Quick Note regarding Manny vs FMJ, SR and GBP court proceedings

[Easy-E]

Floyd, Sr and GBP do not need to prove that Manny took steroids; all they have to show is that their comments are protected under the first *********, freedom of speech (Or by another federal statute). It is not the responsibility of the defendant to prove anything, they onle have to prove that the defendant's allegations are not valid or protected by state or federal law.

In addition, it is nearly impossible to gauge defamation of character and the impact particular statements have had on the public. (Who's to say people had not believed this before Sr had made claims, or they believed it because of Paulie)This is another issue in the court proceedings. Also, the fact that Manny is sueing SR, JR and GBP and not Paulie diminished the credibility of this case.

After the posturing, Manny will drop this case, or at worst, it will be settled out of court.

[The Gambler1981]

Yea pretty much, I have tried to make that point but no one really listened.

[Guest]

No one ever listens to me when I talk about up and coming fighters so I am here to discuss, what is your ideal meal?

for me,

caesar salad
filet and lobster
cheesecake
and really expensive liquor to go with my vodka martinis.

[Easy-E]

lets bump this.

[V.WEBB]

lets bump this.

yea I don't understand why he didn't add Paulie to the mix as well..

[el boxeo]

Floyd, Sr and GBP do not need to prove that Manny took steroids; all they have to show is that their comments are protected under the first *********, freedom of speech (Or by another federal statute). It is not the responsibility of the defendant to prove anything, they onle have to prove that the defendant's allegations are not valid or protected by state or federal law.

In addition, it is nearly impossible to gauge defamation of character and the impact particular statements have had on the public. (Who's to say people had not believed this before Sr had made claims, or they believed it because of Paulie)This is another issue in the court proceedings. Also, the fact that Manny is sueing SR, JR and GBP and not Paulie diminished the credibility of this case.

After the posturing, Manny will drop this case, or at worst, it will be settled out of court.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi

i still dont get it... i guess its up to manny to prove how much this has hurt him.

But if GBP settles isnt that considered a semi loss. Question is will this thing get thrown out before it can go to trial.

[el boxeo]

Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court, although the actual effects can be quite evident and damaging. If a disgruntled customer of a restaurant tells numerous people that the head chef has AIDS, for example, sales for that restaurant could fall and the employee might lose his job or find it difficult to work. Because the customer's slanderous statement concerns a specific person and an unproven accusation, the chef may have a legitimate case of defamation of character.

The main problem with proving defamation of character is the protection of free speech guaranteed by the First *********. Courts generally agree that an opinion, no matter how malicious, is not the same as a stated fact. If the disgruntled customer had said "Don't eat at Joe's Cafe. I think the food is lousy and the chef is sick," then defamation of character would be difficult to prove. Other people can still form different opinions. Once the customer said "Don't eat at Joe's Cafe. I know the chef and he has AIDS," then a statement of fact has occurred and a claim of defamation of character can be pursued.

Another problem concerning defamation of character is the actual truth of the statement. Some may argue that in order for defamation of character to occur, the alleged victim actually has to have character to defame in the first place. Calling a known neighborhood bully a 'thug' in the local paper wouldn't qualify as defamation of character, because it isn't a statement against fact. The truth is, the truthfulness of the statement isn't always a factor in actual court proceedings. In our hypothetical case, the court would assume the chef does not in fact have AIDS and the defendant knew this at the time the statements were made.

Very few defamation of character lawsuits actually reach the level of a court trial. Many are settled privately, in order to avoid even more damage from publicity. Since actual damages must be demonstrated, some cases are dismissed because the statements or accusations do not rise to the level of actual slander or libel. Hurt feelings or a loss of social standing may not reach the legal definition of damages. What few defamation of character cases do reach the court system are usually local in nature, such as a city councilman suing his local newspaper for implying he accepted a bribe.

In our case of the chef and the disgruntled customer, damages could most likely be demonstrated by restaurant sales records and testimony from other customers who heard the slanderous statements firsthand. Even if medical tests revealed that the chef did indeed have a medical condition, that fact alone would not mitigate the customer's obvious malicious intent. The customer was not working in the public's best interest at the time. Under these circumstances, the court would most likely find in favor of the plaintiff and order the defendant to pay punitive damages.

This is generally the same legal mechanism which allows celebrities to successfully sue tabloid publications. A truthful but malicious statement can still be considered defamation of character under the right circumstances.




^^^^ i didnt write this by the way. Just a copy and paste but it will be difficult for Manny to prove he was harmed greatly if he is still making millions fighting other fighters??

[el malo]

Yea pretty much, I have tried to make that point but no one really listened.

Yeah me too days ago. Too many ******s on this site though.

[lee majors]

Man, this **** has been so draining that I've reached the point where I'm really not starting to care anymore. All I want is for Floyd to whoop his ass, thoroughly. This smoke-screen lawsuit is nothing more than a diversion from the ultimate question, Can Pac-Man kick Floyd's ass? This forum is ****, with half of the 1st page being half-lies with skewed logic and the other half being straight fabrication, Matthew Hatton vs PBF. Boxingscene needs an enema,bad.

[Pullcounter]

Floyd, Sr and GBP do not need to prove that Manny took steroids; all they have to show is that their comments are protected under the first *********, freedom of speech (Or by another federal statute). It is not the responsibility of the defendant to prove anything, they onle have to prove that the defendant's allegations are not valid or protected by state or federal law.

In addition, it is nearly impossible to gauge defamation of character and the impact particular statements have had on the public. (Who's to say people had not believed this before Sr had made claims, or they believed it because of Paulie)This is another issue in the court proceedings. Also, the fact that Manny is sueing SR, JR and GBP and not Paulie diminished the credibility of this case.

After the posturing, Manny will drop this case, or at worst, it will be settled out of court.

A lot of *****s think that pac will have 2 take a blood test because of this lawsuit. They don't understand that team mayweather is on trial, not pac