not any better; there is a lower standard of evidence (clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to reasonable doubt), and if the judge decides you are guilty, the court (usually the sheriff or another court officer) can
hold you until you comply with the court's order. That's right; if the court rules as such, the court can hold Marzgirl in a cell if she refuses to retract her statements, for
years if necessary, until she finally complies with the courts demands and this can be done indefinitely. There are no constitutional limits on this; the longest a man has been held by the courts like this was
14 years and this was constitutional according to federal courts (see
Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002)). Since the person held in civil contempt "holds the keys to their own cell" (i.e. they can get out at any time if they comply with court orders), conventional due process is not required.