PDA

View Full Version : Bonds Suing - Oops not for libel


daveeym
03-23-2006, 05:54 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2381381

This is turning rather humorous.

WSox8404
03-23-2006, 06:02 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2381381

This is turning rather humorous.

Hmm I wonder why. Too bad most people in this country are too ignorant to know what that means.

MarySwiss
03-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Well, I think the most important question here is, if Bonds leaves the game, what happens to Pedro Gomez?

spiffie
03-23-2006, 07:08 PM
Well, I think the most important question here is, if Bonds leaves the game, what happens to Pedro Gomez?
He goes to the Ahmad Rashad Rest Home for Media Sycophants.

TDog
03-23-2006, 07:30 PM
Not suing for libel in a complaint that apparently alleges the allegation are untrue? I don't know the California law referenced here, but obviously it isn't as difficult to prove as libel, which is shrouded in federal First-Amendent caselaw. One of the reasons many celebrities don't sue for libel is that even when the defendants don't have truth on their side, libel is difficult to prove.

Ol' No. 2
03-23-2006, 08:32 PM
Not suing for libel in a complaint that apparently alleges the allegation are untrue? I don't know the California law referenced here, but obviously it isn't as difficult to prove as libel, which is shrouded in federal First-Amendent caselaw. One of the reasons many celebrities don't sue for libel is that even when the defendants don't have truth on their side, libel is difficult to prove.Actually, there's nothing in the suit alleging untruth. The reason he's not suing for libel is that he'd have to take the stand himself. It's not hard to imagine where that would go.

downstairs
03-23-2006, 08:46 PM
Actually, there's nothing in the suit alleging untruth. The reason he's not suing for libel is that he'd have to take the stand himself. It's not hard to imagine where that would go.

I wonder if they can somehow countersue him into taking the stand, where questions of his steroid use could legally come into question?

Any lawyers know?

Ol' No. 2
03-23-2006, 09:00 PM
I wonder if they can somehow countersue him into taking the stand, where questions of his steroid use could legally come into question?

Any lawyers know?I don't see how. His steroid use is irrelevant to the suit. It's only about their disclosure of materials from sealed grand jury proceedings.

TDog
03-24-2006, 03:47 AM
Actually, there's nothing in the suit alleging untruth. The reason he's not suing for libel is that he'd have to take the stand himself. It's not hard to imagine where that would go.

The first report I heard on the radio said there were allegations of untruth, which is apparently not the case. It looks like the question of Bonds' steroid use is irrelevant.

daveeym
03-24-2006, 08:38 AM
The first report I heard on the radio said there were allegations of untruth, which is apparently not the case. It looks like the question of Bonds' steroid use is irrelevant. It's very creative lawyering and it seems it's being done to give the appearance of putting up a fight so his idiot backers and the ignorant think he's standing up for himself. From the article it doesn't even appear that the injunction can stop the book from being published and/or sold, just that Bonds gets any profits from its sales.

voodoochile
03-24-2006, 09:37 AM
Actually, there's nothing in the suit alleging untruth. The reason he's not suing for libel is that he'd have to take the stand himself. It's not hard to imagine where that would go.
Basically, Barry has given up trying to prove he wasn't a cheater and is making a run at a fat wad of cash. If he has to go down, he might as well get paid to do so...

Later, Barry... You suck.

Edit: This has gone beyond the ridiculous. It isn't sublime. I used to be disgusted, for a while I was amused, but now I'm just disgusted again. Unbe-****-inglievable. Barry has no shame. He has no morals. He only has his ego. Man, I hope he gets whatever is coming to him and soon. Ban his ass and do it now...

palehozenychicty
03-24-2006, 10:04 AM
Just by the fact that he is suing the 'illegal' use of the grand jury transcripts that documented his illegal conduct is funny to me.

itsnotrequired
03-24-2006, 10:27 AM
Edit: This has gone beyond the ridiculous. It isn't sublime. I used to be disgusted, for a while I was amused, but now I'm just disgusted again. Unbe-****-inglievable. Barry has no shame. He has no morals. He only has his ego. Man, I hope he gets whatever is coming to him and soon. Ban his ass and do it now...

