Pacquiao Files Federal Defamation Lawsuit Against Mayweathers, de la Hoya, Schaefer

some of these turds really pay off big sometimes. ever hear of coffee that is too hot?
floyd is hard to like by any group of 12 hard working people and its not hard to paint him in a negative light. try that with manny.

 

DAMM AARON i thought i was the only one thinking like you I GOT A MORE RESPECT for YOU now BROTHHHHHER...:good

 

If they have proof of all the "said" verbal allegations, not sure how stong but they have a case. But most of these cases never gets to court dates, they get settled off courts.

 

You racist piece of dog ****!

 

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.
An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.

 

If Pacquiao loses this suit he's going to look like a colossal jackass. They better hope it goes their way.

 

DAMM ME YOU MUST HAVE WENT TOO THE SAME SCHOOL.our grammar is OFFFF THE HOOKatsch

 

Whttp://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.htmlhy Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea

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.

 

Push for Pac to be banned from boxing forever then. With all the overwhelming evidence, it should be easy right? Make a new thread calling all ESB forum members to push for Pac's banishment from pro boxing. Time to back up your beliefs, if that's what they really are.

 

I wanted to see the fight, but don't blame Pac a bit. They've slandered his name, entire reputation, and have singled him out to make him do something that nobody else had to do.
Some people say this is proof of guilt. Why in the hell does Pac want to let Mayweather earn $ after the **** he's done? Even if he does beat Mayweather in the ring...Mayweather still ran off with 30 million. This is where it hurts him worse. It's not like they had suspicions, and were gentlemen about it, and said they would like for olympic style drug testing. NO. They said PAC IS ON DA ROIDS! WE WILL NOT FIGHT UNLESS HE GETS RANDOM TESTS!
You can't accuse people of this ****, and slander there names.

 

Exactly. Just because he filed the suit does not mean anything. What will happen next is the defendants will file a motion to dismiss. The judge will then decide if Pac has a case or not. If he chooses to go forward, you are talking about a lenghty and drawn out process. Most cases in federal courts take years. Before some of you ask if I am a lawyer? No I am not however, I currently have a civil case in Federal Court and it has been five years. And with the money that both of these parties have with the good lawyers, this will be tied up for a long time. Finaly, Pac might be opening Pandora's box, because Ariza has ties to Balco and Roach has had fighters that have tested positive for steriords. All of those issues will be investigated along with everything else. This could get very ugly.

 

ITS AL GOOD MY FREIND:good

 

don't worry too much about it bradder. This ain't no college board.

 

You have to understand. Half the people on this board can barely speak English. They can't comprehend that people from other countries visit this site. Can speak and read multiple languages. Correcting someone's grammar instead of making valid argument is all they have left.

 

Bush jr. got elected twice and he's american.