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

Never said that.. if he is a stud attorney explain the factual errors in his pleedings? He names the wrong radio show.

Petrocelli may be a great attorney, but no attorney ever wins 100% of their cases. Furthermore, Petrocelli is willing to represent anybody, as he represented Skillings of Enron shame (lead attorney) on criminal charges and lost.

I am still awaiting Oscar's answer, so lets see what happens.

 

Wrong radio show imho = harmless/correctable error....

Representing someone on criminal charges is totally different than being a plaintiff in a civil case where the case must have some merit..... so your example of Skillings isn't a good example to imply that the defamation suit has no merit...

 

I'd be shocked if one of Pacs agents/attorneys was dumb enough to put something so damaging in e-mails...

 

CASE: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254; 84 S. Ct. 710; 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, U.S. Supreme Court [1964]

FACTS: On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried a full-page advertisement entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” which contained several paragraphs describing unfair treatment of Alabama State College student protestors, two of which specifically mentioned unfair treatment by the police. Although none of the statements made within the advertisement directly named Sullivan, he argued that, as supervisor of the city police department, he was being accused of allowing the described treatment of the students.

It was found that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs in question were not accurate descriptions of what had actually occurred and placed the police department in a very unfavorable light. Additionally, all witnesses who testified stated that they did not believe the statements in reference to the respondent.

Respondent Sullivan brought a claim of libel against four of the individuals whose names, among others, were in the advertisement and against the New York Times for publishing the advertisement.

ISSUE: Can a public figure receive damages in a civil libel action, if malice is not proven?

RULE/ANALYSIS: The Supreme Court held that petitioner was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. As such, a public official [respondent] was prohibited from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless it could be proven that the statement was made with actual malice.

RULE/ANALYSIS: The Supreme Court held that petitioner was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. As such, a public official [respondent] was prohibited from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless it could be proven that the statement was made with actual malice.

This legal brief sums up that Petrocelli has to demonstrate that the people who made these statements knew them to be false or wrong when they made them. As the statements are expressions of opinion the burden on Petrocelli's part is high.

Furthermore, this ruling applies to Pac because the court believes that Public People like Pac have a key role in influencing and shaping society through his fame.

It is actually the opposite as Pac is a public figure he has the higher burden.

Oddly, now that a lawsuit surrounds the topic it becomes a public interest allowing further debate protected under the first amendment.

 

Agree, but there's nothing even damaging about it.

The OP is a liar - there was no mention of admittance. Just an if.

 

now all we need now is a second year attorney:d