Johnson and boom

[msstate7]

I don't know if you two are attorneys or not, but you're both sharp on legal matters. Does Rags have a good complaint? Is this a good strategy?

[parabrave]

Number 1 question should be did any of the defendants defame RR or it's owners?

[TUSK]

I don't know if you two are attorneys or not, but you're both sharp on legal matters. Does Rags have a good complaint? Is this a good strategy?

Both are Professors.... Johnson in Poli-Sci; Boom in Stats....

[ILOATHEBears]

Number 1 question should be did any of the defendants defame RR or it's owners?

How can saying I got this shirt are these clothes from RR become defamation when you were being questioned

[msstate7]

Both are Professors.... Johnson in Poli-Sci; Boom in Stats....

They're both intelligent for sure. I don't agree with boom's politics though haha

[#660000]

One thing is for sure, Boom's had enough schooling for a law degree.

[BulldogDX55]

Both are Professors.... Johnson in Poli-Sci; Boom in Stats....

Johnson is a Poli-Sci professor? Is it at State? I wonder if I have taken his classes.

[Bamasgot13]

I'm neither of the guys you mentioned (obviously), but this is what I posted about the complaint on another site:

if you actually read the complaint, the plaintiff doesn't have much chance to win for a variety of reasons.

1) Count I - Defamation. That has to result in provable harm. The sales at RR may be down but you can't pin that on the statements of these three (or more) individuals. Additionally, there are so many other potential causes for any possible sales decreases (season sucked, investigation ongoing, no bowl, etc) that you can't pin it on the statements of these individuals (and if those statements are true, then the defamation is out the window)

2) Count II - Commercial Disparagement. Requires that the statements made would have been done for the purposes of discouraging people from dealing with individual/business. These 3 (or more) people who listed RR in their comments to NCAA did so not to for the purposes of discouraging people from dealing with RR. This one is pretty easy to get thrown out.

3) Count III - Civil Conspiracy. This one assumes that multiple people conspired against RR, which is as difficult to prove as it is crazy to accuse them of. That said, it doesn't matter even if they did conspire (which is ridiculously, tin foil hat unlikely). It only matters if the conspiracy resulted in damage, which RR is going to struggle to prove.

[BrunswickDawg]

.


Jeezus - another Gump poster??? Are we a bandwagon school now? Is the REC sending minions to flame the dumpster fire in Oxford?

[BeardoMSU]

I'm neither of the guys you mentioned (obviously), but this is what I posted about the complaint on another site:

if you actually read the complaint, the plaintiff doesn't have much chance to win for a variety of reasons.

1) Count I - Defamation. That has to result in provable harm. The sales at RR may be down but you can't pin that on the statements of these three (or more) individuals. Additionally, there are so many other potential causes for any possible sales decreases (season sucked, investigation ongoing, no bowl, etc) that you can't pin it on the statements of these individuals (and if those statements are true, then the defamation is out the window)

2) Count II - Commercial Disparagement. Requires that the statements made would have been done for the purposes of discouraging people from dealing with individual/business. These 3 (or more) people who listed RR in their comments to NCAA did so not to for the purposes of discouraging people from dealing with RR. This one is pretty easy to get thrown out.

3) Count III - Civil Conspiracy. This one assumes that multiple people conspired against RR, which is as difficult to prove as it is crazy to accuse them of. That said, it doesn't matter even if they did conspire (which is ridiculously, tin foil hat unlikely). It only matters if the conspiracy resulted in damage, which RR is going to struggle to prove.

Good first post, dude.

[Bamasgot13]

Jeezus - another Gump poster??? Are we a bandwagon school now? Is the REC sending minions to flame the dumpster fire in Oxford?

Just found this site to be a decent place to get a different perspective on the situation. Yes, like fans of most other SEC teams, I'm hoping Ole Miss gets what's coming to them.

[BeardoMSU]

Just found this site to be a decent place to get a different perspective on the situation. Yes, like fans of most other SEC teams, I'm hoping Ole Miss gets what's coming to them.

Excellent second post.

[BrunswickDawg]

Just found this site to be a decent place to get a different perspective on the situation. Yes, like fans of most other SEC teams, I'm hoping Ole Miss gets what's coming to them.

You are now validated. Proceed Sir Elephant.

[msbulldog]

Jeezus - another Gump poster??? Are we a bandwagon school now? Is the REC sending minions to flame the dumpster fire in Oxford?

He Brunswick, he's giving logical answers.
I like him better than Tusk.

