NYSCEF: New York - Tort <SUMMONS + COMPLAINT> (DANIEL M. SNYDER - v. - ATALAYA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP et al)

[PortlandSkins]

You completely missed the part where McKenna accused Snyder of forgery, which is a felony, didn't you.

According to the paper, Snyder was given the opportunity to provide documentation to disprove anything that McKenna said, offering to retract if he could. The editors have done research and have decided to stand by every fact in the story, including that one.

TK, I don't know you, dude. You may know a lot about law, but if not, I can tell you that libel laws in the United States are very defendant friendly. This is why publications such as the National Enquirer can exist.

In addition, you should mention that the quote you posted by the Wiesenthal center was solicited by Snyder.

[grhqofb5]

What's going to be fun to watch on this one is, since the first cause of action is for defamation, assuming this thing goes at least into the motions phase, Washington City Paper is going to make an effort prove the truth of each of these claims it has made in its article on Snyder. Truth is an abolute defense here (among others), so it's going to be interesting for the Washington fan base to see what truth there was behind the urban legend that Dan Snyder's ego has become. Either that or Washington Paper (and its parent corporations) will simply get stomped into bankruptcy because it won't be able to afford to defend this, regardless of whether their defenses have merit.

[Duckus]

It is a losing battle.

They are going to lose this case and much much much more importantly they are going to lose the PR war. A war the Redskins have been losing for a decade now.

[HailGreen28]

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization, called on the Washington City Paper Wednesday to apologize to Redskins owner Daniel Snyder for a November photo that depicted him with devil's horns.

"Public figures, including an owner of an NFL team, are fair game for criticism and even derision," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center. "However it is inappropriate and unacceptable when a symbol like this--associated with virulent anti-Semitism going back to the Middle Ages, deployed by the genocidal Nazi regime, by Soviet propagandists and even in 2011 by those who still seek to demonize Jews today--is used on the front cover of a publication in our Nation's Capital against a member of the Jewish community."

The forgery looks like serious business. But the picture? Isn't that a huge stretch? It's not a picture of Danny actually sprouting horns! It's a picture of a typical fan graffiti (the typical horns and goatee) on a picture of Danny. In an article that proceeds to list reasons WHY he's hated as an owner. What's wrong with that?

[onedrop]

According to the paper, Snyder was given the opportunity to provide documentation to disprove anything that McKenna said, offering to retract if he could. The editors have done research and have decided to stand by every fact in the story, including that one.

TK, I don't know you, dude. You may know a lot about law, but if not, I can tell you that libel laws in the United States are very defendant friendly. This is why publications such as the National Enquirer can exist.

In addition, you should mention that the quote you posted by the Wiesenthal center was solicited by Snyder.

well portland i report that at sometime in the past you stole a candy bar from 7-11. now provide documentation that you didnt and ill retract the statement.

[PortlandSkins]

well portland i report that at sometime in the past you stole a candy bar from 7-11. now provide documentation that you didnt and ill retract the statement.

You are clearly very bright. The joke is, according to the law, the burden would be on me to prove that I didn't steal the candy bar.

[SonnyandSam]

New thread for the Tailgate...

Which is more offensive, cartoon devil horns or cartoon Native American mascots?

Cartoon?? I always considered it quite a dignified portrait of a Native American, i.e. American Indian. Perhaps you are confused with the Cleveland Indians mascot?

[onedrop]

You are clearly very bright. The joke is, according to the law, the burden would be on me to prove that I didn't steal the candy bar.

no it wouldnt. in civil court if one is accused of slander, or in this case libel, and is sued the defendant must present proof that they did not commit slander/libel. just as the plaintiff would have to show damage. if i report through a media outlet that you are a thief and you sue me and i have no proof im screwed. these laws are in place to protect folks from unfounded and untrue statements and articles that damage thier reputation. clearly i dont know you and dont think ill of you, but i couldnt go around saying untrue things about you even if i did.

[RedBeast]

Here is my solution. Lets find a neutral playground and let the two go at it during lunch. Winner takes all. What the hell has happened to our society? Oversensitive. Way too politically correct. Supermen behind computers - waifs on the street. Over litigious. If it were up to me I would send them out back to get a switch and take it from there. After that I would have them cut wood every weekend until there hands were blistered and sore, and they were so tired they had no choice but to work it out between them.

I am Jewish, and I am not sure how I feel about the whole horns thing. I understand the point that the Rabbi makes, but it was not a swastika - real border line there IMO. The accusation about the Cancer and his wife is despicable. When is enough money enough? Have you seen Dan's house? I bet he won't have to take out a loan to send his kids to college. Forty four articles? Does the guy have a life? Has he been hired to slander Snyder? There are two sides to every story, I bet neither are completely honest or right.

