Started By
Message
re: John Sharp shits all over Chip Brown
Posted on 1/7/16 at 7:10 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Posted on 1/7/16 at 7:10 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Damn that was a thorough thrashing of one Mr. Brown 
1
Posted on 1/7/16 at 7:33 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Watch him go to his go to response by playing the victim
Posted on 1/7/16 at 7:42 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
John Sharp is an unprofessional tool who is ruining our university, but Chip Brown is a worse person and this is awesome:
quote:
In the meantime, we hereby nominate “Cowchip” Brown for sleaziest reporter in Texas, with full confidence he will win hands down.”
Posted on 1/7/16 at 10:01 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Watch him go to his go to response by playing the victim
Or try some high and mighty "a university official shouldn't be responding to a lowly reporter" tack.
Posted on 1/7/16 at 10:06 pm to TbirdSpur2010
A lowly reporter committing libel.
Posted on 1/8/16 at 5:46 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
John Sharp is an unprofessional tool who is ruining our university
fact. We used to be ranked higher than UT nationally. Now Baylor is nipping at our heels and we're almost a diploma mill.
Posted on 1/8/16 at 8:11 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
A lowly reporter committing libel
If it is truly libel then Sharp and A&M ought to go after Chip Brown. Been through a few lawsuits both domestically and internationally and the one thing you cannot escape are the legal bills. In a case like this they will be devastating to someone like Chip Brown win or lose.
He called down the thunder, Sharp and A&M ought to deliver it. They can send him into financial ruin which will take years to recover from. It all gets real once you are served... trust me. There aren't enough subscribers out there to make taking Texas A&M on in court worth it.
Just bust his arse once and for all.
Posted on 1/8/16 at 9:13 am to Tridentds
Keep in mind that Sharp is a public figure and Chip is a writer for a (somewhat laughable) media source.
Sharp would have to prove that Chip published this information even though he knew it to be false. See New York Times v. Sullivan. "the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)."
This is how the National Inquirer works. They can catch wind of something from someone and stop digging. If they dig any further and find out that the information is false, then they can't publish it. Otherwise, they are given a lot of flexibility.
I can't imagine that Sharp would proceed with a lawsuit given that the subject here is clearly established law by the Supreme Court. I doubt Sharp wants to be seen as someone who rallies against the 1st amendment, even if his personal pride has to take a hit.
Sharp would have to prove that Chip published this information even though he knew it to be false. See New York Times v. Sullivan. "the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)."
This is how the National Inquirer works. They can catch wind of something from someone and stop digging. If they dig any further and find out that the information is false, then they can't publish it. Otherwise, they are given a lot of flexibility.
I can't imagine that Sharp would proceed with a lawsuit given that the subject here is clearly established law by the Supreme Court. I doubt Sharp wants to be seen as someone who rallies against the 1st amendment, even if his personal pride has to take a hit.
This post was edited on 1/8/16 at 9:17 am
Posted on 1/8/16 at 9:24 am to GregoryPeck
I get that. That's why I started my post off with IF.
It still costs money to get a judge to throw something out. It costs a lot of money. We were sued under the Lanham Act and it had no basis whatsover but it took 1 1/2 years and almost $1.3M in legal fees to get it thrown out. We used SKV in Houston.
Chip would have to get a firm to represent him. A&M would file in a court in Dallas forcing Chip to get representation in Big D. His team would spend days writing up the reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out and how it is not libel. A&M would respond as to why it is libel and not protected. This shite goes on and on until and a declatory judgement would be a year or two away.
Meanwhile A&M starts calling in witnesses forcing Chip Brown's attorneys to do the same. A&M could file for forensics discovery of his cell, computers, etc.. and Chip's lawyers would have to fight that stuff as well. They would argue why it is beyond the scope of this case and A&M lawyers would argue why it is necessary. This wold go on and on and on.
Each month he would rack up legal bills into the tens of thousands of dollars.
