Started By
Message
re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:06 am to tigerinridgeland
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:06 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
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.
Then why didn't they file it this way? Seems reasonable to me, but they filed differently and have made it harder on themselves. Something about their filing is odd. I doubt they ever expect it to go to trial.
1
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:46 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Then why didn't they file it this way? Seems reasonable to me, but they filed differently and have made it harder on themselves. Something about their filing is odd. I doubt they ever expect it to go to trial.
Good question. My impression is that the case is not really about money, and maybe not even about reputation. So whatever the motives behind the case are, I'll leave to those who want to speculate. But in theory there is a claim for libel or slander, presumably the precise nature will be detailed in further pleadings, assuming the defendants intentionally lied about free stuff. But I also am interested to see if there are statute of limitations issues for at least some of the claims or parties.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:55 pm to matthew25
quote:
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.
The Dark Knight gif? OM was ridiculous to include that in their response. LL wrote NOTHING with the gif to tie that to OM. It's just the Joker clapping. Maybe if his previous or following tweets on that same day implied that the gif was against OM. Otherwise, it's just meaningless to try to use that as any kind of evidence.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:45 pm to MedDawg
Pretty incredible they included that in their response. Leo totally trolled an entire school and fanbase and group of lawyers and never mentioned OM by name. That should be interesting when they explain that one to the COI. 
This has to be the most petulant statement made by any poster in regards to the OM infractions.
I'd imagine they all high-five'd Leo when they saw that in the response.
quote:
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.
This has to be the most petulant statement made by any poster in regards to the OM infractions.
quote:
Leo's attorney kicked Leo in the arse for that stunt.
I'd imagine they all high-five'd Leo when they saw that in the response.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:53 pm to tigerinridgeland
quote:
My impression is that the case is not really about money, and maybe not even about reputation
Agree there.
What did you think of the other two claims of Commercial Disparagement and Civil Conspiracy?
I'm thinking he's going to struggle to prove either of those, too, which is why I agree with your statement I quoted above.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:54 pm to Pickle_Weasel
WEEE Doggie... i lak that comment raht thar. someone pin this thread to the top. yee boy
Posted on 6/15/17 at 4:26 pm to bamasgot13
The disparagement and conspiracy claims do not strike me as compelling. There is serious doubt that Mississippi even recognizes commercial disparagement claims. At least one court, U.S.D.C., S.D., has dismissed a claim of trade libel on the grounds that Mississippi doesn't recognize the tort. So there is some doubt as to whether the claim would survive a motion to dismiss. It would ultimately be an issue for the state supreme court.
Of course the conspiracy claims are only as good as the underlying torts not to mention problems with proving conspiracy.
Of course the conspiracy claims are only as good as the underlying torts not to mention problems with proving conspiracy.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 5:23 pm to tigerinridgeland
quote:
tigerinridgeland
sounds like we are of same opinion - that this lawsuit will not see a court room and was filed for reasons other than those state in said suit.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 7:57 pm to bamasgot13
It is certainly not a plaintiff's lawyer dream case.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:05 pm to tigerinridgeland
I'm fairly certain part of the attorney getting his name on their practice facility was having him do some pro bono work for boosters
Posted on 6/15/17 at 8:45 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
I'm fairly certain part of the attorney getting his name on their practice facility was having him do some pro bono work for boosters
Well, win or lose, the plaintiff's attorneys in this case are not in it for the contingency fee.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:28 pm to tigerinridgeland
Charlie Merkel put up $6 million in his suit against Dickie.
Besides, this lawsuit is underwritten by Dickie and David Nutt. Money is not a problem. Dickie is still making $43 million a year from the tobacco case.
Besides, this lawsuit is underwritten by Dickie and David Nutt. Money is not a problem. Dickie is still making $43 million a year from the tobacco case.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:30 pm to MaroonNation
Moron - it will be real funny when Leo has to produce his cell phone for inspection by Charlie Merkel.