I wish Dan would lead from the front and by example. Dan, you bought more than a football team. You are the primary face for an organization that people have been loyal to for 80 years. Please truly leverage your influence and wealth to benefit the city, the Redskins organization, the players, the employees, the fans and your family. Be our Moses and lead us to the Promised Land. Do the right thing and you never have to look back. You will reap the benefits a million times over.

Can't buy me love, money can't buy me love...

Now back to reading the responses from all of the ****house lawyers this town is known for...

[SonnyandSam]

Anyone who defends Snyder or takes this garbage seriously is an utter, utter fool. Using threats to try and take away someone's freedom of speech is despicable in a manner that deserves its own category on the A-Z list. No jury in the country would find in Snyder's favor; he just wants the City Paper to go out of business defending itself.

McKenna is an hero for writing this, and and hope his paper fights to the death defending itself against such ugly, sickening, unamerican bullying.

I consider McKenna the bully...just look at the body of his work. It has always been incredibly one sided and venomous towards Snyder.

If you knew anything about the law or our constitution, you would know that "freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to say anything you want. The Supreme Court has upheld numerous situations where a person was wrong, e.g yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example; or more to the point, defamation of character which is exactly what Dan Snyder is suing for. Snyder has made a very reasonable case. The "fool" is the one who is so blinded by his own bias that he cannot see the other side of the argument.

[PortlandSkins]

no it wouldnt. in civil court if one is accused of slander, or in this case libel, and is sued the defendant must present proof that they did not commit slander/libel. just as the plaintiff would have to show damage. if i report through a media outlet that you are a thief and you sue me and i have no proof im screwed. these laws are in place to protect folks from unfounded and untrue statements and articles that damage thier reputation. clearly i dont know you and dont think ill of you, but i couldnt go around saying untrue things about you even if i did.

"Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true. "

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Snyder has to show that the accusations are false. And they are not, by the way. They are likely completely true. He just paid money to settle the case so it would not go to court. Just like Rothlesburger is likely a rapist, and I can say that as much as I like in word or in print without worrying about successful litigation.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

snyder might have a "case" i just dont really see the point in doing this. what does he stand to gain from suing this guy for an article written almost 3 months ago?

when all the smoke clears from this, all anyone will remember is that the big bad bully dan is suing a small newspaper reporter for writing ugly things about him, and in another year, another small reporter will write this same article again, except this time under the letter S, this story will be listed under "Sued local sportswriter for writing stuff that was pretty on target". lol

[tr1]

This is a loser for DS.

He'd have been better off not giving this reporter any attention.

This stuff usually happens when you have too many lawyers hanging around with too little to do.

I'm sure this strategy was formulated over ****tails.

As for anything racist, that's a total stretch...

DS has to realize he isn't going to get any sympathy when he holds all of the cards...he's gonna look like a bully more than anyone else involved in this situation.

Bottom line, the lawyers win.

[PortlandSkins]

I consider McKenna the bully...just look at the body of his work. It has always been incredibly one sided and venomous towards Snyder.

If you knew anything about the law or our constitution, you would know that "freedom of speech" does not guarantee you the right to say anything you want. The Supreme Court has upheld numerous situations where a person was wrong, e.g yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example; or more to the point, defamation of character which is exactly what Dan Snyder is suing for. Snyder has made a very reasonable case. The "fool" is the one who is so blinded by his own bias that he cannot see the other side of the argument.

Snyder is a bully. He has always been a bully and always will be. Have you not been following the way he has lived his life and run this team? McKenna, on the other hand, is a class act who has been covering sports in dc for decades.

I am really not sure why anyone would want to give Snyder the benefit of the doubt. It is almost scary.

[Thinking Skins]

Cartoon?? I always considered it quite a dignified portrait of a Native American, i.e. American Indian. Perhaps you are confused with the Cleveland Indians mascot?

But if the Native Americans had the kind of representation that the NAACP and all the different organizations that stand up for Jewish rights, then maybe there would be more of an argument on the 'dignity' of the mascot. But the Native American population in America is so sparse that this argument is often dominated by White Americans who say that the term is not offensive, and that we are not allowed to argue about it.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

This is a loser for DS.

He'd have been better off not giving this reporter any attention.

This stuff usually happens when you have too many lawyers hanging around with too little to do.

I'm sure this strategy was formulated over ****tails.

As for anything racist, that's a total stretch...

