Mayweather Seeks Delay of Pacquiao Deposition

[:::PSL:::]

I'm pretty sure in a defamation suit involving a public figure, like here, Pacquiao will have to show damages in order to win. I don't see how he does that here.

Does buttloads of tv reports and news articles counts as evidence?

[Rantcatrat]

I'm pretty sure in a defamation suit involving a public figure, like here, Pacquiao will have to show damages in order to win. I don't see how he does that here.

Does buttloads of tv reports and news articles counts as evidence?

I was wrong. Pacquiao just needs to prove that damage was done to his reputation in boxing. That'll be easy. Disregard my last statement.

If Floyd defamed Pacquiao, there is nothing wrong with Pacquiao bringing suit. Clearly, Floyd has maligned Pacquiao with his steroid accusations. Pacquiao will need to prove that Floyd's statements caused injury to his reputation, that the statements were false, Pacquiao is not on steroids (or wasn't on them when Floyd defamed him) and that Floyd acted with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity.

In my humble opinion, Pacquiao has a pretty good case of defamation. The statements are damaging to his reputation. Prior to Floyd's accusations, no one even considered whether Pacquiao was on steroids. Now, many people completely write him off. Pacquiao can show the statements are false with sufficient certainty by showing that he has never failed a drug test. He can also submit to the court a drug test on the spot and pass that test. Pacquiao then needs to show that Floyd acted with reckless disregard. Again, there is no way Floyd had any reason to believe that Pacquiao was on steroids other than he was successful rising in weight in boxing, which isn't uncommon. Floyd would need to show that Pacquiao has failed drug tests or have witnesses with firsthand knowledge testifying that Pacquiao took steroids.

Is it inconsistent to critique Pacquiao's recent victories as smoke and mirrors because of the alleged lack of quality opponents and at the same time accuse of Pacquiao of only being able to beat those same subpar opponents because of steroids?

[foxbat1126]

I'm pretty sure in a defamation suit involving a public figure, like here, Pacquiao will have to show damages in order to win. I don't see how he does that here.

Does buttloads of tv reports and news articles counts as evidence?

I was wrong. Pacquiao just needs to prove that damage was done to his reputation in boxing. That'll be easy. Disregard my last statement.

If Floyd defamed Pacquiao, there is nothing wrong with Pacquiao bringing suit. Clearly, Floyd has maligned Pacquiao with his steroid accusations. Pacquiao will need to prove that Floyd's statements caused injury to his reputation, that the statements were false, Pacquiao is not on steroids (or wasn't on them when Floyd defamed him) and that Floyd acted with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity.

In my humble opinion, Pacquiao has a pretty good case of defamation. The statements are damaging to his reputation. Prior to Floyd's accusations, no one even considered whether Pacquiao was on steroids. Now, many people completely write him off. Pacquiao can show the statements are false with sufficient certainty by showing that he has never failed a drug test. He can also submit to the court a drug test on the spot and pass that test. Pacquiao then needs to show that Floyd acted with reckless disregard. Again, there is no way Floyd had any reason to believe that Pacquiao was on steroids other than he was successful rising in weight in boxing, which isn't uncommon. Floyd would need to show that Pacquiao has failed drug tests or have witnesses with firsthand knowledge testifying that Pacquiao took steroids.

Is it inconsistent to critique Pacquiao's recent victories as smoke and mirrors because of the alleged lack of quality opponents and at the same time accuse of Pacquiao of only being able to beat those same subpar opponents because of steroids?

I would like to share a news report from USA Today by Laura Parker posted on 10/11/2006 that could be an interest to people that follows the Pacquiao Vs Mayweather Defamation suit.


To quote from USA, Today:

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him. When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.


After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.


"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."


Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."


LinK: USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts


In my opinion, it seems mainstream America (the jury in this case ), does not see eye to eye with the Mayweathers version of "free speech", calling a person a "fraud" and "a cheat" without any proof ( after Bock didn't offer a defense).


I do not know if there was an appeal to Court's decision.

[fan johnny]

I'm pretty sure in a defamation suit involving a public figure, like here, Pacquiao will have to show damages in order to win. I don't see how he does that here.

Does buttloads of tv reports and news articles counts as evidence?

I was wrong. Pacquiao just needs to prove that damage was done to his reputation in boxing. That'll be easy. Disregard my last statement.

If Floyd defamed Pacquiao, there is nothing wrong with Pacquiao bringing suit. Clearly, Floyd has maligned Pacquiao with his steroid accusations. Pacquiao will need to prove that Floyd's statements caused injury to his reputation, that the statements were false, Pacquiao is not on steroids (or wasn't on them when Floyd defamed him) and that Floyd acted with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity.

In my humble opinion, Pacquiao has a pretty good case of defamation. The statements are damaging to his reputation. Prior to Floyd's accusations, no one even considered whether Pacquiao was on steroids. Now, many people completely write him off. Pacquiao can show the statements are false with sufficient certainty by showing that he has never failed a drug test. He can also submit to the court a drug test on the spot and pass that test. Pacquiao then needs to show that Floyd acted with reckless disregard. Again, there is no way Floyd had any reason to believe that Pacquiao was on steroids other than he was successful rising in weight in boxing, which isn't uncommon. Floyd would need to show that Pacquiao has failed drug tests or have witnesses with firsthand knowledge testifying that Pacquiao took steroids.

Is it inconsistent to critique Pacquiao's recent victories as smoke and mirrors because of the alleged lack of quality opponents and at the same time accuse of Pacquiao of only being able to beat those same subpar opponents because of steroids?

I would like to share a news report from USA Today by Laura Parker posted on 10/11/2006 that could be an interest to people that follows the Pacquiao Vs Mayweather Defamation suit.


To quote from USA, Today:

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him. When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.

After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.

"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

LinK: USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

In my opinion, it seems mainstream America (the jury in this case ), does not see eye to eye with the Mayweathers version of "free speech", calling a person a "fraud" and "a cheat" without any proof ( after Bock didn't offer a defense).

I do not know if there was an appeal to Court's decision.

The Florida courts are known for being corrupt, just google it. Point being you can't use a case from that state as an example. Another issue is that Pacquaio's status as a congressman and celebrity puts him in a different category than a small business. And yet a issue is that Pacquiao's case is a Federal case not a State case.