A Question To The Other Lawyers Out There On Clemens' Lawsuit
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I don't pretend to know the motivating factors behind Clemens' lawsuit against McNamee, but if I were representing McNamee, the first thing I would look to is whether the Court has jurisdiction over him? If not, I'd consider a Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint admits that McNamee is a N.Y., resident. Paragraph 5 alleges that McNamee "profitted by frequently and regularly traveling to Texas for extended periods of time to train professional athletes over the last decade." Those are somewhat vague allegations in which to allege jurisdiction. Just my $0.02. Anybody else have similar thoughts?
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
0
Comments
The motivation is Brian defamed Roger's character. Unless Brian has actual proof of his actions, Roger will at the most Bankrupt Brian with this lawsuit. Roger has also offered up doing a Lie Detector test.
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
To recover for defamation, public-figure plaintiffs [Clemens] must prove that defendants [McNamee] published a false and defamatory statement [Mitchell Report] with actual malice.
To establish actual malice in a public-figure defamation case, [Clemens] must prove that [McNamee] published [the Mitchell Report] with either knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Knowledge of falsity is a relatively clear standard, but reckless disregard is much less so. Reckless disregard is a subjective standard, requiring evidence that [McNamee] entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the article at the time it was published.
The mere fact that [McNamee] knows that [Clemens] has denied harmful allegations or offered an alternative explanation of events is not evidence that [McNamee] doubted the allegations for purposes of establishing actual malice.
In other words, while the lawsuit might bankrupt McNamee, Clemens faces a uphill battle to prevail on his lawsuit.
/s/ JackWESQ
/s/ JackWESQ
A defending attorney was cross examining a coroner. The attorney asked, "Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?"
"No," the coroner replied.
The attorney then asked, "Did you listen for a heart beat?"
The coroner said, "No."
"Did you check for breathing?", asked the attorney.
Again the coroner replied, "No."
The attorney asked, "So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"
The coroner, now tired of the brow beating said, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere."
That there's plenty of room for more.