DS has to realize he isn't going to get any sympathy when he holds all of the cards...he's gonna look like a bully more than anyone else involved in this situation.

Bottom line, the lawyers win.

mark this down my friend.

you are 100% correct. haha

[onedrop]

"Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true. "

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Snyder has to show that the accusations are false. And they are not, by the way. They are likely completely true. He just paid money to settle the case so it would not go to court. Just like Rothlesburger is likely a rapist, and I can say that as much as I like in word or in print without worrying about successful litigation.

while the quote you supplied is true in a lot of cases, most where normal or less known people are involved (due to having "less" reputation to be damaged). cases involving nationally known persons specifically accused of wrongdoing in their lifelong and continued profession can be costly for the defendant. IF it is found that libel occurred by from mckeena and his employers/parent company (respondant superior) they will pay the million.

[Arsenic]

Anyone who defends Snyder or takes this garbage seriously is an utter, utter fool. Using threats to try and take away someone's freedom of speech is despicable in a manner that deserves its own category on the A-Z list. No jury in the country would find in Snyder's favor; he just wants the City Paper to go out of business defending itself.

McKenna is an hero for writing this, and and hope his paper fights to the death defending itself against such ugly, sickening, unamerican bullying.

I disagree.. McKenna has freedom of speech, sure. However, FOS doesn't allow one to post fiction as factual. We all saw what the media was trying to do to Dan Snyder.. It was as clear as day! Did you really expect Dan to just sit back and allow the punches to keep coming? He has the right and means to protect his self.

In a Newspaper industry which is grasping to stay afloat, it was not very smart of this company to pick a fight with Dan Snyder. Did he really have to lie, in order to make Snyder look bad? haha.

GET'UM DAN!!

Regardless, Hail!

[pimpumd]

"Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true. "

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Snyder has to show that the accusations are false. And they are not, by the way. They are likely completely true. He just paid money to settle the case so it would not go to court. Just like Rothlesburger is likely a rapist, and I can say that as much as I like in word or in print without worrying about successful litigation.

Actually, Snyder's complaint contains a cause of action for "defamation per se" due to the attack on Snyder's professional character. "Defamation per se" is a cause of action which assumes the defendants' allegation(s) have caused the plaintiff damages (the plaintiff carries the burden of proving damages in regular old defamation), thus shifting the burden of proof, with respect to the veracity of the allegations, to the defendant. In other words, the newspaper is going to have to prove that the allegations they published are true (including the allegation that Snyder forged names).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

"Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true. "

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Snyder has to show that the accusations are false. And they are not, by the way. They are likely completely true. He just paid money to settle the case so it would not go to court. Just like Rothlesburger is likely a rapist, and I can say that as much as I like in word or in print without worrying about successful litigation.

What case did Snyder pay so that it would not go to court?

[Elessar78]

Sorry lawyers. . . but let's not confuse what a sharp legal mind can frame (or re-frame as the case may be) with the "truth".

[Bibby]

I had no idea this article even existed until all this came out the other day. I'm sure I'm not the only one that didn't know about it either. Just like a previous poster said, nobody would've even known about the article or cared to remember about it until Dan brought it up again. Even if Dan wins, he'll still lose.

[SonnyandSam]

But if the Native Americans had the kind of representation that the NAACP and all the different organizations that stand up for Jewish rights, then maybe there would be more of an argument on the 'dignity' of the mascot. But the Native American population in America is so sparse that this argument is often dominated by White Americans who say that the term is not offensive, and that we are not allowed to argue about it.

Clearly you have not read any of the many threads on Extremeskins that documents in two separate public opinion polls that the vast majority of Native Americans are NOT offended by the name "Redskins". You need to search for those threads. I have posted the links myself numerous times. And the Native Americans are not offended by the name "Redskins" because it does not mean what you think it means. I have also posted the URL numerous times of a research article by an expert from the Smithsonian Institution stating that the first use of the word "redskin" was used by American Indian chiefs to describe themselves.

You have been severely mislead by a media that often does very poor research or deliberately has their own agenda to sell to gullible readers. McKenna is a perfect example of that type of reporter/columnist who give the media a very bad reputation. Right down there with congressmen, lawyers and used car salesmen.

[chipwhich]

You have been severely mislead by a media that often does very poor research or deliberately has their own agenda to sell to gullible readers. McKenna is a perfect example of that type of reporter/columnist who give the media a very bad reputation. Right down there with congressmen, lawyers and used car salesmen.

The media is often wrong, but how did you adding season tickets to your account go Damn those tickets are sold out right

[SonnyandSam]

McKenna, on the other hand, is a class act......

:puke::puke::puke: