OT: Judge ('Cuse undergrad and law school grad) dismisses defamation suit vs. Boeheim | The Boneyard

OT: Judge ('Cuse undergrad and law school grad) dismisses defamation suit vs. Boeheim

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a bogus and frivolous lawsuit that never had a shot in a court of law.
That was being said by most EVERY law expert long before this judge gave his ruling.
Its no coincidence that ESPN played up the judge's SU affiliations, as though that was the significant part of this ruling. They played up the Fine scandal like it was Penn State, because they needed to match NBC's scoop.
Bottomline, Gloria Allred can appeal all she wants because of the publicity, but this is done.
JB gave his opinion that the accusers were lying about his friend of 46 years, and were only out for money.
So...they promptly sued him and asked for, wait for it....MONEY.
Next up will be the resolution of the fed investigation, which will also likely be proven bogus.
UConn fans, of all people, should be very wary of how the media handles these "scandals". This one is fading into oblivion.
 
I'm surprised Allred actually filed a suit. I thought she just holds press conferences.
 
The standards for defamation lawsuits have to be very high in order to protect everyone's 1st amendment right to free spech. Ms. Allred believes that most of the time (like every time where she doesn't have money riding on the other side). I am of the opinion that this was a relatively easy deicsion. If it wasn't, none of us would ever feel comfortable defending a friend for anything that they didn't personally witness.
 
Fishy said:
As compared to more worthy lawsuits where the plaintiffs request jelly beans.
Expand ...
Haha
No, more like the worthy lawsuits where the plaintiffs sue those they accuse of wrong doing, not those expressing an opinion.
If the thing had merit then sue Bernie or Laurie Fine, they're the ones they claimed abused them.
Instead they filed against JB and SU, which coincidentally have the bigger bank accounts.
Just sayin.....
 
I'm in an angry mood tonight - wtf is this even posted here? Who cares?
 
DoctorBombay said:
Haha
No, more like the worthy lawsuits where the plaintiffs sue those they accuse of wrong doing, not those expressing an opinion.
If the thing had merit then sue Bernie or Laurie Fine, they're the ones they claimed abused them.
Instead they filed against JB and SU, which coincidentally have the bigger bank accounts.
Just sayin.....
Expand ...
I heard Laurie Fine has pretty deep pockets, if you know what I mean.
 
DoctorBombay said:
Its no coincidence that ESPN played up the judge's SU affiliations, as though that was the significant part of this ruling.
Expand ...
Do you think that many members of the boneyard could be impartial judges if JC came before them getting sued?

Be realistic.

Let me put it this way.

If you were representing a party in a 1 million dollar lawsuit against Calipari that you knew had merit but was not a slam dunk winner, would you rather be in front of a Judge who graduated from Kentucky or one who graduated from UCLA?

If you say it doesn't matter, then 1. you don't understand basic human psychology, and 2. don't pursue law as an occupation.
 
DoctorBombay said:
Haha
No, more like the worthy lawsuits where the plaintiffs sue those they accuse of wrong doing, not those expressing an opinion.
If the thing had merit then sue Bernie or Laurie Fine, they're the ones they claimed abused them.
Instead they filed against JB and SU, which coincidentally have the bigger bank accounts.
Just sayin.....
Expand ...
They don't have to sue either Boeheim or the Fines - they are being accused for two completely different wrongdoings, so it's not a one or the other-type situation. And besides, that whole statute of limitations thing makes it hard to sue Bernie/Laura.

In any event, this was a pretty easy decision regardless of where the judge went to college, as it's damn near impossible to win a defamation suit these days. The plaintiff would have had to prove (1) that the information was false (the case never went to trial, so this would be extremely difficult), (2) that Boeheim knew it was false, and (3) that he said it to damage the kid's reputation (I think most people agree he said it to defend his long-time friend). And even if he could prove all those things, I doubt he'd be in line to make a lot of money in damages since Boeheim already offered an apology awhile back.

Like I said, pretty much a no brainer.
 
UConn990411 said:
They don't have to sue either Boeheim or the Fines - they are being accused for two completely different wrongdoings, so it's not a one or the other-type situation. And besides, that whole statute of limitations thing makes it hard to sue Bernie/Laura.