[TUSK]

Just found this site to be a decent place to get a different perspective on the situation. Yes, like fans of most other SEC teams, I'm hoping Ole Miss gets what's coming to them.

As the original, resident Bammer, welcome...

May MDL and The REC be with you....

[BoomBoom]

I don't know if you two are attorneys or not, but you're both sharp on legal matters. Does Rags have a good complaint? Is this a good strategy?

Not an attorney and not something i'm versed in at all. Constitutional law is a hobby of mine, state law is not.

[TUSK]

He Brunswick, he's giving logical answers.
I like him better than Tusk.

What'd I do to upset you, Daddio? (specifically)

[BoomBoom]

Both are Professors.... Johnson in Poli-Sci; Boom in Stats....

i lol'd

[Tbonewannabe]

Just found this site to be a decent place to get a different perspective on the situation. Yes, like fans of most other SEC teams, I'm hoping Ole Miss gets what's coming to them.

You have something against Freeze trying to buy Bo or Carter out from under Saban? I don't know why you wouldn't want to turn the other cheek like Freeze preaches. If someone ever bought a recruit out from under him in the no contact period I am sure he would just pray for you.

[Tbonewannabe]

What'd I do to upset you, Daddio? (specifically)

Your ok as long as we keep spanking that ass in baseball. I have given up seeing Mullen beat Saban so my apathy is in full force.

[TUSK]

i lol'd

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BoomBoom again.

I'll just say "+1", instead, buddy....

[Jack Lambert]

What'd I do to upset you, Daddio? (specifically)

I think he thinks the other guy is just smarter. Not that you're stupid.

[TUSK]

Your ok as long as we keep spanking that ass in baseball. I have given up seeing Mullen beat Saban so my apathy is in full force.

Gawd, I wish we would just take the air out of our baseballs* and ne'er use them again....

[Johnson85]

I don't know if you two are attorneys or not, but you're both sharp on legal matters. Does Rags have a good complaint? Is this a good strategy?

Don't know enough about defamation to give a good analysis but a couple of things to point out:
Truth is a defense. If Leo Lewis and whoever didn't lie about revel rags, it doesn't matter if what they said damaged rebel rags business.

Rebel rags will have the burden of proof, which means they must prove each element of a claim to prevail and even if the elements are proven (to a more likely than not standard) you also have to prove the amount of the damages. So rebel rags has the tough claim of proving they did not so the things the defendants said. They are going to have to prove a negative. Only have to prove it to a more likely than not standard, so it would basically come down to who is more credible to the fact finder.

But all that is irrelevant because this isn't a legal case. There's no money there, so this is just about leverage. It's high risk to say the least. If um has blessed this, it's really stupid unless they know some very specific lines of inquiry they are going to use the discovery process to address.

There's also the issue of the NCAA not giving a shit. Let's say it's a black bears wet dream and Kobe and Leo made everything up. They get Leo and Kobe to admit that in a deposition and the NCAA can say, oh well, you'll just get 100 schillings lost and ten years probation for the other dozen plus level ones, and we can't punish state because we didn't learn about it in the NCAA investigation, or even though the immunity for some reason is voided, we're not going to do anything to be state to show recruits we have a commitment to protecting athletes that assist in investigations even if they're not perfect.

[Dawg4Life]

I don't know if you two are attorneys or not, but you're both sharp on legal matters. Does Rags have a good complaint? Is this a good strategy?

One of the interesting things is the use of the words "malicious and/or with reckless disregard" in the complaint. Public figures have a higher burden, including the burden of showing malice and/or reckless disregard. Is Rebel Rags considered a public figure? I'm not sure and haven't researched it but the language makes me believe that the attorneys see that as a possible defense. Also, the element of punitive damages is enhanced with this language.

A defense for the defamation certainly is truthfulness and lack of damages. I think the damages aspect is incredibly difficult to prove. Beyond that, a question I have is with the "unprivileged publication" element. We are talking about a student athlete making a statement to an organization with whom his eligibility is dependent. Does any statement by an athlete, when later published in the NOI, become unprivileged publication? I'm not well versed on the topic but it is where I would start when reviewing the elements of the claim.

[MarketingBully]

To answer Msstate7's question. Nope. This is a dumb ass strategy that will get Ole Miss the death penalty IMO.

[Pollodawg]

Yeah. Won't ever see the inside of a courtroom.

[SailingDawg]

How can RR get away with exposing Kobe and Lewis by name?