Tweet
Pacquiao: Dela Hoya, Schaefer conspired to destroy me
Pacquiao: Dela Hoya, Schaefer conspired to destroy me
06/02/2010 | 10:28 PM
Share16 “An opinion is protected only when the “factual assertions [are] accurate."
— Standing Comm. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 140 (9th Cir. 1995)
CHICAGO – Manny Pacquiao is asking the U.S. District Court of Nevada in Las Vegas to dismiss the motion to dismiss and the Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion filed by Golden Boy Promotions, Inc (GBP). founder Oscar Dela Hoya and CEO Richard Schaefer.
Aside from dismissing both motions, the Filipino boxing icon also wants the court to allow him of amending his complaint into a conspiracy.
After Pacquiao’s wins over De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton – both promoted by Golden Boy, “(i)n mid-2009, reporters, commentators, and the public began calling for a match between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. For reasons Pacquiao doesn’t know, Mayweather asked GBP to become involved in the discussions."
But even before Mayweather gave this unsolicited advice to GBP, the 35-page opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by Pacquiao’s lawyers – led by David Marroso and Daniel M. Petrocelli – told the court that “(Golden Boy) CEO Richard Schaefer and founder De la Hoya – (had) harbored animus towards Pacquiao" because:
In 2006, Pacquiao chose to be promoted by Golden Boy’s main rival – Top Rank, Inc.
In 2007, Pacquiao sued GBP and others because they unsuccessfully tried to coerce the Filipino boxer to break his agreement with Top Rank and sign a new deal with Dela Hoya:
In October 2007, Pacquiao defeated by unanimous decision boxing legend Marco Antonio Barrera, who, at the time, was promoted by and a part owner of Golden Boy;
In March 2008, Pacquiao defeated Juan Manuel Marquez, another boxing legend promoted by Golden Boy;
In December 2008, Pacquiao scored a lop-sided knockout victory over Golden Boy founder Dela Hoya forcing him into retirement; and
In May 2009, Pacquiao scored an easy second-round knockout victory over Ricky Hatton, another fighter promoted by Golden Boy.
Angry and jealous
Angry at Pacquiao and jealous of his accomplishments, Schaefer, De la Hoya and the Mayweathers (Floyd Sr., Jr. and uncle Roger) conspired to destroy Pacquiao’s reputation and questioned the legitimacy of his victories over Golden Boy’s fighters, his professional achievements and his legacy as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
Acting on behalf of one another, they agreed to make false statements about Pacquiao.
For example, the court documents said, Mayweather, Sr. stated publicly that “(t)he steroids aren’t going to make [Pacquiao] no faster. It’s going to make him relentless and hit strong, but that’s it."
Mayweather, Jr. told throngs of reporters and fans that “Pacquiao’s got the power pellets, yo, and the steroid juice."
Schaefer told a reporter for the Philippine publication Manila Standard Today (Ronnie Nathanielsz) and boxing website philboxing.com that he was “sure" Pacquiao was taking and had taken performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
And De la Hoya circulated a “blog" comparing Pacquiao’s punching power to that of two boxers (Shane Mosley and Fernando Vargas) who have admitted using PEDs, even though “months earlier De la Hoya said precisely the opposite: [Pacquiao] didn’t hit hard. He didn’t really hurt me."
These statements – [Pacquiao’s] use of PEDs – are false and are, therefore, “actionable."
Bastardizing “I’m sure"
In asking the court to deny Schaefer’s motion to dismiss, Pacquiao said when Schaefer told Nathanielsz that “he was sure" Pacquiao was using performance-enhancing drugs and had used them in the past," the alleged statement is defamatory because it falsely asserts an objective fact – that Pacquiao was using and had used PEDs (citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 497 U.S. 1 17-18 (1990).
“Bastardizing" the expression, “I am sure" into as “I know" as an opinion to express future predictions, “the reader does not always take the words “I know" literally. Here in contrast, Schaefer’s statement was not a future prediction, his statements concerned past and/or current conduct."
When De La Hoya said in his “blog" that “I’m not saying yes or no. I’m just saying that now people have to wonder" (that Pacquiao used PEDs), De La Hoya may not escape liability for “prefacing statements with cautionary language or concluding them with a question mark" because De La Hoya’s statement implies “an objective fact" that the “jury" (will) determine whether that meaning was attributed to it by the recipient of the communication."
