ESPN article: Men to sue Syracuse, Boeheim

[FrothyClog]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...eheim-school-alleged-sexual-abuse-bernie-fine

 

[EricLA]

i don't pretend to know the nuances of these cases, but it seems Boeheim should have kept his yap shut at the start of this. calling the accusers liars was not the smart way to come out of the gate when the allegations first surfaced.

 

[Mr.Phat]

i don't pretend to know the nuances of these cases, but it seems Boeheim should have kept his yap shut at the start of this. calling the accusers liars was not the smart way to come out of the gate when the allegations first surfaced.

I was amazed Boeheim opened his mouth like that. I still can't believe he did it.

 

[uc1974]

Gloria Allred is a dramatic sleazeball who never saw an opportunity to make money and demean the legal profession she didn't like. Slander is a very difficult tort to prove and meet the legal criteria. Any port in a storm, I guess.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Gloria Allred is a dramatic sleazeball who never saw an opportunity to make money and demean the legal profession she didn't like. Slander is a very difficult tort to prove and meet the legal criteria. Any port in a storm, I guess.

Boeheim is the public figure not the plaintiffs. The burden of proof will not be higher for these plaintiffs. There will not be an actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth threshold to be met. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof here. This will settle out of court with the standard non disclosure agreement language incorporated. This is far from demeaning the legal profession based on facts and circumstances (damages). The case has merit and if you or your son were the victim of these comments maybe your opinion would change. Allred is by no means my favorite but you have to take each case for its own substantive merit.

JMHO...

 

[upstater]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Allred wins a lot of her cases, doesn't she? So... why is she a disgrace to the legal profession?

A lot of people thought Boeheim's comments were unwarranted and harmful. I thought his so-called apology was a non-apology since it was directed toward abuse victims in general and not Bobby Davis in particular. He also said his comments "might have offended" abuse victims in general.

 

[jibsey]

Would this be money that Boeheim has to pay out of his own pocket? How much could he lose?

 

[roxyharper]

This is far from demeaning the legal profession based on facts and circumstances (damages).

Uh-huh, sure. Care to share those facts and damages?

 

[upstater]

Uh-huh, sure. Care to share those facts and damages?

According to the Davis-Laurie Fine tape, Bernie Fine used to go downstairs every night and molest Davis when he was a "child," when he was "just a kid," and he held himself "above the law." Just a few of the quotes from the tape. Those are the facts.

Damages? We'll see. Calling a victim a liar certainly inflicts some damages, even in the legal sense. But we'll see whether Davis is considered a public figure or not (which would mitigate legal damages).

 

[orangehomer]

According to the Davis-Laurie Fine tape, Bernie Fine used to go downstairs every night and molest Davis when he was a "child," when he was "just a kid," and he held himself "above the law." Just a few of the quotes from the tape. Those are the facts.

Damages? We'll see. Calling a victim a liar certainly inflicts some damages, even in the legal sense. But we'll see whether Davis is considered a public figure or not (which would mitigate legal damages).

i would love to hear you explain to me what the Fine tape has to do with a defamation suit against boeheim and SU, considering no one knew about the tape except for espn until after boeheim's "defamatory" comments.

 

[selles]

Would this be money that Boeheim has to pay out of his own pocket? How much could he lose?

I'd guess between 0 and 5 dollars. Best of luck to Gloria but yeah...no...and Cuse will handle the costs of settlement.

 

[upstater]

i would love to hear you explain to me what the Fine tape has to do with a defamation suit against boeheim and SU, considering no one knew about the tape except for espn until after boeheim's "defamatory" comments.

You asked for facts and I gave them to you. What it has to do with the case is that it shows Boeheim's comments blasting Davis for making up a tall tale were wrong as can be. He called Davis a liar. The tape shows that Davis is not a liar. Everyone with a brain understands that.

 

[Huskymaniac]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...eheim-school-alleged-sexual-abuse-bernie-fine

Don't you have a umess board to post to? What...they don't care about child molesting stories in college basketball unless it happens at UConn?

 

[roxyharper]

According to the Davis-Laurie Fine tape

A couple of nutjobs implying vague activities is facts, huh?

 

[ctchamps]

A couple of nutjobs implying vague activities is facts, huh?

Thanks for making an appearance JB!

 

[Scalito]

Damages? We'll see. Calling a victim a liar certainly inflicts some damages, even in the legal sense. But we'll see whether Davis is considered a public figure or not (which would mitigate legal damages).

Whether Davis is a public figure has nothing to do with the amount of damages (i.e. mitigation), and everything to do with the availability of damages. The rest of your legal analysis is almost as spot on.

 

[Scalito]

Boeheim is the public figure not the plaintiffs. The burden of proof will not be higher for these plaintiffs. There will not be an actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth threshold to be met. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof here. This will settle out of court with the standard non disclosure agreement language incorporated. This is far from demeaning the legal profession based on facts and circumstances (damages). The case has merit and if you or your son were the victim of these comments maybe your opinion would change. Allred is by no means my favorite but you have to take each case for its own substantive merit.

JMHO...

This is generally sound in its reasoning, but you never demonstrate why Boeheim's comments constitute defamation under any standard. Let's assume Davis and Lang were telling the truth, which you obviously do. Would it be defamatory for me to write on this board that they are liars? Are all the Cuse fans who think as much and have expressed as much liable for defamation? If not, why are they different than Boeheim? Statements of opinion are generally non-actionable, under most scenarios, at least. I wonder why you think a wrong opinion concerning a criminal case, verbally expressed, is tortious?

Did all the Duke professors who proclaimed the lacrosse players' guilt commit defamation or a non-actionable mistake? What's the difference?