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?:D:

soxinem1
03-24-2006, 11:25 AM
Basically, Barry has given up trying to prove he wasn't a cheater and is making a run at a fat wad of cash. If he has to go down, he might as well get paid to do so...

Later, Barry... You suck.

Edit: This has gone beyond the ridiculous. It isn't sublime. I used to be disgusted, for a while I was amused, but now I'm just disgusted again. Unbe-****-inglievable. Barry has no shame. He has no morals. He only has his ego. Man, I hope he gets whatever is coming to him and soon. Ban his ass and do it now...

Too bad it's not that simple. The bad thing is that he is trying to use a technicality, which may actually be a good thing.

The fallout over his stance on the issue might be great enough to see the following happen to his season stats:

128 G
45 AB
13 H
6 R
1 2B
0 3B
2 HR
6 RBI
378 BB
16 K

MisterB
03-24-2006, 11:30 AM
As I understand it, if the law in question has been broken, any profits from sale of the book would be forfeit to the state as a penalty, plus punitive fines. AFAIK, Bonds doesn't get a dime unless he files a civil suit against the authors or publisher.

Jaffar
03-24-2006, 02:04 PM
San Fran Chronicle quote according to ESPN radio 1000. "Go ahead and sue us Barry, we'll sue you back, see you on the witness stand!" Probably not exact as I'm going off of memory but it was the headline of the paper I guess.

One word AWESOME!

CLR01
03-24-2006, 02:41 PM
San Fran Chronicle quote according to ESPN radio 1000. "Go ahead and sue us Barry, we'll sue you back, see you on the witness stand!" Probably not exact as I'm going off of memory but it was the headline of the paper I guess.

One word AWESOME!


I would love to see that but what could they sue him for?

Flight #24
03-24-2006, 02:56 PM
I would love to see that but what could they sue him for?

Criminal Jackassery?
Surliness with Intent to Annoy?
Fraudulent Conveyance of Statistics?

Mohoney
03-24-2006, 02:56 PM
Basically, Barry has given up trying to prove he wasn't a cheater and is making a run at a fat wad of cash. If he has to go down, he might as well get paid to do so...

Later, Barry... You suck.

Edit: I used to be disgusted, for a while I was amused, but now I'm just disgusted again.

Does Barry wanna wear your red shoes?

HotelWhiteSox
03-24-2006, 03:17 PM
Hilarious, so he is sueing for how they got the info, but not for the info itself, basically indirectly admitting that it's true?

daveeym
03-24-2006, 04:03 PM
Updated - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2382588

Suckers.

Anyone have ESPN Insider? If so could you recap Bonds' attorney's interview with Dan Patrick as to why there isn't a slander or libel case?

SOXPHILE
03-24-2006, 04:03 PM
Just heard on the Score that a judge has denied Bonds and his lawyers request on this. Good. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! Reap what you sew, Bonds, you bloated jerk.

Flight #24
03-24-2006, 04:10 PM
Updated - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2382588

Suckers.

Anyone have ESPN Insider? If so could you recap Bonds' attorney's interview with Dan Patrick as to why there isn't a slander or libel case?

ESPN also had a chat with "legal analyst Roger Cossack". Any insiders - anything interesting there in terms of the specifics of what they tried to do and the implications? I.e. was it specifically structured so as to avoid any chance that Bonds could get subpoenaed for steroid testimony?