06/02/2010 | 10:28 PM
Share16 “An opinion is protected only when the “factual assertions [are] accurate."
— Standing Comm. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 140 (9th Cir. 1995)
CHICAGO – Manny Pacquiao is asking the U.S. District Court of Nevada in Las Vegas to dismiss the motion to dismiss and the Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion filed by Golden Boy Promotions, Inc (GBP). founder Oscar Dela Hoya and CEO Richard Schaefer.
Aside from dismissing both motions, the Filipino boxing icon also wants the court to allow him of amending his complaint into a conspiracy.
After Pacquiao’s wins over De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton – both promoted by Golden Boy, “(i)n mid-2009, reporters, commentators, and the public began calling for a match between Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. For reasons Pacquiao doesn’t know, Mayweather asked GBP to become involved in the discussions."
But even before Mayweather gave this unsolicited advice to GBP, the 35-page opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by Pacquiao’s lawyers – led by David Marroso and Daniel M. Petrocelli – told the court that “(Golden Boy) CEO Richard Schaefer and founder De la Hoya – (had) harbored animus towards Pacquiao" because:
In 2006, Pacquiao chose to be promoted by Golden Boy’s main rival – Top Rank, Inc.
In 2007, Pacquiao sued GBP and others because they unsuccessfully tried to coerce the Filipino boxer to break his agreement with Top Rank and sign a new deal with Dela Hoya:
In October 2007, Pacquiao defeated by unanimous decision boxing legend Marco Antonio Barrera, who, at the time, was promoted by and a part owner of Golden Boy;
In March 2008, Pacquiao defeated Juan Manuel Marquez, another boxing legend promoted by Golden Boy;
In December 2008, Pacquiao scored a lop-sided knockout victory over Golden Boy founder Dela Hoya forcing him into retirement; and
In May 2009, Pacquiao scored an easy second-round knockout victory over Ricky Hatton, another fighter promoted by Golden Boy.
Angry and jealous
Angry at Pacquiao and jealous of his accomplishments, Schaefer, De la Hoya and the Mayweathers (Floyd Sr., Jr. and uncle Roger) conspired to destroy Pacquiao’s reputation and questioned the legitimacy of his victories over Golden Boy’s fighters, his professional achievements and his legacy as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
Acting on behalf of one another, they agreed to make false statements about Pacquiao.
For example, the court documents said, Mayweather, Sr. stated publicly that “(t)he steroids aren’t going to make [Pacquiao] no faster. It’s going to make him relentless and hit strong, but that’s it."
Mayweather, Jr. told throngs of reporters and fans that “Pacquiao’s got the power pellets, yo, and the steroid juice."
Schaefer told a reporter for the Philippine publication Manila Standard Today (Ronnie Nathanielsz) and boxing website philboxing.com that he was “sure" Pacquiao was taking and had taken performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
And De la Hoya circulated a “blog" comparing Pacquiao’s punching power to that of two boxers (Shane Mosley and Fernando Vargas) who have admitted using PEDs, even though “months earlier De la Hoya said precisely the opposite: [Pacquiao] didn’t hit hard. He didn’t really hurt me."
These statements – [Pacquiao’s] use of PEDs – are false and are, therefore, “actionable."
Bastardizing “I’m sure"
In asking the court to deny Schaefer’s motion to dismiss, Pacquiao said when Schaefer told Nathanielsz that “he was sure" Pacquiao was using performance-enhancing drugs and had used them in the past," the alleged statement is defamatory because it falsely asserts an objective fact – that Pacquiao was using and had used PEDs (citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 497 U.S. 1 17-18 (1990).
“Bastardizing" the expression, “I am sure" into as “I know" as an opinion to express future predictions, “the reader does not always take the words “I know" literally. Here in contrast, Schaefer’s statement was not a future prediction, his statements concerned past and/or current conduct."
When De La Hoya said in his “blog" that “I’m not saying yes or no. I’m just saying that now people have to wonder" (that Pacquiao used PEDs), De La Hoya may not escape liability for “prefacing statements with cautionary language or concluding them with a question mark" because De La Hoya’s statement implies “an objective fact" that the “jury" (will) determine whether that meaning was attributed to it by the recipient of the communication."
Comment