For All The Internet Lawyers (Floyd Fans). DEFAMATION

[The Gambler1981]

Of all the names u guys have called the mayweathers i know damn well none of u would sue if u were in pacs position

Americans do like to litigate so I don't know about that.

Floyd is rich and someone would try to get paid, IMO.

[Slick_Rick]

Americans do like to litigate so I don't know about that.

Floyd is rich and someone would try to get paid, IMO.

Indeed.

Threw me back to this classic, i remembered from years ago.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee she purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

[The Gambler1981]

That is the classic one.

[The Gambler1981]

Here is a long definition of it have fun~


Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are subcategories of defamation. Defamation is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First ********* guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion.

Under New Jersey law, defamation is defined as “(1) a defamatory statement of fact; (2) concerning the plaintiff; (3) which was false; (4) which was communicated to a person or persons other than the plaintiff; (5) with actual knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity or with negligence in failing to ascertain the truth or falsity; and (6) which caused damage.” Huertas v. United States Dep't of Educ., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89903, 17-20 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2009)

Libel is published material meeting three conditions:

1. the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly;
2. the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and,
3. the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published, as distinguished from slander.

Under New Mexico law, to establish a claim of defamation by a former employer, the former employee must prove each of the following:

* The employer communicated the statement to someone other than the employee;
* The communication contained an assertion of fact;
* The communication was about the employee;
* The statement of fact was false;
* The communication was defamatory;
* The persons receiving the communication understood it to be defamatory;
* The defendant knew that the communication was false, negligently failed to recognize that it was false, or acted with malice;
* The communication proximately caused actual injury to the employee's reputation; and
* The employer abused its privilege to publish the communication.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/defamation-and-libel/

[brick wall]

Of all the names u guys have called the mayweathers i know damn well none of u would sue if u were in pacs position

lol don't you have a sense of recognition between internet forums and the real world? there's a reason why we all are using bogus names in forums...that's because we don't want to reaveal our true identity. it's totally different when you're in the real world...you wouldn't do all these bull****s you do in internet forums. the mayweathers...they do all these ****** stuffs in the real world that you can only see in boxing forums.

[Zarco]

I am no lawyer but taken 2 pols courses and I like digging into any knowledge I can pick up. IMO the defendants win in the end. If the Mayweather camp and GBP or who ever had commented on Pacquiao and roid use out of the blue for absolutely no reason while there was absolutely no idea of a fight between Pacquiao and Mayweather taking place, then wed be talking slander. But the idea of Pacquiao and Mayweather fighting was there and it even goes as far as them 2 being involved in negotiations. That goes on to the Mayweather side commenting on Pacquiao and roid use in negotiations and it is widely stated as the reason the fight fell through. The Mayweather side is going to say they brought up these statements during negotiations with interest of the possibility of Pacquiao being on some kind of performance enhancer(they will use Pacs climb through weights as proof of reasons for thinking that.) They can ask, is there ABSOLUTELY no chance in the world that a boxer fighting in today's world can bypass standard drug tests already in place by a commission? Obviously the answer the court in session will get is no, defendants might even bring up a few examples. They have this in the bag imo as they have clear and basic evidence to prove that their comments were not made with malice but rather interest and honesty(the potential fight did not take place because of the issue of drug testing shows how serious they were.) The court process can be tricky and anything can be manipulated but this case is pretty damn basic. No judge would throw this case out just like that unless it was COMPLETELY out of place but it does have sense to it so it must be reviewed fairly just like the thousands of other cases that make far less sense, nice try by GBP tho.