Any lawyers here? Seriously.

[Amnorix]

I'm a lawyer. Your case sux. Sorry, but it's true.

1. You can't show damages. "wasting your time" isn't damages. You weren't personally hurt, and you're not out any money.

2. whatever nebulous claim you bring would be subject to the 1st Amendment protections than the media get. Generally, when the media badmouths someone famous, the standard is "actual malice". That means they deliberately and purposefully had to say what they did because they wanted to hurt them. Not that they thought it was XYZ and it turned out to be wrong -- oops sorry. That's not good enough. They need to INTENTIONALLY be trying to wreck your reputation.

3. You don't have standing. If someone says something bad about me, you can't sue them. Only I can.

4. I don't even want to know how you would go about certifying the class of plaintiffs.

5. Lawyers take cases 2 ways -- pay by the hour or contingency, which means you get a cut of the winnings. or, of course, pro-bono, which means for free for a good cause. Nobody is going to pay any lawyer by the hour, the case isn't winnable, so it's a lousy case for contingency, and nobody is willing to take on ESPN for free.

6. If the case is truly insane, lawyer's have potential liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit. So any lawyer who sues ESPN is facing having them sue him back and take his/her money for being a pain in their ass without any right to do it.

So, yeah, no. Sorry.

Send ESPN a hate email if it makes you feel better.

 

[Amnorix]

Tomase is the first one whom we need to sue because he MENTIONED about Ram video walkthrough in the first place without checking his source. Unfortunately, ESPN and media halfasssss people went along with it.

After all, I know why BB hates media. Bandwagon fans are not the worst if you look at the way media handle Pats business. Unbelievable.!

1. 1st amendment is a HIGH hurdle.

2. only those injured by his statements can sue him. You're just a fan -- you have no standing.

3. Slander/libel suits suck to bring, because in turn they can take your deposition and ask you all kinds of questions about your own life and delve into every dark corner where you don't want them going. DO NOT THINK FOR A SECOND, that the Pats or Belichick are going to sue the Herald or Tomase. The upside isn't nearly as good as the downside is bad.

You think they want Belichick being questioned under oath about all this stuff? Kraft? Every video guy since the dawn of time?

They want this story dead and buried and forgotten, not published in the Herald with all the weekly/monthly updates of what they got out of Pats employees UNDER OATH at the most recent deposition. You're out of your mind if you think otherwise.

 

[PATSNUTme]

How about instead of a class action suit, we bring a no class action suit?

 

[BradyFTW!]

You chose to spend your time "fixing" their "mess". You were not obligated, and no material harm came of it. You have no claim against ESPN. Sorry oburst your bubble.

 

[IcyPatriot]

What exactly would your class action suit be for? How were you harmed? Please, be serious.

My wife had to go to bed at night by herself while I hashed this out...

 

[shmessy]

How about instead of a class action suit, we bring a no class action suit?

Ahhh, well played Monsieur Nut!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

My wife had to go to bed at night by herself while I hashed this out...

And she has since sent a Herald a thank you note.

 

[castlelong1]

I am a lawyer. There is a certain hurdle(the 1st Amendment) concerning the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of The Press. Sports writers and or commentators fall under that definition. In order to prevail you would have to not only prove that the stories were wrong but that they were perpetrated with extreme malice. It is not likely that you would be able to convince a judge or jury that the actions of the defendants were perpetrated with such extreme malice that they would find that their actions abridge the rights granted to the press under the 1st Amendment.

I'd be willing to try. When one employee is reporting X and another is reporting ~X I think we can show that they knew one must be wrong. As for the jury, where's the venue? It is an easier sell in Boston than Indy.

So it will be hard. All things worthwhile are hard.

I guess I should have asked for a lawyer willing to try.

 

[castlelong1]

Hey! I have a B.A. in English too! Are you as poor as I am? :bricks:

Probably poorer.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I'd be willing to try. When one employee is reporting X and another is reporting ~X I think we can show that they knew one must be wrong. As for the jury, where's the venue? It is an easier sell in Boston than Indy.

