If this has been posted already, my apologies...
http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/fanh...t-pacquiao.pdf
Printable View
If this has been posted already, my apologies...
http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/fanh...t-pacquiao.pdf
You know that this isn't going anywhere because it's basically an advertisement for Pacquiao, it's a list of his achievements with a dash of accusation. It is on team Pacquiao not only that it was malice, but that it caused measureable damage to his image (i.e. decrease in revenue) last I checked he still was able to book fights with no problem and secure venues to house said fights. Therefore no measureable financial harm has been done to him.
he could only fight toprank fighters now since everybody is taking the GBP/mayweather stance in testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
im not saying pacquiao has a strong case but what if he wins this lawsuit, floyd will be paying pacquiao million of dollars in damages?
What if Frazier had sued Ali instead of fighting him? What if Lennox Lewis called off the fight and decided to sue Tyson for the leg biting incident?
I will be honest, I wanted more pre-fight drama for this one, and I got it. I was a little disappointed the biggest fight of my life so far was going to happen in just a couple of short months. Now I just have to hope it doesn't turn into a Hopkins-Jones situation. Unbelievable, and also I'm shocked about how dumb the people on ESPN are about this. Not the Friday Night Fights staff of course but everyone else, them talking about it on PTI yesterday made me queezy.
Also, I'm glad I got to finally see wtf they were talking about when they said Mayweather Jr. accused him too. Half of the 'false accusations' weren't false accusations at all. De La Hoya and Ellerbe stick out as to who they really didn't say anything false about Manny at all.
If he is suing for defamation of character won't he have to drug test anyway to prove the claims against him are false?
I don't know a great deal about the law in the US but does Manny actually have a case? If he's saying these allegations could prevent future earning then how would he win? Because from the original accusations after the Hatton fight from Mayweather Sr he's made a huge payday against Cotto, is set to make another big payday against Clottey and he would have made the biggest amount of his career if he'd took the tests and fought Mayweather. I just don't see how he could win it?
Did XaduBoxer write that lawsuit?? :rolleyes:
It's a legal document, not some PR release to go on about how great Manny is. FFS, whoever wrote that is surely going to get laughed out of court.
Anyway, I did Media Law at University, and I can say with a great deal of certainty that he will struggle to win, particularly in the US. If it was in the UK, he might have a better chance, but some of those are just never going to happen. There is no way in hell that Schaeffer, Oscar or Ellerbe can be held liable & the only plus out of going for them is it might finally ruin Ronnie Nathanielsz reputation enough that BoxingScene get rid of him. He's basically XaduBoxer among journalists.
Floyd Jr made an off the cuff comment that he could easily say was meant in jest. In addition, Pacquiao has to prove that it was a truly malicious comment that was said in a moment of 'sober mind', ie not when someone is inebriated, upset or angry. Mayweather can easily argue that he was provoked into it and that the interviewer chose to interpret his comments. Mayweather Sr made clear that what he said was only his own opinion on the matter and a personal belief. Hard to win there. He might get something out of Roger Mayweather because he made an assertion that he knew something as fact. Even then he could argue that he was asserting a personal opinion, but unlike the others he didn't verify it as such.
How about this? Did Mayweather sue Gatti for defamation of character? PBF could have put off the fight, fought the trial against him instead of pleading no contest to keep the fight with Arturro and sued him for calling Floyd a woman beater. Instead, he let his fists do the talking (against Gatti). And Floyd actually countered Gatti with the fact that Arturro had been busted drunk driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
In my opinion.. The only 'defamation' to Pacquiao is the fact that he followed through with this ludicrous lawsuit. Wouldn't it have just made more sense to take the test and beat Floyd after he proved he was not on PED's? Everyone would then praise Pacquiao like they have been, and call Floyd a fraud like they have been.