Jaffar
03-24-2006, 04:19 PM
I was listening to DP and it got pretty heated between Cossak (sp?) and Raines (Bonds attorney). Basically Cossak said I don't agree with you but if he didn't use roids file a libel suit. Raines response is it's hard to win a libel suit, look at all the slander in grocery store checkouts. Celebrities get accused of everything to having sex with animals and they can't win the win the suits. He seriously said that, not exactly those words but he did reference sex with animals and grocery stores. The only thing I was upset Cossak didn't say to that was, at least those celebrities file the suit because it's fighting it that at least says something about you innocence. Raines went on to say you have a year to file the libel and they are still considering it but they wanted to make sure these guys didn't make any money.

daveeym
03-24-2006, 04:32 PM
I was listening to DP and it got pretty heated between Cossak (sp?) and Raines (Bonds attorney). Basically Cossak said I don't agree with you but if he didn't use roids file a libel suit. Raines response is it's hard to win a libel suit, look at all the slander in grocery store checkouts. Celebrities get accused of everything to having sex with animals and they can't win the win the suits. He seriously said that, not exactly those words but he did reference sex with animals and grocery stores. The only thing I was upset Cossak didn't say to that was, at least those celebrities file the suit because it's fighting it that at least says something about you innocence. Raines went on to say you have a year to file the libel and they are still considering it but they wanted to make sure these guys didn't make any money. In other words (aw ****), "And, and, and... we have a year to file a libel suit, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."

No way they ever file that libel suit. I'm not sure if I should feel bad for Raines or if he's as much as a cocky moron as Bonds is. He's either poorly performing his pr duties as a lawyer or he's just as cocky, outspoken and defiant as Bonds.

Ol' No. 2
03-24-2006, 04:32 PM
"We are seeking to have the credibility and integrity of the grand jury proceeding restored," Bonds lawyer Alison Berry Wilkinson told the judge during a 40-minute hearing in San Francisco County Superior Court.Earlier Friday, Bonds' lawyers sent a letter to a federal judge, demanding that Fainaru-Wada and Williams be held in contempt of court. "The true victim is not Barry Bonds, but the sanctity and integrity of the grand jury process," the attorneys wrote to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston.
And I thought this was just a smokescreen. They are really just trying to protect the credibility, sanctity and integrity of the grand jury system. We should be grateful that Barry is so civic-minded. :rolleyes:

SOXPHILE
03-24-2006, 04:35 PM
I was listening to DP and it got pretty heated between Cossak (sp?) and Raines (Bonds attorney). Basically Cossak said I don't agree with you but if he didn't use roids file a libel suit. Raines response is it's hard to win a libel suit, look at all the slander in grocery store checkouts. Celebrities get accused of everything to having sex with animals and they can't win the win the suits. He seriously said that, not exactly those words but he did reference sex with animals and grocery stores. The only thing I was upset Cossak didn't say to that was, at least those celebrities file the suit because it's fighting it that at least says something about you innocence. Raines went on to say you have a year to file the libel and they are still considering it but they wanted to make sure these guys didn't make any money.

I think his lawyer might even be wrong about that, with regards to that garbage in the grocery store checkout line. Carol Burnett, I think, won a HUGE amount of money from the Enquirer some years ago for some crap they wrote about her. I also every so often hear about some celebrity or other suing, or settling out of court with all these different rags with regards to some B.S. story or headline they wrote about them. I think these tabloids have to be really careful when it comes to actually saying a specific person did something (married an alien, got coked up at some club, beats their servants with a horse whip, etc.). Lawyers, help me out here ? Either way, you have to wonder why Mr. Big Head's lawyers didn't look at this, and say "Uhhh...Barrry ? This might not be in your best interest to go through with this..."

daveeym
03-24-2006, 04:39 PM
And I thought this was just a smokescreen. They are really just trying to protect the credibility, sanctity and integrity of the grand jury system. We should be grateful that Barry is so civic-minded. :rolleyes: Too bad the asshat didn't think about the credibility, sanctity and integrity of baseball.

downstairs
03-24-2006, 04:48 PM
I would love to see that but what could they sue him for?

You can sue anyone for anything... especially if you don't care to win and just want someone on the stand, or just want to cost them money to defend themselves...

IlliniSox4Life
03-24-2006, 04:49 PM
I think his lawyer might even be wrong about that, with regards to that garbage in the grocery store checkout line. Carol Burnett, I think, won a HUGE amount of money from the Enquirer some years ago for some crap they wrote about her. I also every so often hear about some celebrity or other suing, or settling out of court with all these different rags with regards to some B.S. story or headline they wrote about them. I think these tabloids have to be really careful when it comes to actually saying a specific person did something (married an alien, got coked up at some club, beats their servants with a horse whip, etc.). Lawyers, help me out here ? Either way, you have to wonder why Mr. Big Head's lawyers didn't look at this, and say "Uhhh...Barrry ? This might not be in your best interest to go through with this..."

