Now we'll see if Pacquiao Lawsuit is legitimate....

:good

 

There is no case against Teddy. He said a source told him that he saw some emails.

 

he is claiming that an anonymous source has seen something. I don't see how you can file a lawsuit against that.

 

If he actually does have a source and names them, I don't think he can be sued for anything. All he did was state that he heard whatever from so and so, and he never stated anything else as fact.

 

IF those emails exist, case closed.

 

I am not a first year law student, I am a third year law student and did a small amount of research. Here is what you need to prove a federal defamation claim of a public figure. Obviously there is more to a case then these elements like how to define a public figure as well as defenses. I don't see why there is no case against Mayweather. There certainly is not a case against Atlas because he does not fulfill part d. no acutal malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Mayweath might fit d with the way he acted. I am not saying your wife is wrong because it is possible I am missing a defense or something like that, but to me it seems like he could have a case.

"Among the elements a public figure must prove in order to succeed on a defamation claim are (a) that the defendant communicated a statement about the public figure; (b) that the statement was defamatory; (c) the statement was false; and (d) the defendant communicated the defamatory statement with actual malice, i.e., knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for its truthfulness."

West v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., 120 Fed. Appx. 601

 

wait till the courts award Manny for damages. The decision will be directly if Pac fights in Vegas again. You can bet that Manny won't be fighting in Vegas anytime soon if the courts don't side with him on this one.

 

Also, check out defamation per se. I don't think they have much of a case either way, but I think this would probably fall under that.

 

I agree to both points. What floyd sr did was just make a baseless allegation, and didn't even come out and say it boldly. Atlas, boldly stated on a live broadcast the he has a "source" that saw incriminating e-mails
that could hang pac. Pac's lawyers would demand to hear from this "source" and teddy would be ****ed if he couldn't produce. Teddy should keep his bias northeastern mouth shut before he's slapped with a libel suit.

 

Nice. It's been amusing listening to all these knuckleheads acting like masters of jurisprudence! Bad spelling and all

Anyway, I think Pacquiao will drop the case. He was just trying to send a message in all probability.

 

Here is what I got for Slander per se, which seems like it would apply to snr. and anyone else who said just spoke.

To establish a claim for slander per se, a plaintiff must prove: (1) defendant spoke [**114] base or defamatory words which tended to prejudice him in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood or hold him up to disgrace, ridicule or contempt; (2) the statement was false; and (3) the statement was published or communicated to and understood by a third person.

West v. King's Dep't Store, Inc., 321 N.C. 698, 703, 365 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1988).

 

I believe it is understood that the current Nevada Athletic Commission drug testing procedures do not conclusively determine whether a person has used PEDs. Scheduled urine tests are not definitive. Random blood tests are also not perfect, but I understand it to be the best system currently in place.

How can a court determine that Floyd Sr.'s statements are FALSE based on scheduled urine tests? Many experts say it is plausible to 'beat' these tests. Pac has never failed a drug test but there is a great deal of evidence that this alone does not prove he never used PEDs.

If Pac wants to prove he doesn't use PEDs in training, he should agree to random blood tests. PED use is best determined by blood test, not the U.S. Court System.

Refusing random blood tests while bringing a defamation suit may be interesting gamesmanship, but its highly disingenuous and I believe muddles his reputation.