Instead he went this ridiculous political route which makes HIM the one to look as if he's ducking another fighter because he would not comply with taking a drug test closer than 30 days to the fight. Even with all of the crap that goes on, I find it VERY hard to believe that a compromise couldn't have been met to say, "okay, well take it 10 days before the fight, and another right after the fight".
Well, considering Mayweather changed to 14 days before the fight it makes Pac's excuses even more water thin.
Well fellas, It looks like the Lawsuit is going to trial. The Judge disagreed that comments by the defendants were opinions and the request to dismiss the case.
This should just be attached to the other thread on here " Are modern humans more WIMPS than say in the 50's???? YES!!!"" To me this just proves that they are!!
What a waste of taxpayer dollars our court system is. Seems like a complete waste of time, how is this not a freedom of speech issue? Really good point made by Amat a year ago....so are we going to see lawsuits for everytime a boxer talks trash to another boxer claiming defamation of character? Now Devon alexander gets to sue Malignaggi for saying he has no heart? Seems like a total bitch move by Pac's camp, and a way to hush the people talking about him.
Tax Payers don't pick up the tab on private party civil lawsuits. That is paid by the one filing the suit, i.e. disposition costs etc. If the defendant is found guilty, then they are held liable for the costs at the end of the day. The costs covered by the Tax payer are indirect costs of the system itself. Rents, Land, Insurance etc. but those costs are insignificant incidentals compared to the rest of the system costs. Where the system gets bogged down is with these scam artists and Lawyers working the system with 1000's of cases not limited to civil cases. That's where the system gets abused and not with a single civil suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Contest
Point is, it would have been a waste of time if the Judge threw out the case, but he didn't so it is not a frivolous case. We are not going to see a bunch of boxers filing defamation suits. Most boxers don't even know what the word means. Beside I'd rather think most boxers would rather just kick your ass than file a Lawsuit.
Meanwhile that court could have tried a real case, there is going to be a jury? Yeah thats taking money from taxpayers. I know I'd rather go to work than sit in a court all day for $5.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyTax Payers don't pick up the tab on private party civil lawsuits. That is paid by the one filing the suit, i.e. disposition costs etc. If the defendant is found guilty, then they are held liable for the costs at the end of the day. The costs covered by the Tax payer are indirect costs of the system itself. Rents, Land, Insurance etc. but those costs are insignificant incidentals compared to the rest of the system costs. Where the system gets bogged down is with these scam artists and Lawyers working the system with 1000's of cases not limited to civil cases. That's where the system gets abused and not with a single civil suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Contest
Point is, it would have been a waste of time if the Judge threw out the case, but he didn't so it is not a frivolous case. We are not going to see a bunch of boxers filing defamation suits. Most boxers don't even know what the word means. Beside I'd rather think most boxers would rather just kick your ass than file a Lawsuit.
I don't know?, its probably worth it to sit in on as a Juror. Might actually be worth the novelty of a two dollar bill after its all over. Hell, if you that disturbed by it you could lie your way on and be the hold out on a guilty verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by No ContestMeanwhile that court could have tried a real case, there is going to be a jury? Yeah thats taking money from taxpayers. I know I'd rather go to work than sit in a court all day for $5.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyTax Payers don't pick up the tab on private party civil lawsuits. That is paid by the one filing the suit, i.e. disposition costs etc. If the defendant is found guilty, then they are held liable for the costs at the end of the day. The costs covered by the Tax payer are indirect costs of the system itself. Rents, Land, Insurance etc. but those costs are insignificant incidentals compared to the rest of the system costs. Where the system gets bogged down is with these scam artists and Lawyers working the system with 1000's of cases not limited to civil cases. That's where the system gets abused and not with a single civil suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Contest
Point is, it would have been a waste of time if the Judge threw out the case, but he didn't so it is not a frivolous case. We are not going to see a bunch of boxers filing defamation suits. Most boxers don't even know what the word means. Beside I'd rather think most boxers would rather just kick your ass than file a Lawsuit.