Could Pacquiao's Recent Choices Sink His Own Lawsuit Before It Gets Off The Ground?

[SCUD.]

I agree, and the defense will bring forth that Mayweather was more than willing to subject himself to the OST that was written up.

3rd paragraph mixed up? You'll have to be clear here, I don't know what you're getting at.

The case is about DEFAMATION, it has nothing to do with Mayweather willing to subject himself to Olympic Style Testing which, in the first place, is not even under the regulation of the Nevada State Athletic Commision.


I'll help you with your defamation per se categories.

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

[Haglerwins]

The case is about DEFAMATION, it has nothing to do with Mayweather willing to subject himself to Olympic Style Testing which, in the first place, is not even under the regulation of the Nevada State Athletic Commision.


I'll help you with your defamation per se categories.

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth.

Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn.

If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case for Pac all the way around.

[Reservation]

It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth.

Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn.

If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case all the way around.

The accusations are false because Manny is, by the commission's standard, clean. Jesus christ.

[Haglerwins]

The accusations are false because Manny is, by the commission's standard, clean. Jesus christ.

A one time representative of the Commission has stated their test isn't the most comprehensive before. I don't think, unless there's some law that says otherwise.. that something like that couldn't be challenged.

I don't mind being wrong, just show me the stuff.

[M.I.C.]

a shame you all are debating a lawsuit instead of a fight. I personally see Pac's lawsuit being beaten fairly easily, its a diversion and a waste of time.

[SCUD.]

It doesn't I agree, but for every point the plaintiff makes the defense counters. If Manny provides evidence he's clean, that evidence then comes under scrutiny ( the whole NSAC coming into question, etc.). That's usually how it goes in that good ol' courtroom back and forth.

Kudos on posting the defamation per se. Looks like I still didn't have all the info here. I was under the impression Manny also had to prove malice and accusations being false at every turn.

If that's all the above entails then it's an open and shut case for Pac all the way around.

There's a difference between Defamation, Slander and Libel case and a DEFAMATION PER SE case. In most cases the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff (Pacquiao), but on DEFAMATION PER SE the burden of proof is with the defendants.



Defamation Per Se

Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.

Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intenti...efamation.html

[Haglerwins]

There's a difference between Defamation, Slander and Libel case and a DEFAMATION PER SE case. In most cases the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff (Pacquiao), but on DEFAMATION PER SE the burden of proof is with the defendants.



Defamation Per Se

Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.

Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intenti...efamation.html

Why didn't you post this first? Sht, it probably needs its own thread. I wouldn't have bothered with this if I knew any of that.

[SCUD.]

a shame you all are debating a lawsuit instead of a fight. I personally see Pac's lawsuit being beaten fairly easily, its a diversion and a waste of time.

Had Mayweather just follow the existing rules, regulations and by-laws of the NSAC, all these things wouldn't have happened.

Mayweather is not bigger than boxing, Mayweather is not bigger than NSAC. All he can claim is he is bigger than Pacquiao.

[Reservation]

A one time representative of the Commission has stated their test isn't the most comprehensive before. I don't think, unless there's some law that says otherwise.. that something like that couldn't be challenged.

I don't mind being wrong, just show me the stuff.

They can argue all they want that the commission they've never doubted before is untrustworthy; but the assumption is that it is reliable. They will have to prove that it isn't. Can they do that?

[Haglerwins]

They can argue all they want that the commission they've never doubted before is untrustworthy but the assumption is that is reliable. They will have to prove that it isn't. Can they do that?

This thread is dead. SCUD cleared everything up.