While not a lawyer, I do know it is hard to win a libel suit. First, you have to prove that they damaged your reputation and then you have to prove what exactly the damages were worth. I don't think this is damaging his reputation. Everyone was already on Barry for steroids. Plus, truth is an absolute defense for libel, which would make it damn near impossible to prove libel in this case.

Also, the thing with the tabloids is just a cover his lawyer is using. From my understanding, tabloids, for the most part, are allowed to print that stuff because it is considered a sort of parody of public figures. A printed book presented as truth would not be subject to the same interpretation of laws as a super market tabloid. It would be much easier to prove libel in a book than in something on a tabloid. It is just Barry's lawyer's excuse for why they aren't suing for libel. The real reason being that at least the important parts of the book are true. You damn well better believe if this was Frank Thomas being accused, he would be suing for libel.

Lip Man 1
03-24-2006, 09:15 PM
Celebs win libel suits all the time now. There are constant court cases where rags like the National Enquierer have to pay. Dan Patrick mentioned this as well today.

Lip

voodoochile
03-25-2006, 12:08 AM
You can sue anyone for anything... especially if you don't care to win and just want someone on the stand, or just want to cost them money to defend themselves...

Used to be that way, but now if you sue someone and lose you are probably liable for their legal fees. In addition if you sue someone frivolously the judge can throw some nice fat punative damages at you too...

voodoochile
03-25-2006, 12:11 AM
While not a lawyer, I do know it is hard to win a libel suit. First, you have to prove that they damaged your reputation and then you have to prove what exactly the damages were worth. I don't think this is damaging his reputation. Everyone was already on Barry for steroids. Plus, truth is an absolute defense for libel, which would make it damn near impossible to prove libel in this case.

Also, the thing with the tabloids is just a cover his lawyer is using. From my understanding, tabloids, for the most part, are allowed to print that stuff because it is considered a sort of parody of public figures. A printed book presented as truth would not be subject to the same interpretation of laws as a super market tabloid. It would be much easier to prove libel in a book than in something on a tabloid. It is just Barry's lawyer's excuse for why they aren't suing for libel. The real reason being that at least the important parts of the book are true. You damn well better believe if this was Frank Thomas being accused, he would be suing for libel.

If Barry did get them on the stand in this matter, wouldn't all those illegally obtained documents become part of the public record? I mean they'd have to produce the documents in question. That in turn would open a WHOLE new can of worms for Barry because everything he said and did would be completely exposed.

After that the bottom isn't far away...

RadioheadRocks
03-25-2006, 12:34 AM
Used to be that way, but now if you sue someone and lose you are probably liable for their legal fees. In addition if you sue someone frivolously the judge can throw some nice fat punative damages at you too...

My favorites are the ones who win their case, but the judge awards the litigant $1.00. :D:

TDog
03-25-2006, 01:06 AM
... You damn well better believe if this was Frank Thomas being accused, he would be suing for libel.

The Contra Costa Times in Northern California (Oakland A's country) more or less accused Thomas last summer of having taken steroids. He didn't sue. The story didn't rise to the level of the book Bonds is in a huff about. I haven't read the book, but I don't believe Thomas would sue in any case. The fact that I haven't heard of anyone suing over the Jose Canseco book doesn't mean that everyone he accused of taking steroids was, in fact, juiced. Along with being in the right, it takes a lot of time and money to win a libel suit and few celebrities that have been wronged go through the hassle. These aren't personal injury cases where attorneys work on contingency.

The newspapers in California will leave Thomas alone this year because he's wearing a different uniform.

TDog
03-25-2006, 01:17 AM
Used to be that way, but now if you sue someone and lose you are probably liable for their legal fees. In addition if you sue someone frivolously the judge can throw some nice fat punative damages at you too...

