Twitter and Big East Films

[How Sway?!]

He can sue all he wants. He would have to prove they were lies and slander. He can’t do that. End of story. That’s why he has his sycophants (again) doing his dirty work by threatening this 20 year old DePaul student.

He can definitely sue and win, not because he'll prove the slander but because he has a lot more financial resources than the 20 year old DePaul student. That's how most defamation lawsuits end up.

 

[Deleted at users request]

I'm not remotely a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure a defamation case would need more than that, especially since she could benefit financially from not being truthful.

Yeah the case would pretty much come down to the person involved.

How would she financially benefit from taking the side that’s not the millionaire and one that would be being sued?

I took one business law class in school so I’m not remotely one either. Just a thought. If Cooley was still doing post game interviews with Fanta afterwards I’m not sure how much this bothered him then.

 

[87Xfer]

Okay, so not a child.

What made you think it was a child? Because someone said "kid"?

 

[Leebo]

What made you think it was a child? Because someone said "kid"?

If someone turned to you and said "Goodman is harassing kids" would you think they meant adults? Like I said, I asked for clarification.

 

[Deleted at users request]

Yeah I don't think he wants to do that.

I gotta be honest, I didn't want to sit through the whole video but now I'm going to watch it.

If you’re just curious about that part, it starts about an hour in. After going to look at it again there’s really only one fan who goes overboard saying he believes it’s 100% true because of what he heard and “he just seems like he’s that type of guy”.

Everyone else except the old man at the end says they have no idea and doubt it without more evidence.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Leblanc guy was @FriarJ tbh lol

 

[NJHusky]

He's not wrong. He ran right up to the line of what's permissible on that fake documentary. It's certainly possible to make the argument that he crossed it.

What makes a documentary fake? It could just be a bad documentary…especially if it was done by a college kid

 

[87Xfer]

If he's an adult, I don't see the reason to say "kid" just to make it sound like we should sympathize with him based on his age.

Are you serious? When you watch a college basketball game do you list the players' birth dates to know which ones you call kids vs the ones you call men when you root for them.

I'm sure you're a blast at dinner parties.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Yeah the case would pretty much come down to the person involved.

How would she financially benefit from taking the side that’s not the millionaire and one that would be being sued?

I took one business law class in school so I’m not remotely one either. Just a thought. If Cooley was still doing post game interviews with Fanta afterwards I’m not sure how much this bothered him then.

I don't get what you're saying. He's going to pay her to say it wasn't her? And when she gets subpoenaed for deposition and has to lie under oath, what happens then? Defamation of a public figure is a hard case to make. But even if it weren't only people whose closets are completely devoid of skeletons want to go down that road.

But if someone actually pulled the trigger on a lawsuit I would bet that kid (child? semi-man?) would have a line of lawyers outside his door willing to take that case. Hell, some bored PC alum would probably do it for free.

 

[NJHusky]

The people in the documentary pitch it as the reason he had to leave Providence.

I would think that all he would have to do is have his wife say that’s untrue and unless whatever women he supposedly had an affair with steps forward, that’s all the court would need.

The onus would be more on the person who said it to prove it’s true. Would a woman really want to put herself out there like that as a homewrecker?

I don’t know where you went to law school but the plaintiff needs to prove the facts they allege. And truth is an absolute defense. I didn’t watch it but if they talked about Cooley having an affair I doubt he wants his cell phone records subpoenaed.

 

[Leebo]

Are you serious? When you watch a college basketball game do you list the players' birth dates to know which ones you call kids vs the ones you call men when you root for them.

I'm sure you're a blast at dinner parties.

The discussion has a legal angle to it, so I don't see how it's irrelevant or obtuseness, but it appears I'm in the minority. Not intending to drag it out though.

 

[NJHusky]

If you’re just curious about that part, it starts about an hour in. After going to look at it again there’s really only one fan who goes overboard saying he believes it’s 100% true because of what he heard and “he just seems like he’s that type of guy”.

