Started By
Message
re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit
Posted on 6/14/17 at 1:04 pm to Pickle_Weasel
Posted on 6/14/17 at 1:04 pm to Pickle_Weasel
WRONG!
1
Posted on 6/14/17 at 1:20 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
WRONG!
Very interesting and detailed post. Would read again.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 1:21 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
Pickle_Weasel
He's pretty adamant that you are a lawyer, I guess
Posted on 6/14/17 at 3:35 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
Actually, you are wrong.
Defamation simply includes statements that reflect negatively on a person's integrity, morality, or character.
It's actually not that simple. In order to actually WIN a defamation case you have to:
1) prove statements were false
2) be able to show that THOSE statements have actually resulted in harm to one's reputation and/or business
Also, and no one is talking about it that I've seen on here any way, but the defamatory statement must be unprivileged in nature (Privileged statement means a witness testifying at trial who makes a statement that is both false and injurious will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because testifying at trial is privileged). Doubt the testimony to NCAA would be considered privileged, but I'm sure the defense will argue that those statements are privileged (assuming they were false, which you've still yet to prove...only have proven variations, which are typical, allowable, and does not make the major points of the case false).
quote:
Commercial Disparagement - I agree that this is something that would be very hard to be proven. However, it could be argued that the intentional actions of defamation leading to the result of loss of revenue could fall within this law. Long shot and doubt it would happen.
yeah, but again given the circumstances surrounding the case, how do you anticipate RR being able to PROVE lost revenue is a result of this testimony and not a result of the prolonged investigation, poor on field results, etc? You can't. There are too many external factors to pin it on these statements as a singular factor.
quote:
Civil Conspiracy - You kind of went off point on this one. If they conspired to knowing make false statements and allegations in any attempt that would harm the reputation and character of the business, then it does not matter if their bigger agenda was another entity. Having said that, I'm curious to see how this would actually be argued.
I see zero possibility that it is ever PROVEN that a conspiracy took place. In a civil case you have to prove your case by a preponderance of evidence. Without phone records (good luck getting that), admission, or other evidence, this one is a nonstarter.
quote:
Having said that, the defamation charge will absolutely stick.
Might. I'd be stunned though. Have to prove they were knowingly false statements AND they caused harm. Might be able to prove they were false (if they were), but gonna be hard to prove those statements caused harm (b/c if you prove they were false then RR likely not disassociated.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:22 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
It's actually not that simple. In order to actually WIN a defamation case you have to: 1) prove statements were false 2) be able to show that THOSE statements have actually resulted in harm to one's reputation and/or business
Don't you also have to prove that it was done with malicious intent?
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:35 pm to MullenBoys
Dan Mullen is fricked in my honest opinion
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:45 pm to AshLSU
quote:
Don't you also have to prove that it was done with malicious intent?
Publication of false statements (libel) requires proof of malice. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove A) intent to harm, B) actual harm, and (this one is the biggie) C) that all the statements were false.
The burden of proof is entirely on the plaintiff to prove defendant was false, not on the defendant to prove they are right. That's a tough standard to meet.
In a weird twist, look at all the publicity this law suit is getting for RR. They may actually see an uptick in revenue in the short term as a result of the "free" exposure and a result of the general Ole Miss public rallying behind them since RR is fighting back.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:51 pm to AshLSU
The whole damn thing is nothing more than a diversion tactic. A classic misdirection campaign from Ole Miss people. Nothing more, nothing less.
And there will be more to come surely when the Booster names are released for public consumption.
It won't be enough to divert or misdirect the NCAA, they've already done their due diligence and handed down a bevy of allegations weighty enough to sink the program and any/all named in the NOAs. I can't see the COI looking favorably on the OM folks when their people are targeting student athletes and other programs and making conspiracy theories.
And there will be more to come surely when the Booster names are released for public consumption.
It won't be enough to divert or misdirect the NCAA, they've already done their due diligence and handed down a bevy of allegations weighty enough to sink the program and any/all named in the NOAs. I can't see the COI looking favorably on the OM folks when their people are targeting student athletes and other programs and making conspiracy theories.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:52 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
2. Lewis and Kobe will be f*cked when they are sitting in front of a Lafayette County jury and explain conflicting statements that are easily proven to be false.
you are a stupid fricker if you think for one instance this will be heard in Lafayette County. Posted on 6/14/17 at 11:21 pm to MaroonNation
Where did the offense take place? Was Leo mistaken and he got free merch in Starkville?
Do tell.
Do tell.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 11:37 pm to bamasgot13
re - actual malice you say is required. Maybe you are using Alabama law?
In Mississippi, "public figures have a harder time proving slander or libel because they’re required — by law — to meet the “actual malice” proof standard, whereas “private citizens” only must prove negligence on the part of the defendant."
And, if you want actual malice, did you see Leo's post the day Ole Miss was served with NOA#2. Priceless. Leo's attorney kicked Leo in the arse for that stunt.
In Mississippi, "public figures have a harder time proving slander or libel because they’re required — by law — to meet the “actual malice” proof standard, whereas “private citizens” only must prove negligence on the part of the defendant."
