Pacquiao suing mayweather? court date.

I understood it was Top Rank and not Paquiao personally who was suing a defamation order.This is very difficult to prove and it does not happen overnight.Should this ever see daylight in a Courtroom,it could take years.
The wheels of justice moves slowly but surely.

 

I thought he dropped it

 

They dropped it before the last negotiations I believe.

 

That whole lawsuit BS was just a ploy by team Pac to deflect attention because people were getting a little suspicious about Pac's reticence to take the blood tests.

 

http://www.boxing scene.com/pacquiao-vs-mayweather-lawsuit-head-trial--30216

 

Read up, Pacquiao has a legitimate case:

There is no known confirmation of Pacquiao EVER having tested positive of PEDs or steroids.

You can't go around trying to destroy someone's image with assumptions and guesses.

 

Boxingsensei is a mayweather fanboy of the highest degree. Get used to seeing garbage like that from him. He'd take Floyd's side over his own momma if something came between. atsch

 

First off Floyd's words are opinion and Pac is a public figure so the chances of Pac winning are between Bob Hop and No hope. Moreover, Floyd could counterclaim that he is within his first amendment rights.

 

I'm afraid you have a very basic understanding of Defamation.

I can't go to the public and starting shouting out that you are a murderer without any proof behind it just because I think its part of my free speech. That is defamation and it is against the law.

In most states you can be held liable in a civil court, and in some states you can be held liable in a criminal court.

 

:good

 

Read the post above yours. atsch

 

Public Figures
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. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

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".

 

Wat kinda boxer sue over words.:rofl

 

well in this case, the p4p king and fighter of the decade.