 

[upstater]

A couple of nutjobs implying vague activities is facts, huh?

I gave you the quotes, you thought they were vague. What's vague about a grown man going down to the basement each night to molest a child? You defend this child molester, it's crazy. How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with you? I gave you the quotes, you're the only one I've seen so far defend Bernie Fine.

 

[upstater]

Whether Davis is a public figure has nothing to do with the amount of damages (i.e. mitigation), and everything to do with the availability of damages. The rest of your legal analysis is almost as spot on.

I'm not a lawyer, I just heard some lawyer say that sometimes ordinary people fall into the

This is generally sound in its reasoning, but you never demonstrate why Boeheim's comments constitute defamation under any standard. Let's assume Davis and Lang were telling the truth, which you obviously do. Would it be defamatory for me to write on this board that they are liars? Are all the Cuse fans who think as much and have expressed as much liable for defamation? If not, why are they different than Boeheim? Statements of opinion are generally non-actionable, under most scenarios, at least. I wonder why you think a wrong opinion concerning a criminal case, verbally expressed, is tortious?

Did all the Duke professors who proclaimed the lacrosse players' guilt commit defamation or a non-actionable mistake? What's the difference?

On this message board, no. But the Duke professors are different. If they are regarded as spokesman for the school, then the schools may be liable. As professors who have academic freedom, they are not liable. To the extent that they have any administrative responsibilities speaking on behalf of the institution, they can be considered spokesman. I think boeheim was only included in the suit to get at Syracuse U. It's the school that's being targeted, and Allred will contend that Boeheim was speaking for the university.

 

[Scalito]

I'm not a lawyer, I just heard some lawyer say that sometimes ordinary people fall into the


On this message board, no. But the Duke professors are different. If they are regarded as spokesman for the school, then the schools may be liable. As professors who have academic freedom, they are not liable. To the extent that they have any administrative responsibilities speaking on behalf of the institution, they can be considered spokesman. I think boeheim was only included in the suit to get at Syracuse U. It's the school that's being targeted, and Allred will contend that Boeheim was speaking for the university.

Defamation is defamation. There is no license to defame someone because you are a vaunted academic, or any excuse to defamation because you are a lowly internet troll. Assuming Boeheim and the Duke professors had no more material knowledge of guilt or innocence than you or me, the standard by which their statements are adjudged is no different than if you or I made them. And by that standard, it is pretty hard to find them defamatory. That being said, assuming they were defamatory, there is a good case, as you suggest, that their schools could be held vicariously liable. But it is unlikely Gloria Alred, a glorified ambulance chaser, would ever get there if forced to litigate.

 

[uc1974]

With due respect to my non-lawyer colleagues posting on this site, some of you don't know what you're talking about. Although I was never licensed in NY except for one case PHV many years ago, I can tell you that it isn't easy to win a slander case in NY, especially where the plaintiffs would have to first prove slander and then establish some monetary damage. I checked the case law and it will be difficult for the plaintiffs to prove actual slander--even if they did, both don't have much of a reputation to damage anyway. This doesn't mean a settlement might not be offered but it wouldn't be much. It is simply an attempt to procure money from a situation where there is unlikely any to be any obtained easily and without creative attempts to find SU somehow responsible within the statute of limitations. It also helps Allred because no publicity is bad publicity. She's in the same category as Kuntsler, Kuby, Cochran and Taccapena (sic). If that type of attorney impresses you, try to hire one of the two still alive for your next case. I'll be there for your criminal sentencing or civil court loss.

 

[roxyharper]

What's vague about a grown man going down to the basement each night to molest a child?

I'd like you to explain where exactly in the recording Mr. Davis' age is revealed.
Next, I'd like you to identify where exactly, in this bombshell of a recording, any illegal behavior is confirmed.
Finally, if you would be so kind, I'd like you to describe—whether with this tape or with any other nugget of information out there—where exactly it has been revealed that Jim Boeheim knew about (prior to 2005) an alleged sexual relationship (abusive, consensual, or otherwise) between Fine and Bobby Davis.
k, thanks.

 

[upstater]

I'd like you to explain where exactly in the recording Mr. Davis' age is revealed.
Next, I'd like you to identify where exactly, in this bombshell of a recording, any illegal behavior is confirmed.
Finally, if you would be so kind, I'd like you to describe—whether with this tape or with any other nugget of information out there—where exactly it has been revealed that Jim Boeheim knew about (prior to 2005) an alleged sexual relationship (abusive, consensual, or otherwise) between Fine and Bobby Davis.
k, thanks.

Take the cotton out of your ears.
Multiple times he's called a child, Laurie Fine says "you were just a kid."
When Davis said he would threaten to tell about what Fine did to him, she says "he thinks he's above the law."
I never said Boeheim knew about their relationship. I said Boeheim blasted the victim as a liar.
Keep defending a child molester.

 

[upstater]

4th accuser: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/prison_inmate_becomes_4th_man.html

Where the hell does Fine find these kids? Orphaned without parents at 13, Fine takes him into his home. Drug addiction coupled with burglaries the rest of his life. Unreal.

 

[roxyharper]

Take the cotton out of your ears.
Multiple times he's called a child, Laurie Fine says "you were just a kid."
When Davis said he would threaten to tell about what Fine did to him, she says "he thinks he's above the law."
I never said Boeheim knew about their relationship. I said Boeheim blasted the victim as a liar.
Keep defending a child molester.

Just as I thought, sheer ignorance. Go ahead and study up on the available facts as they pertain to these allegations and on the burden-of-proof requirements in a defamation case and get back to me.