One thing OM better beware of with this Rebel Rags nonsense

[lamont]

Ol' Rags better hope he hasnt been giving out gear to OM recruits that attend other schools.

You can bet our coaching staff has been reaching out to coaches at other schools with OM recruits. Those recruits will be questioned by their coaches on whether they received gear from Rebel Rags. If they did- they will be asked to come to the defense of fellow SEC football players against those mean Boosters at OM.

There could be alot of new and fun surprises popping up this summer.

[Saltydog]

before this decision was made. They are going "all in" that nobody wants to get wrapped up in this mess, including athletes at fellow SEC institutions and honestly, who could blame them. Honestly, I'm thinking this is more of a scare tactic than anything else. I don't see this going to court.

[Martianlander]

Cadaver-Is this the other it you were talking about or is there more to come?

[lamont]

Other coaches see this as a way to help kids and bury OM- numerous others claiming they got gear at Rebel Rags would sink their case

[preachermatt83]

before this decision was made. They are going "all in" that nobody wants to get wrapped up in this mess, including athletes at fellow SEC institutions and honestly, who could blame them. Honestly, I'm thinking this is more of a scare tactic than anything else. I don't see this going to court.

100 percent in agreement.

[JDog13]

Cadaver-Is this the other it you were talking about or is there more to come?

Is this phase 3? Yes

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

"Expect Rebel Rags to gradually expand the lawsuit to include other persons as defendants, according to Merkel. As more facts surface, Rebel Rags will likely expand the lawsuit to include those who may have negotiated with the NCAA for immunity from punishment."

My contention is why can't Leo, Kobe, and if they name others, sue the hell out of rebel rags and anyone else that has uttered their name in public for defamation of character? Their names, and names of any other player to be named later, were redacted in the noa. None of their names have been made public officially. By naming these players in their lawsuit, RR is doing exactly what they are claiming Leo and Kobe did to them. Seems to me Leo and Kobe, and possibly others have a better case than rebel rags.

[Pollodawg]

They better know what they're doing.

[ShotgunDawg]

"Expect Rebel Rags to gradually expand the lawsuit to include other persons as defendants, according to Merkel. As more facts surface, Rebel Rags will likely expand the lawsuit to include those who may have negotiated with the NCAA for immunity from punishment."

My contention is why can't Leo, Kobe, and if they name others, sue the hell out of rebel rags and anyone else that has uttered their name in public for defamation of character? Their names, and names of any other player to be named later, were redacted in the noa. None of their names have been made public officially. By naming these players in their lawsuit, RR is doing exactly what they are claiming Leo and Kobe did to them. Seems to me Leo and Kobe, and possibly others have a better case than rebel rags.

Not sure if Leo or Kobe would qualify as "public figures" or not.

It's very difficult for public figures to win law suits like this. For example: Can athletes sue Bo Bounds if he talks bad about the on the radio?

Can Trump sue every left wing media person?

Point is, different rules apply when you become famous.

[msstate7]

Not sure if Leo or Kobe would qualify as "public figures" or not.

It's very difficult for public figures to win law suits like this. For example: Can athletes sue Bo Bounds if he talks bad about the on the radio?

Can Trump sue every left wing media person?

Point is, different rules apply when you become famous.

"Famous" is probably a stretch here

[ShotgunDawg]

"Famous" is probably a stretch here

I don't agree. Maybe not nationally, but, as athletes, they are well known regionally & can't sue if criticized by a writer or radio host.

In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

This is from Yahoo answers, but seems like a good answer.

Are College Athletes Public Figures?

First it would be slander, not libel, because it was spoken.

Second, they are limited public figures. You can make fun of their play and activities on the court all you want. HOWEVER, describing them as nappy-headed hos falls outside of their activities on the court and is personal defamation.

Lastly, bringing a suit may not be such a great idea. It will bring more publicity to Imus (who does not need any more free publicity for his show thankyouverymuch) and will not gain the players much in money. Read on for further illumination:


Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

Not sure if Leo or Kobe would qualify as "public figures" or not.

It's very difficult for public figures to win law suits like this. For example: Can athletes sue Bo Bounds if he talks bad about the on the radio?

Can Trump sue every left wing media person?

Point is, different rules apply when you become famous.

They aren't just being talked about on the radio. They are being singled out as their actions having contributed to the defamation of character of another individual and being sued over it. All the while, never having been officially named as having done so. Their names have only come out into the public eye as speculation by certain individuals.

[ILOATHEBears]

"Expect Rebel Rags to gradually expand the lawsuit to include other persons as defendants, according to Merkel. As more facts surface, Rebel Rags will likely expand the lawsuit to include those who may have negotiated with the NCAA for immunity from punishment."

