For All The Internet Lawyers (Floyd Fans). DEFAMATION

[Kagami Taiga]

Its not my definition, its the legal definition. Our own perception of the issue is pointless and irrelevant because a Judge is proceeding with the case.

your definition, the definition you quoted...u get the point. anyways ur rite. the judge is proceeding with the case which means juries. juries made up of ppl with the same intelligence level as many on this board. who knows what happens now, lmao.

[2501]

It is litigation not arbitration big difference~

Did you think the judge was going to throw out the case? Be honest. You're one of the most honest dudes here.

[New England]

For some reason, Floyd fans in here like to think they know more about law than people who make a VERY good living from it such as lawyers and judges. First, they are preforming enhancing drug experts, now, they have their own practicing offices with their own legal aids trying to school everyone one on the board.

def·a·ma·tion
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:

The Mayweather Camp and GBP claimed Pacquiao is on PED's and his refusal to adhere to Mayweather's demands proves it. There in lies the slander.

Because the Mayweather Camp and GBP are recognized figures in the world of Boxing, these accusations are serious and dangerous to Pacquiao's image as he, himself, is a recognized public figure.

The problem with the accusations is, there is no evidence whatsoever to support these claims which is why it falls under DEFAMATION.

Whether you agree with the legal definition is irrelevant. We've seen you Floyd fans try to change the definition of words here to fit their own agenda (It never works, but its always fun to watch). A judge has deemed these accusations serious enough to command further arbitration therefore legitimizing this case.

Meaning? Whatever you think you know, whatever you say doesn't mean *****.

have you been to law school?

a close friend of mine is a student at MAss law and he gave about the same assessment


if the statements of mayweather and his representatives defamed pacquiao to the point where it damaged him monetarily (and it can be proven) he seemed to think that mayweather and his crew were responsible

and could be sued for the difference.


is that about the way it's headed in your eyes?
And do you think it can be proven (or even calculated,) that floyd's slander and defaming of pacquiao led to him losing X amount of dollars?



green k and a donation along the way.

[The Gambler1981]

Its not my definition, its the legal definition. Our own perception of the issue is pointless and irrelevant because a Judge is proceeding with the case.

Proceeding with the case doesn't mean all that much~ just means it goes on and they get to argue about their various points as to why it is or is not defamation.

It is just the beginning.


Oh and the only legal definition is the first part and that is the one line simple definition not the total definition.

[davidoff]

your definition, the definition you quoted...u get the point. anyways ur rite. the judge is proceeding with the case which means juries. juries made up of ppl with the same intelligence level as many on this board. who knows what happens now, lmao.

They'll be nodding their heads when Roger explains how a-side meth makes you bulletproof.

[2501]

your definition, the definition you quoted...u get the point. anyways ur rite. the judge is proceeding with the case which means juries. juries made up of ppl with the same intelligence level as many on this board. who knows what happens now, lmao.

A jury panel from rural Tennessee would still be a bit higher IQ wise than what we deal here.

[The Gambler1981]

Did you think the judge was going to throw out the case? Be honest. You're one of the most honest dudes here.

Didn't know, didn't care this is so long from being over, he does have good representation though so that they can actually get it to court shouldn't be that surprising.

[2501]

have you been to law school?

a close friend of mine is a student at MAss law and he gave about the same assessment


if the statements of mayweather and his representatives defamed pacquiao to the point where it damaged him monetarily (and it can be proven) he seemed to think that mayweather and his crew were responsible

and could be sued for the difference.


is that about the way it's headed in your eyes?
And do you think it can be proven (or even calculated,) that floyd's slander and defaming of pacquiao led to him losing X amount of dollars?



green k and a donation along the way.

No, which is why I said that I'm not qualified to say something will be thrown out of court or not, BUT, someone who DID go to lawschool made a decision.

[Chups]

GREEN K and...................

[-MAKAVELLI-]

have you been to law school?

a close friend of mine is a student at MAss law and he gave about the same assessment


if the statements of mayweather and his representatives defamed pacquiao to the point where it damaged him monetarily (and it can be proven) he seemed to think that mayweather and his crew were responsible

and could be sued for the difference.


is that about the way it's headed in your eyes?
And do you think it can be proven (or even calculated,) that floyd's slander and defaming of pacquiao led to him losing X amount of dollars?



green k and a donation along the way.

honestly, i think PAC is more concerned about his image as a congressman than as a boxer...you can fix your image in the ring but trying to fix a stained reputation as a public servant seems much more diffcult