Lawsuits for Dummies

[shmessy]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Well put. Burden of proof would be on the Pats to prove not just that it was false, but that the Herald had reason to suspect it was false and chose to run it with reckless disregard for the truth.

Or they could just ask for a retraction and Tomase on the next train out of town, then go about their business. I vote for the latter.

Boston Herald Loses $2M Libel Suit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/national/main675087.shtml

The Herald "journalist" in that case looks like he could have been Tomase's brother.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

I'm not a lawyer but I do know English :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

"anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

According to this, the "or" dictates that it doesn't have to be malicious to be libelous. The story clearly "damaged" and "misrepresented". Therefore is damaginly misprepresented.

 

[patchick]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

I'm not a lawyer but I do know English :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

"anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

According to this, the "or" dictates that it doesn't have to be malicious to be libelous. The story clearly "damaged" and "misrepresented". Therefore is damaginly misprepresented.

Dictionary definition doesn't equal legal definition, though. There is a higher standard for libel against a public figure.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

BTW, one other important question--

"One night before the Patriots [team stats] face the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, new allegations have emerged about a Patriots employee taping the Rams’ final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI. According to the source..." - Tomase

New allegations? New to whom?

 

[shmessy]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Dictionary definition doesn't equal legal definition, though. There is a higher standard for libel against a public figure.

Patchick, did you read my post above with the CBS new link about the Herald's Libel defeat three years ago to Judge Murphy?

Judge Murphy was quoted correctly word-wise, but the Herald misrepresented his tone and meaning. Tomase merely reported on something that (as far as we know now) did not happen at all. The report was published the evening before the Super Bowl.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Patriots case looks a helluva lot more clear than the semantics of the Judge Murphy case.

Now, whether the Pats want to go through with a lawsuit is a different story.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Something everyone is overlooking: I understand there's a higher standard of proof for a public figure. I also know it's the New England Patriots.

Juries are people too.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Something everyone is overlooking: I understand there's a higher standard of proof for a public figure. I also know it's the New England Patriots.

Juries are people too.

Judge Murphy was a public figure.

So is Carol Burnett who won a big lawsuit against the National Enquirer for writing about her reputed drinking.

I agree the bar is set high, but really, Tomase did this in a pretty high spotlight way. This case seems far more clear than either the Murphy or Burnett cases.

Disclaimer: Once again, that is IF no other source comes out vindicating Tomase with an actual walkthrough tape.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Judge Murphy was a public figure.

So is Carol Burnett who won a big lawsuit against the National Enquirer for writing about her reputed drinking.

Yeah--maybe I wasn't clear enough. How many people on the jury are going to be Patriot fans, or the wives/mothers/fathers/whatever of a fan? That already prejudices the jury to find for the Pats over that greasy lying sack o' guts.

Just because the law maybe says there's a higher standard of proof, a jury doesn't need it always.

edit: what, did you edit your post 4 times while I was trying to reply? Sheesh! LOL

 

[shmessy]

Re: Can the Patriots Sue the Boston Herald?

Yeah--maybe I wasn't clear enough. How many people on the jury are going to be Patriot fans, or the wives/mothers/fathers/whatever of a fan? That already prejudices the jury to find for the Pats over that greasy lying sack o' guts.

Just because the law maybe says there's a higher standard of proof, a jury doesn't need it always.

edit: what, did you edit your post 4 times while I was trying to reply? Sheesh! LOL

Sorry 'bout that man - - ya gotta give me time to work my craft!!!

I see your point about the jury. My guess is through the "voir dire" jury selection, if there is a case, you would see 6 folks who are librarians and 6 folks who think Futbol is Soccer.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

What you are missing with the difference between the judge and this case. With the judge, he was misquoted. The judge could prove what the Herald reported was false.

BB would have to prove no tape existed. The Herald would not have to prove the tape existed.

Tell me how do you prove something doesn't exist?

I looked everywhere, and couldn't find it-- that doesn't cut it.

Nobody had come forward with it -- that doesn't cut.

Two dozen Rams players testify that they distinctively remember that there was nobody there that was nobody there that wasn't a member of the Rams team and that they distinctly recall that nobody taped the practice -- that would cut it.

Wanna lay odds on that?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Tell me how do you prove something doesn't exist?

Don't forget, though, that we're talking about a civil case, not a criminal one. The burden of proof is lower--they would simply need to show that their case is (perhaps substantially) stronger than their opponent's, not that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Don't forget, though, that we're talking about a civil case, not a criminal one. The burden of proof is lower--they would simply need to show that their case is (perhaps substantially) stronger than their opponent's, not that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is the term you are groping for "preponderance of the evidence?" The standard level of proof in most civil trials.

However, with defamation the standard is "clear and convincing". Which is a higher standard than preponderance and lower the brd. With the burden of proof and the burden of production on the plaintiff.

 

[bolts_fan]

Agreed with above... the Pats are not stupid enough to sue the BH.

Don't hold your breath; it's not going to happen.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Is the term you are groping for "preponderance of the evidence?" The standard level of proof in most civil trials.

However, with defamation the standard is "clear and convincing". Which is a higher standard than preponderance and lower the brd. With the burden of proof and the burden of production on the plaintiff.

No, because I couldn't remember which one it was.

I thought it was a bit more than preponderance, but less than BRD; the point is that it can't be BRD, because, as others have pointed out, it's rather hard to prove that a physical object that could exist actually doesn't.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

No, because I couldn't remember which one it was.

I thought it was a bit more than preponderance, but less than BRD; the point is that it can't be BRD, because, as others have pointed out, it's rather hard to prove that a physical object that could exist actually doesn't.

No, it can't be BRD, b/c it is not criminal. More than preponderance less than BRD is clear and convincing.