And, if you want actual malice, did you see Leo's post the day Ole Miss was served with NOA#2. Priceless. Leo's attorney kicked Leo in the arse for that stunt.
Posted on 6/14/17 at 11:41 pm to MullenBoys
Charlie filed this? I am out of this discussion.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 12:21 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:55 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Publication of false statements (libel) requires proof of malice. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove A) intent to harm, B) actual harm, and (this one is the biggie) C) that all the statements were false.
So he's lost his case right from the start. Their is no way he can prove that the 3 guys had "intent to harm" him or his business directly. Did they have intent to harm Ole Miss? Absolutely, but there was no "intent to harm" this one individual who owns this business.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 6:36 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Might. I'd be stunned though. Have to prove they were knowingly false statements AND they caused harm. Might be able to prove they were false (if they were), but gonna be hard to prove those statements caused harm (b/c if you prove they were false then RR likely not disassociated.
If the defamatory statement is about a private figure and a matter of private concern, the defendant may be held to a negligence standard. I would assume that RR would likely be a private person for this purpose, and the matter of giving merchandise to an athlete would be a private concern. However, the allegations are that the named defendants knowingly made false statements, so the plaintiff will have to prove defendants made intentionally false statements. That is a pretty straight forward issue, but may not be easy to actually prove. In this situation negligence is not really an issue as to the core issue regarding statements that the football player-defendants received free stuff from RR. Those statements were made truthfully or with knowledge of falsity, though falsity may not be provable.
If false statements were made in writing (libel), or can be deemed slander per se (oral statements that by their content are such, in this context, that would harm one's business reputation for things like honesty and integrity or competence), presumed damages may be permitted, no proof of actual damages required, though this is perhaps still a gray area constitutionally. I would agree that actual damages would be very difficult to prove. But in any event, proof of actual damage may not be required.
There also may be some statute of limitations problems for the plaintiff, since the statute of limitations for defamation in Mississippi is one year. Depending on when the statements were made and when plaintiffs learned of the allegedly defamatory statements, or should have learned of them, some or all of the claims could be could be time-barred.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 7:45 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:36 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
However, the allegations are that the named defendants knowingly made false statements, so the plaintiff will have to prove defendants made intentionally false statements. That is a pretty straight forward issue, but may not be easy to actually prove.
This is the key on the defamation claim to me. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove knowingly false statements were made. That's a hard standard to meet in any case, but especially this one.
quote:
If false statements were made in writing (libel)
Not sure about MS law, but I'm not sure a signed testimony would fall under libel. Also, still a gray area to me on whether or not it could be argued this was testimony in an agreed upon court (athlete & school are both voluntary members of NCAA and, thus, agree that NCAA rules are the "law"). If defense can argue that point, then the testimony could be argued as privileged.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:41 am to matthew25
quote:
In Mississippi, "public figures have a harder time proving slander or libel because they’re required — by law — to meet the “actual malice” proof standard, whereas “private citizens” only must prove negligence on the part of the defendant."
That's not just in MS. I would say that NYT Co v Sullivan Supreme court decision about public figures and press would be used as part of an argument on public figures suing for defamation in any state.
I agree that in the RR case negligence is likely the standard, but to successfully win on Defamation, I still maintain RR is going to have to PROVE the statements were knowingly false. The burden is on plaintiff and it won't be an easy one to meet.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:48 am to matthew25
quote:
Where did the offense take place? Was Leo mistaken and he got free merch in Starkville?
Do tell.
Doesn't matter where it took place. Defense will move to have it relocated due to bias and the judge will grant it. Won't take place in Starkville either. Will be heard on the coast where everyone is a Bama fan
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:51 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:53 am to MaroonNation
quote:
Will be heard on the coast where everyone is a Bamam fan
Man you don't get out of central MS much do you? Coast is pretty strong LSU area.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:56 am to Saskwatch
The coast goes with whoever won the last championship game from the SEC. the most recent was Bama. Biggest group of side walkers in the south.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:59 am to bamasgot13
While negligence would be the standard ordinarily in a case not involving a public figure, it really isn't an option in this case due to the nature of the allegations. If, for example, Lewis said RR gave him free material, that is either a true statement, or knowingly false. Not much room for negligence, not has it been pleaded as a negligence case.
It really won't matter if the statements are written or oral. If it a signed affidavit, it would be libel. If it was oral testimony that was transcribed, it is most likely slander. In either case, no actual or special damages would be required, since it la a libel or slander per se case for the plaintiff's point of view.
Privilege won't apply since the statements were not part of a judicial proceeding and other privileges are qualified. Intentional false statements are not privileged in a qualified privilege situation
It really won't matter if the statements are written or oral. If it a signed affidavit, it would be libel. If it was oral testimony that was transcribed, it is most likely slander. In either case, no actual or special damages would be required, since it la a libel or slander per se case for the plaintiff's point of view.
Privilege won't apply since the statements were not part of a judicial proceeding and other privileges are qualified. Intentional false statements are not privileged in a qualified privilege situation
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News