I was the victim of a nuisance suit last year, filed pro se -- for the $150 filing fee -- by someone who never graduated from high school who makes a sideline out of suing and cashing the settlement checks. Dismissal on summary judgment cost my employer thousands in legal fees. The judge wasn't allowed to require the plaintiff to pay all of our costs. The order was for less than half, and that has been appealed. Laws on such things vary from state to state. In fact, in Alaska half of all punitive damages awarded in civil suits go the state.

daveeym
03-25-2006, 10:32 AM
Used to be that way, but now if you sue someone and lose you are probably liable for their legal fees. In addition if you sue someone frivolously the judge can throw some nice fat punative damages at you too... Sorry voodoo, but costs are very rarely awarded. It has to be pretty obvious that the lawsuit is to harass for them to award costs. That's because in most cases some schmuck doesn't haven't the means to pay it and they give good faith the benifit of the doubt in most cases. It's an area of the law that should be enforced a bit stricter but it isn't. It would stop a lot of **** if they actually enforced it.

daveeym
03-25-2006, 10:34 AM
The Contra Costa Times in Northern California (Oakland A's country) more or less accused Thomas last summer of having taken steroids. He didn't sue. The story didn't rise to the level of the book Bonds is in a huff about. I haven't read the book, but I don't believe Thomas would sue in any case. The fact that I haven't heard of anyone suing over the Jose Canseco book doesn't mean that everyone he accused of taking steroids was, in fact, juiced. Along with being in the right, it takes a lot of time and money to win a libel suit and few celebrities that have been wronged go through the hassle. These aren't personal injury cases where attorneys work on contingency.

The newspapers in California will leave Thomas alone this year because he's wearing a different uniform. You used the magic phrase there, "more or less", you have to pick your battles and insinuation and innuendo falls under opinion. I can say I wouldn't be surprised if you're on steroids and you'd lose a lawsuit. Big differnece from saying "I know for a fact that TDog is on steroids." It's a fine line to the layman but not applicable to this instance and the court of law.

TDog
03-25-2006, 02:08 PM
You used the magic phrase there, "more or less", you have to pick your battles and insinuation and innuendo falls under opinion. I can say I wouldn't be surprised if you're on steroids and you'd lose a lawsuit. Big differnece from saying "I know for a fact that TDog is on steroids." It's a fine line to the layman but not applicable to this instance and the court of law.

There haven't been leaked grand jury transcripts, legally or illegally obtained, to link Frank Thomas to steroids, so you can't have a comparable situation. (If there were leaked grand jury transcripts connecting Frank Thomas to steroids -- which there are not -- I don't believe he would sue either.) There have been a few newspaper columns, concluding from the fragile nature of Thomas' recent seasons, that it shows he has probably used steroids. Those are at the level of some of the accusations in Canseco's book, which generated no lawsuits.

Of course, because libel is applied differently to public figures and politicians than it is to most of us, if a newspaper wrote a story speculating that the TDog was using steroids and I could show it prevented me from finding a better job, I would have a better chance of prevailing in court than Frank Thomas would.

daveeym
03-25-2006, 04:10 PM
There haven't been leaked grand jury transcripts, legally or illegally obtained, to link Frank Thomas to steroids, so you can't have a comparable situation. (If there were leaked grand jury transcripts connecting Frank Thomas to steroids -- which there are not -- I don't believe he would sue either.) There have been a few newspaper columns, concluding from the fragile nature of Thomas' recent seasons, that it shows he has probably used steroids. Those are at the level of some of the accusations in Canseco's book, which generated no lawsuits.

Of course, because libel is applied differently to public figures and politicians than it is to most of us, if a newspaper wrote a story speculating that the TDog was using steroids and I could show it prevented me from finding a better job, I would have a better chance of prevailing in court than Frank Thomas would. As Lip said, celebrities win these suits or settle them all the time. Barry's situation has nothing to do with Franks and his capability of suing for libel. http://www.mobar.org/handbook/libelelements.htm (http://www.mobar.org/handbook/libelelements.htm)

There are your libel elements. Not having read the accusations about Frank I have no idea if he'd have a case. I'm guessing his lawyers looked into it and he doesn't.