So it will be hard. All things worthwhile are hard.

I guess I should have asked for a lawyer willing to try.

If you don't find one you can give Pro Per shot....

 

[castlelong1]

I'm a lawyer. Your case sux. Sorry, but it's true.

1. You can't show damages. "wasting your time" isn't damages. You weren't personally hurt, and you're not out any money.

2. whatever nebulous claim you bring would be subject to the 1st Amendment protections than the media get. Generally, when the media badmouths someone famous, the standard is "actual malice". That means they deliberately and purposefully had to say what they did because they wanted to hurt them. Not that they thought it was XYZ and it turned out to be wrong -- oops sorry. That's not good enough. They need to INTENTIONALLY be trying to wreck your reputation.

3. You don't have standing. If someone says something bad about me, you can't sue them. Only I can.

4. I don't even want to know how you would go about certifying the class of plaintiffs.

5. Lawyers take cases 2 ways -- pay by the hour or contingency, which means you get a cut of the winnings. or, of course, pro-bono, which means for free for a good cause. Nobody is going to pay any lawyer by the hour, the case isn't winnable, so it's a lousy case for contingency, and nobody is willing to take on ESPN for free.

6. If the case is truly insane, lawyer's have potential liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit. So any lawyer who sues ESPN is facing having them sue him back and take his/her money for being a pain in their ass without any right to do it.

So, yeah, no. Sorry.

Send ESPN a hate email if it makes you feel better.

OK. Offer still stands for any quixotic lawyers.

Oh, damages are time spent unproductively. If I publish short stories but didn't write from September to May because I was trying to counter ESPN's reckless negligence do I have damages? Or is that hypothetical earnings or something.

I get class action notices that are total crap. If I guy in Peoria posted on a Patriots site, why not claim him as an injured party.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I am a lawyer. There is a certain hurdle(the 1st Amendment) concerning the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of The Press. Sports writers and or commentators fall under that definition. In order to prevail you would have to not only prove that the stories were wrong but that they were perpetrated with extreme malice. It is not likely that you would be able to convince a judge or jury that the actions of the defendants were perpetrated with such extreme malice that they would find that their actions abridge the rights granted to the press under the 1st Amendment.

The bill of rights? In this day and age? Are you SERIOUS? That was BEFORE!!!

All we really have to do is claim that since the Patriots have everything but an American flag on the uniform, ESPN is a terrorist organization. Better yet find something they got from a sports station in Europe which also showed a soccer game Iran was in or something.

We now have a caveat: guilt by even the most tenuous association trumps the bill of rights. And you don't even need lawyers... there's no trial!

PFnV

 

[castlelong1]

You chose to spend your time "fixing" their "mess". You were not obligated, and no material harm came of it. You have no claim against ESPN. Sorry oburst your bubble.

Thanks for your legal opinion. Hey, if I sue BradyFTW! for practicing law without a license can I fund a suit vs. ESPN?

 

[castlelong1]

If you don't find one you can give Pro Per shot....

What is pro per? If it is short circuiting lawyers who know better...

 

[Sivy]

The bill of rights? In this day and age? Are you SERIOUS? That was BEFORE!!!

All we really have to do is claim that since the Patriots have everything but an American flag on the uniform, ESPN is a terrorist organization. Better yet find something they got from a sports station in Europe which also showed a soccer game Iran was in or something.

We now have a caveat: guilt by even the most tenuous association trumps the bill of rights. And you don't even need lawyers... there's no trial!

PFnV

thats right...if you hate the patriots, the terrorist have one.

 

[Patjew]

Where is Saul Rosenberg? Sue everybody!

 

[Den-in-NH]

This is absolutely acinine. Please stop - you're embarrassing yourself at this point.

Change the channel and stop trying to "educate" people. There are better ways to spend your time.