If you are a lawyer, then you know how the game works. You don't have to be right, you have to have deep pockets. One of our pockets is deeper than all pockets in all the suits and shirts someone like Chip Brown owns.
Like I said, IF it is truly Libel. Of course, that is what courts are for.
It still costs money to get a judge to throw something out. It costs a lot of money. We were sued under the Lanham Act and it had no basis whatsover but it took 1 1/2 years and almost $1.3M in legal fees to get it thrown out. We used SKV in Houston.
Chip would have to get a firm to represent him. A&M would file in a court in Dallas forcing Chip to get representation in Big D. His team would spend days writing up the reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out and how it is not libel. A&M would respond as to why it is libel and not protected. This shite goes on and on until and a declatory judgement would be a year or two away.
Meanwhile A&M starts calling in witnesses forcing Chip Brown's attorneys to do the same. A&M could file for forensics discovery of his cell, computers, etc.. and Chip's lawyers would have to fight that stuff as well. They would argue why it is beyond the scope of this case and A&M lawyers would argue why it is necessary. This wold go on and on and on.
Each month he would rack up legal bills into the tens of thousands of dollars.
If you are a lawyer, then you know how the game works. You don't have to be right, you have to have deep pockets. One of our pockets is deeper than all pockets in all the suits and shirts someone like Chip Brown owns.
Like I said, IF it is truly Libel. Of course, that is what courts are for.
This post was edited on 1/8/16 at 9:27 am
Posted on 1/8/16 at 12:26 pm to Tridentds
quote:
I get that. That's why I started my post off with IF.
It still costs money to get a judge to throw something out. It costs a lot of money. We were sued under the Lanham Act and it had no basis whatsover but it took 1 1/2 years and almost $1.3M in legal fees to get it thrown out. We used SKV in Houston.
Chip would have to get a firm to represent him. A&M would file in a court in Dallas forcing Chip to get representation in Big D. His team would spend days writing up the reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out and how it is not libel. A&M would respond as to why it is libel and not protected. This shite goes on and on until and a declatory judgement would be a year or two away.
Meanwhile A&M starts calling in witnesses forcing Chip Brown's attorneys to do the same. A&M could file for forensics discovery of his cell, computers, etc.. and Chip's lawyers would have to fight that stuff as well. They would argue why it is beyond the scope of this case and A&M lawyers would argue why it is necessary. This wold go on and on and on.
Each month he would rack up legal bills into the tens of thousands of dollars.
If you are a lawyer, then you know how the game works. You don't have to be right, you have to have deep pockets. One of our pockets is deeper than all pockets in all the suits and shirts someone like Chip Brown owns.
Like I said, IF it is truly Libel. Of course, that is what courts are for.
Exactly.
Letting him get away with it because he may prevail on the ground that his target is a public figure only invites him to continue to screw with our recruiting efforts. He needs to pay somebody (attorney's fees or otherwise). He needs to be deterred from reporting in such an irresponsible/fraudulent manner.
Posted on 1/8/16 at 1:39 pm to KaiserSoze99
Ketch is apparently exposing how "low rent" a&m is in regards to this on his radio show. If you are one of the dozen people listening please give a recap
Posted on 1/8/16 at 1:42 pm to leoj
That's no moon.
Posted on 1/14/16 at 9:16 am to texag7
Posted on 1/14/16 at 9:20 am to Hugh McElroy
Yeah I saw that earlier someone needs to send it to chimp
Posted on 1/14/16 at 1:33 pm to Hugh McElroy
Posted on 1/14/16 at 2:37 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Poor Chimp.
there is nobody in the media world i dislike than Chip Brown and Ketch.
3rd is Liucci. Eff that dude.
This post was edited on 1/14/16 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 1/14/16 at 2:44 pm to 3nOut
I don't like chin-pube either. He creates more problems for A&M than benefits.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:38 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Chip Brown
Click monkey baiting idiots across the US
If everybody ignored his poo flinging we would all be better off
Page 2 of 2
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News