Comments Thread For: Pacquiao Plans Legal Battle With Mayweathers, Golden Boy

[Killa_Kali]

manny has no standing...the mayweathers have a public figure privilege which protects them like every other citizen in the U.S.

and there can't be a breach when a contract isn't finalized..

Under the First ********* of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

[Doctor_Tenma]

This is what i'm saying but I doubt Arum/Pacquiao are dumb enough for this. I say this is fabricated until BPP posts it himself. You can't be ****** enough to sue GBP and Mayweather for simply asking for a anti-doping drug test. There's not even a contract signed for this fight yet and that would have been the only thing Pacquiao can sue for. I say this story is fabricated.

Ariza, Roach and Arum, as of late they've been so ******.

[S A M U R A I]

If this case has no leg to stand on, why did Floyd Sr change his tune and say he was "joking" when previously threatened with a lawsuit by Team Pacquiao?



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live *** cam - easy as 1-2-3

[jmard5]

Will Pacquiao take a blood test for this case and prove he's clean?

Yes, he can. It's not the Mayweathers that are asking him to should that happen.

[Ether]

KJ, this news is hilarious. Come on, this should be incouraged. I can just see mayweather in a business suit in court already lol..

It's gonna cut into pac's image. I hope to god Pacquiao tries and sues Mayweather.

[Killa_Kali]

pac has come up clean in all previous tests. even a paralegal can show malice exists in the mayweathers' demand for him to take more tests.

[onedream722]

Under the First ********* of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

actual malice when malignaggi said it as well? and how in the hell would he know the statement is false....was jose canseco sued from his book???? how would he know ALL those players juiced? GTFO with ur nonsense

[Dorian]

I have neevr, ever seen such Bull**** leading into a fight/negotiations as I have with Pac-Floyd.

I'm sick of this, screw it.

[onedream722]

pac has come up clean in all previous tests. even a paralegal can show malice exists in the mayweathers' demand for him to take more tests.

so did every baseball player in the Mitchell Report...so what's your point?

so did vargas so did toney..so did mosley

[fabie]

SLANDERING is the word. To accuse someone of drugs without proof is just that. And to affect someone in direct relationship to one's reputation and his ability to earn an income and notoriety at risk...

Now Mayweather Sr wished he didn't say anything at all...