Hope he didn't destroy evidence, if you get my drift. Especially his communications with Muffins.
Hope he didn't destroy evidence, if you get my drift. Especially his communications with Muffins.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 1:17 am to matthew25
quote:
Moron - it will be real funny when Leo has to produce his cell phone for inspection by Charlie Merkel.
Never gonna happen. Give up on that dream.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 1:20 am to matthew25
quote:
Besides, this lawsuit is underwritten by Dickie and David Nutt. Money is not a problem. Dickie is still making $43 million a year from the tobacco case.
Dorkie should still be in prison. Just more proof of how big of a failure our judicial system is.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 1:47 am to matthew25
quote:
Moron
Is what you have proven yourself to be over and over during this whole ordeal.
Keep sucking on Yancy's tailpipe, he is bound to be correct at least once sooner or later.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 4:17 am to matthew25
quote:
Money is not a problem.
That was the point of my comment. The suit isn't about money or the plaintiff's reputation.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 4:23 am to tigerinridgeland
Rebel Rags licenses many a trademark and/or copyright to self-create t-shirts and other memorabilia. Remove those licensing rights and you remove a product base. Remove a product base, and you're facing a loss of income budgeted on said product. Regardless of impropriety, to claim this store has nothing to lose through disassociation is to claim no knowledge of the store's wares
ETA: typos, y'all
ETA: typos, y'all
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 4:25 am
Posted on 6/16/17 at 5:17 am to TOFTR
The civil suit isn't about recovering money damages from the defendants, and it isn't about the plaintiff's reputation. The outcome of the suit will not in reality affect the public's perception, except perhaps if the plaintiffs lose. Folks will generally continue to believe what they want about RR and whether it has or has not given free stuff to athletes, whatever happens. Whether the athletes involved in this case lied or not will not likely affect what RR's customers or potential customers believe about whether RR has given stuff to other athletes.
You may well be correct that the real issue is about the NCAA potentially forcing Ole Miss to dissassociate the plaintiffs. The civil suit itself can't stop the disassociation. The NCAA and Ole Miss are not defendants in the suit. So my point remains, it isn't about damages from the defendants, as they presently don't have the ability to pay significant damages; the conspiracy theory is fairly weak; and the disparagement suit is not strong (no Mississippi case has ever recognized the claim, and at least one federal court has dismissed a trade libel suit for that reason). So my best guess is the plaintiffs are seeking to indirectly impact the NCAA's actions in dealing with the charges involving plaintiffs which might result in disassociation, and to try to help Ole Miss generally in pressuring the NCAA.
The problem is that even if they win the suit, the NCAA may still force the disassociation, because the suit doesn't have a direct impact on the NCAA. If the NCAA does force the disassociation, then the damage to RR you mention is done. If that leads to law suits against the NCAA and/or even Ole Miss, it will likely be years down the road before there is a resolution that would help RR.
You may well be correct that the real issue is about the NCAA potentially forcing Ole Miss to dissassociate the plaintiffs. The civil suit itself can't stop the disassociation. The NCAA and Ole Miss are not defendants in the suit. So my point remains, it isn't about damages from the defendants, as they presently don't have the ability to pay significant damages; the conspiracy theory is fairly weak; and the disparagement suit is not strong (no Mississippi case has ever recognized the claim, and at least one federal court has dismissed a trade libel suit for that reason). So my best guess is the plaintiffs are seeking to indirectly impact the NCAA's actions in dealing with the charges involving plaintiffs which might result in disassociation, and to try to help Ole Miss generally in pressuring the NCAA.
The problem is that even if they win the suit, the NCAA may still force the disassociation, because the suit doesn't have a direct impact on the NCAA. If the NCAA does force the disassociation, then the damage to RR you mention is done. If that leads to law suits against the NCAA and/or even Ole Miss, it will likely be years down the road before there is a resolution that would help RR.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 5:21 am to tigerinridgeland
I mean, confirmation bias will fuel basically every point of any argument so far
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News