Everyone else except the old man at the end says they have no idea and doubt it without more evidence.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the Leblanc guy was @FriarJ tbh lol

If that’s true the speaker might be guilty of defamation…but only if it’s not true

 

[Deleted at users request]

I don’t know where you went to law school but the plaintiff needs to prove the facts they allege. And truth is an absolute defense. I didn’t watch it but if they talked about Cooley having an affair I doubt he wants his cell phone records subpoenaed.

Didn’t go to law school. Took one business law class as a part of business school. One of the hardest classes (but interesting) I ever took. Lol

The allegation here is that Cooley took the Georgetown job because he had an affair.

Cooley can easily prove there are many other reasons that I don’t even have to get into that he took that job and can also get into the affair if need be. But yeah if cell phone records are going to be involved (and it’s true of course) then I’m not sure he wants to go down that route of the affair. Didn’t think about that.

 

[Northbound]

Can anyone summarize what the issue is with Goodman and Dauster?

They are both insufferable.

 

[87Xfer]

The discussion has a legal angle to it, so I don't see how it's irrelevant or obtuseness, but it appears I'm in the minority. Not intending to drag it out though.

Edit: nevermind

 

[Deleted at users request]

If that’s true the speaker might be guilty of defamation…but only if it’s not true

Would the person in charge of the production also be involved since they featured it in their doc? Genuine question.

It’s like if you sue someone on the job for a company the company takes a hit (unless the person was not acting out of negligence). But of course this is not the same dynamic here.

 

[FriarJ]

He can definitely sue and win, not because he'll prove the slander but because he has a lot more financial resources than the 20 year old DePaul student. That's how most defamation lawsuits end up.

I so hope he sues. It would be epic

 

[CTBasketball]

Companies don’t like their employees doing that kind of stuff. However, it seems like they probably wanted to fire him anyway and this just accelerated it.

He wasn’t fired tho.

 

[NJHusky]

I so hope he sues. It would be epic

Might there be a few pc boosters that would fund the kid/child?

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

Everyone said they "believe", or "heard somewhere", or "think".

Even if they said they "100% believe", that's still a "believe". "I believe he did this" is different than "he did this".

 

[ibleedhuskyblue]

Might there be a few pc boosters that would fund the kid/child?

He made a decent documentary, probably on a really low budget. He'll probably get a job offer out of this.

 

[FriarJ]

Might there be a few pc boosters that would fund the kid/child?

Absolutely and I already saw a SJU fan who is a lawyer tell him to not worry. The gofundme would be substantial. Cooley does not want any part of this. The doc didn’t get into half of it. One mention of one time cheating and him being giving an ultimatum. They might as well go find who Trilly is as well and sue him for his discord.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

What does any of that have to do with Jeff Goodman threatening a kid multiple times in a DM? Answer: Nothing.

What in my post had to do with Goodman or his DM exchange?

 

[FriarJ]

What in my post had to do with Goodman or his DM exchange?

LOL, that’s my point. Goodman is what this thread is about, you are still on your they shouldn’t have said this or that kick in the doc. That has nothing to do with Goodman and/or Dauster threatening the guy which is what this whole thing is about. That’s why I’m asking you what it has to do with it.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Didn’t go to law school.

Here's a tip: if a professional attorney chimed in on something like this (one did) it's a good idea to defer to his opinion.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

LOL, that’s my point. Goodman is what this thread is about, you are still on your they shouldn’t have said this or that kick in the doc. That has nothing to do with Goodman and/or Dauster threatening the guy which is what this whole thing is about. That’s why I’m asking you what it has to do with it.

I responded earlier in the thread saying that the Big East has every right to not want their name/brand (whatever) to be associated with a documentary that wasn't produced or signed off by them.

That is an independent point from me saying I wouldn't have included the affair in it from a personal perspective.

Goodman is a clown for threatening the kid (which I also said earlier in the thread).