TDog
03-25-2006, 05:00 PM
As Lip said, celebrities win these suits or settle them all the time. Barry's situation has nothing to do with Franks and his capability of suing for libel. http://www.mobar.org/handbook/libelelements.htm (http://www.mobar.org/handbook/libelelements.htm)

There are your libel elements. Not having read the accusations about Frank I have no idea if he'd have a case. I'm guessing his lawyers looked into it and he doesn't.

There is a difference between Britney Spears suing US Weekly -- for a story claiming she and her husband were considering releasing an X-rated video of themselves -- and a baseball player accused of taking steroids suing for libel. No baseball player has filed a libel lawsuit concerning steroid accusations. In the case of Barry Bonds, it would be hard for his attorney to prove that a publication acted in "reckless disregard of the truth," as the elements require, if the publications has documented the allegations with leaked/stolen grand jury transcripts.

The post I originally responded to said that Frank Thomas would sue for libel if he were accused of taking steroids. He has been and he hasn't sued -- and I have no doubt he is clean. If it was a Barry Bonds-like situation, that is, if the publication had documented the allegations with leaked/stolen grand jury transcripts accusing him of using steroids, I don't believe he would sue either.

It is incorrect to believe incriminating statements made about someone must be true if the statements don't inspire a libel suit.

daveeym
03-25-2006, 07:09 PM
There is a difference between Britney Spears suing US Weekly -- for a story claiming she and her husband were considering releasing an X-rated video of themselves -- and a baseball player accused of taking steroids suing for libel. No baseball player has filed a libel lawsuit concerning steroid accusations. In the case of Barry Bonds, it would be hard for his attorney to prove that a publication acted in "reckless disregard of the truth," as the elements require, if the publications has documented the allegations with leaked/stolen grand jury transcripts.

The post I originally responded to said that Frank Thomas would sue for libel if he were accused of taking steroids. He has been and he hasn't sued -- and I have no doubt he is clean. If it was a Barry Bonds-like situation, that is, if the publication had documented the allegations with leaked/stolen grand jury transcripts accusing him of using steroids, I don't believe he would sue either.

It is incorrect to believe incriminating statements made about someone must be true if the statements don't inspire a libel suit. No one's saying that all I'm saying is the statements made about frank obviously don't rise to the level of libel. I haven't read them but I'm assuming they're pointing fingers at frank rather than stating for a fact (ala the bonds book) that frank probably used. Stating an opinion that frank may have used roids doesn't amount to libel so that's why frank wouldn't sue. So saying frank has been accused and hasn't sued isn't necessarily accurate. Either way it's a far cry from Barry's situation especially since Barry's on the juice.

Ol' No. 2
03-25-2006, 09:55 PM
No one's saying that all I'm saying is the statements made about frank obviously don't rise to the level of libel. I haven't read them but I'm assuming they're pointing fingers at frank rather than stating for a fact (ala the bonds book) that frank probably used. Stating an opinion that frank may have used roids doesn't amount to libel so that's why frank wouldn't sue. So saying frank has been accused and hasn't sued isn't necessarily accurate. Either way it's a far cry from Barry's situation especially since Barry's on the juice.The standard is different for public figures. Malice requires that they knew the statements were false. Pretty tough to prove when you're talking about a sportsblab radio host. Obviously impossible when it comes to the Bonds book. That's why public figures so rarely resort to libel suits.

voodoochile
03-25-2006, 11:42 PM
You used the magic phrase there, "more or less", you have to pick your battles and insinuation and innuendo falls under opinion. I can say I wouldn't be surprised if you're on steroids and you'd lose a lawsuit. Big differnece from saying "I know for a fact that TDog is on steroids." It's a fine line to the layman but not applicable to this instance and the court of law.

Yes, it truly does depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is from a legal perspective...:tongue:

harrahs80
03-26-2006, 02:23 AM
bonds is trying to sue this should be interesting