My contention is why can't Leo, Kobe, and if they name others, sue the hell out of rebel rags and anyone else that has uttered their name in public for defamation of character? Their names, and names of any other player to be named later, were redacted in the noa. None of their names have been made public officially. By naming these players in their lawsuit, RR is doing exactly what they are claiming Leo and Kobe did to them. Seems to me Leo and Kobe, and possibly others have a better case than rebel rags.

In that article u referenced it said negotiated for immunity. How do they know Leo negotiated for
Immunity? What if the NCAA knocked on the door asking to discuss violations committed by OM

[ShotgunDawg]

They aren't just being talked about on the radio. They are being singled out as their actions having contributed to the defamation of character of another individual and being sued over it. All the while, never having been officially named as having done so. Their names have only come out into the public eye as speculation by certain individuals.

Agree.

After reading the Yahoo answer, it appears as though they'd be "Limited Public Figures". This means what they do on the field can be publicly criticized, but not what happens off of it.

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

In that article u referenced it said negotiated for immunity. How do they know Leo negotiated for
Immunity? What if the NCAA knocked on the door asking to discuss violations committed by OM

The NCAA is the one who negotiates for immunity. The investigative arm has to go to the COI and lay out why they want to give someone immunity to help in their case. The COI rules yea or nea whether to grant immunity. The NCAA then goes and knocks on the athletes door....through the school obviously. At that point, the NCAA has the information they need, they are just adding another layer of proof to their allegation.

[CadaverDawg]

Cadaver-Is this the other it you were talking about or is there more to come?

Yes, one of them. Hilarious that Ole Miss is once again trying to spin this as "a good thing". This is a big big mistake. Nobody has done this before...you think it's because one of the worst Law Schools in the country is just smarter than everyone else? Haha

The reason this doesn't happen is bc 1) Nobody typically cheats on this level, and 2) most schools are smart enough to keep this from becoming a court issue. They just opened this thing up to Death Penalty possibilities, and Don't for a second think Ole Miss isn't telling Rebel Rags what to do.

[ckDOG]

The NCAA is the one who negotiates for immunity. The investigative arm has to go to the COI and lay out why they want to give someone immunity to help in their case. The COI rules yea or nea whether to grant immunity. The NCAA then goes and knocks on the athletes door....through the school obviously. At that point, the NCAA has the information they need, they are just adding another layer of proof to their allegation.

I've heard this several times but don't really believe it. If they have corroborating proof, it would have been included in the NOA and this discussion wouldn't be occurring. I think they are putting tegether circumstantial evidence from their investigation, getting that gut feeling of what's happening, and putting the icing on it with interviews of student athletes.

[MadDawg]

I've heard this several times but don't really believe it. If they have corroborating proof, it would have been included in the NOA and this discussion wouldn't be occurring. I think they are putting tegether circumstantial evidence from their investigation, getting that gut feeling of what's happening, and putting the icing on it with interviews of student athletes.

Then you believe, as does the bear faithful, that the granting of immunity was for fishing expeditions as the NCAA was on their witch hunt.

I've never heard it described like that, but hey, I guess y'all might be right.

[ckDOG]

Then you believe, as does the bear faithful, that the granting of immunity was for fishing expeditions as the NCAA was on their witch hunt.

I've never heard it described like that, but hey, I guess y'all might be right.

Not sure I described it like that either. There's a short novel of diverse allegations over a period of time. I don't think the NCAA was just polling randoms out of spite. They had reason to believe what they did, just maybe nothing concrete where they could feel comfortable putting it in the NOA. The immunity/testimony put it over the top. The only way I see it backfiring is if they put pressure on Lewis to say what he did. Otherwise, I can't think of any reason why a student athlete would want to lie about benefits received from any program before his career was even off the ground.

[whatever]

before this decision was made. They are going "all in" that nobody wants to get wrapped up in this mess, including athletes at fellow SEC institutions and honestly, who could blame them. Honestly, I'm thinking this is more of a scare tactic than anything else. I don't see this going to court.

Agreed, it's pretty obvious no one is going to want their athletes to be involved in ANY kind of lawsuit, much less even NCAA immunity interviews.

The OM posters are saying that Saban told his players to "shut up and not say a word about OM" to the NCAA, which may be why we never heard anything from/about Bo Scarbrough or Shy Carter. That actually makes sense, because Leo's name is getting thrown under the bus, he's of course being attacked for his story inconsistencies, he's having a lawsuit filed against him, and I don't know if this is true or not, but OM posters are saying if Leo is proven at the COI to have lied then he loses immunity?