Dan Rafael: "The Mayweathers should be WORRIED about the Pac lawsuit"

[SpitBalla]

From the time Mayweather accused Manny to now, how much has PAC's net worth dropped.

It doesn't need to drop. Its about potential earnings.

ANd even then, there is something called punitive damages. That's where Floyd will be hit with millions of dollars in damages.

Stop trying to understand it, you guys obviously know nothing of the law. Just understand that it's a serious lawsuit that could easily cost the Mayweathers many millions of dollars. That's all you need to know.

Remember GB and the Mayweathers have tried TWICE to have the case dismissed, and the judge refused. The judge said this case is strong enough to go on. That's why GB got nervous and settled. Mayweathers are bunch of uneducated ignorant fools. Let hope they get their clocks cleaned out.

[PAKYO]

From the time Mayweather accused Manny to now, how much has PAC's net worth dropped.

It's senseless arguing about those things really as it will be the counsel who needs to make it convincing enough for the jury.
What i'm fairly sure about is Pac's side gaining more ammo which the Mayweather's provided day by day.
And as i said earlier, slipping on a wet floor without any notices posted made someone a millionaire.
There's your precedence.

[ThePrince]

From the time Mayweather accused Manny to now, how much has PAC's net worth dropped.

I'm not his accountant, so no. Doubt that defamation/libel is based solely on affect on net worth anyway, but carry on.

[mushahadeen]

OMG SHUT UP.

1. there is a diff between a person's "beliefs" i.e. believing in God or believing in Atkins Diets-- and slander, which are injurious to one's reputation and thus one's marketability. therefore one can be held financially liable.

2. 99.9999999999999999999% chance this **** AT MOST amounts to a few thousand bucks (chump change to floyd) and a tacit apology.

conclusion: it's a big giant bowl of who gives a crap.

[D4thincarnation]

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a ****zine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a ***ually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;

While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.

A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.

An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Public Figures

Under the First ********* 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 ****zine 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".

Pacquiao also has to prove these accusations were malicious, an since the Mayweather have made numerous degatory statements against Pacquiao and Floyd topped it of with his racist rant vid and their rivalry between them.

[deliveryman]

There's no problem with you siding with the Mayweathers if that's the way you want to go but don't misunderstand... They're allowed to hold an opinion or believe anything they want. Nobody is denying that. It's not a question of it being a matter of a free country or freedom of speech. It's about defamation/libel - causing harm to a brand through accusations, malicious and defamatory statements, etc. It's pretty simple to understand

It's only defamation if you say something that is KNOWINGLY false. There is no way that the Mayweather's KNOW that Manny is not on PEDS. It is a true belief, which doesn't make it defamation.

[eklok]

this thread is so funny , evrybody think their lawyers now , your all ldiots anyway

ped experts
accountants
doctors


this forum has it all

[D4thincarnation]

It's only defamation if you say something that is KNOWINGLY false. There is no way that the Mayweather's KNOW that Manny is not on PEDS. It is a true belief, which doesn't make it defamation.

Roger said, Many Pacquiao is on A-meths and bullets bounce of him, Floyd snr said I know he is on steroids.

How can they justify these statements, they were reckless, and it is defamatory.

Can the Mayweather prove that their statements were based in truth? Quite simply no.

They have said statement such as he is and I know, and trust me, it does not look good for the Mayweather in this case.

What do you think their defense is going to be?

[John Barron]

"I've got a big vein right here. Any time that you guys want to test me because you doubt me, then do so." - Nonito Donaire.

i'll fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. talk to my promoter and lawyer.

[The Gambler1981]

Floyd Jr. has felony charges why would be be stressing civil bullshit~ for Roger and Sr. what do they have to take~ like they really care about some civil case, I guess they might when they have to pay up but that is far from certain and a long time away~