In any event, this was a pretty easy decision regardless of where the judge went to college, as it's damn near impossible to win a defamation suit these days. The plaintiff would have had to prove (1) that the information was false (the case never went to trial, so this would be extremely difficult), (2) that Boeheim knew it was false, and (3) that he said it to damage the kid's reputation (I think most people agree he said it to defend his long-time friend). And even if he could prove all those things, I doubt he'd be in line to make a lot of money in damages since Boeheim already offered an apology awhile back.

Like I said, pretty much a no brainer.
Expand ...

The police chief back when this broke was a former Cuse bball player. He dropped the ball bigtime (or deliberately deflated it). Then you have the DA who is a friend of Boeheim's. This is a company town. There was enough going on internally at the university level in 2005 to say there was a conspiracy. I read the articles that detailed that the school knew about this, as they had interviewed Davis, and the report was a cover-up.
 
OK?

That would warrant an investigation into those particular people, but the statute of limitations is still expired.
 
I have no idea of the ultimate merits of the lawsuit. What I do know is that when Boeheim said the accusations were lies, I took him to be speaking from a position of first-hand knowledge; i.e., that he knew the kids were lying. Where I come from, calling something a lie is statement of fact, not opinion. If it was an "easy" decision to find otherwise, it is curious that it took the judge 30 pages to do so. Sounds to me like the judge made findings of fact, which is what a jury is supposed to do unless reasonable minds could not possibly differ on the issue. Good luck finding a judge motivated to put in that much effort and stick his neck out in a case where he is not motivated to come to a particular result.
 
Frank Ivy said:
Do you think that many members of the boneyard could be impartial judges if JC came before them getting sued?

Be realistic.

Let me put it this way.

If you were representing a party in a 1 million dollar lawsuit against Calipari that you knew had merit but was not a slam dunk winner, would you rather be in front of a Judge who graduated from Kentucky or one who graduated from UCLA?

If you say it doesn't matter, then 1. you don't understand basic human psychology, and 2. don't pursue law as an occupation.
Expand ...

OK- I'll bite.
Call me naive but if the case was about as heinous a crime as child sexual abuse, I'd expect members of the Boneyard or ANY other fanbase to be impartial- most definitely!
And, if the complaint had any merit and showed that JC's actions impeded the victims getting some form of recourse, your damned right it wouldn't matter...not to me.
A victim getting retribution is much more significant IMO, than who is standing before me- even IF that happens to be the coach of my favorite team. That judge took an oath as a public servant, not an oath to the coach of his alma mater. I seriously doubt he'd jeopardize his career or base his decision, solely because of fan loyalty.
All due respect, but I think you underestimate the integrity of most Boneyard(ers) not to mention our judicial system. Its not always about wins & losses, it is after-all just a game.
 
DoctorBombay said:
OK- I'll bite.
Call me naive but if the case was about as heinous a crime as child sexual abuse, I'd expect members of the Boneyard or ANY other fanbase to be impartial- most definitely!
And, if the complaint had any merit and showed that JC's actions impeded the victims getting some form of recourse, your damned right it wouldn't matter...not to me.
A victim getting retribution is much more significant IMO, than who is standing before me- even IF that happens to be the coach of my favorite team. That judge took an oath as a public servant, not an oath to the coach of his alma mater. I seriously doubt he'd jeopardize his career or base his decision, solely because of fan loyalty.
All due respect, but I think you underestimate the integrity of most Boneyard(ers) not to mention our judicial system. Its not always about wins & losses, it is after-all just a game.
Expand ...

I'd say you're naive. The police under the ex-basketball player swept it under the rug, the DA is questionable, Syracuse in 2005 ran a CYA investigation, we saw attorney generals in the PSU case sweep this under the rug, a President at PSU in CYA mode.
 
upstater said:
I'd say you're naive. The police under the ex-basketball player swept it under the rug, the DA is questionable, Syracuse in 2005 ran a CYA investigation, we saw attorney generals in the PSU case sweep this under the rug, a President at PSU in CYA mode.
Expand ...
Yeah...ok.
"Its a conspiracy...and everyone's in on it"!
Warden Samuel Norton
-Shawshank Redemption-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
1,320
Total visitors
1,382
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,033
Messages
4,379,461
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom