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

[Dan T.]

You know who else hates the ?

McKenna.

Don't believe it, just go ask Om.

I do wish Mark would chime in here on how he feels about this latest kerfluffle with his old pal Dave McK.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I do wish Mark would chime in here on how he feels about this latest kerfluffle with his old pal Dave McK.

Let me see if I can channel him.

In the weeks since our glorious gladiators of the gridiron hung up their cleats and handed in their practice jerseys for the last time, a palatable sense of malaise heretofore unseen since the days of Jack Pardee has settled upon the nation's capitol. The usual excitement that follows every subpar season of the beloved Burgandy and Gold (and your humble scribe is sad to admit that all too often "subpar' is a generous turn of phrase) is tempered by the fact that the NFL may not, in fact, be on our television screens in the Fall.

So, leave it once again to Dan Snyder to jump into the fray and accuse Dave McKenna of the City Paper of calling him a "dirty Jew ****."

I kind of lost it there at the end. I can see why Om doesn't write much any longer. It's exhausting to write that way.

[zoony]

^^^ :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Dan T.]

Let me see if I can channel him.

I kind of lost it there at the end. I can see why Om doesn't write much any longer. It's exhausting to write that way.

Okay' date=' I laughed.

Let me see if I can channel his response:

[img']http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4839146/YOU-HATIN-BRING-IT-ON-SUCKER.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=TROLOLOLOLOLLL[/img]

[rick7423]

New thread for the Tailgate...

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

Cartoon devil with horns, obviously because it points to the person being evil incarnate. A cartoon Native American on a football helmet? Well, football players are warriors, so that symbol seems to point to pride and power, some traditional Native American values. People who use this argument are just looking for a reason to create issues that do not exist except in the minority.

[skinsnshanny]

You are correct Snyder is responsible.

But if a paper went and said that the bar owner was caught serving drinks to minors, would that be a correct statement, or would it be a false allegation?

Because McKenna stated it was Snyder who was caught forging, and implies Snyder ordered old peanuts be sold and made selling beers in the bathroom a policy. Just because he doesn't know about it does not excuse Snyder from being faulted, but it does excuse him from being accused of direct involvement.

The paper says:

"How Barbara Hyde, spokeswoman for the American Society for Microbiology, reacted to last year’s news that Snyder’s vendors were selling beer in the bathrooms."

Synder's vendors were selling beer in the bathroom. That does not say nor imply Snyder was selling beer in the bathroom. Nor does it say it was the policy. That is a huge legal difference

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 03:53 AM ----------

From filing:

The Misrepresentations clearly expose Mr. Snyder to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy and/or cause Mr. Snyder to be shunned and avoided, and have a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

Interesting public service argument, not sure if that helps the case.

.

ATL,

That language is the language the state of NY uses to define when a statement is defamation per se. It is needed in the complaint if Dan is going to make that claim.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 04:01 AM ----------

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.

No. This is 100% totally incorrect. No disrespect, but i cannot believe you would write such a thing.

In NY the Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove all 4 elements of defamation. The plaintiff must prove that the statements were false. I have no idea where you get your information, a citation might help.

Plaintiff has the burden to plead and prove that the words in suit are substantially false. Weldy v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 985 F.2d 57, 63 (2d Cir.1993); Von Gerichten v. Long Island Advance, 202 A.D.2d 495, 609 N.Y.S.2d 246 (2d Dep't 1994). In Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 369, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943, 950, 366 N.E.2d 1299 (1977),

Further, the Plaintiff must prove the words false in a CLEAR and CONVINCING manner. It is a large burden and it is on the plaintiff. N.Y. Pattern Jury Instruction § 3:23.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 04:13 AM ----------

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).

No. This is mostly wrong, especially the part about burden shifting on true/false.

Defamation per se, in NY, is when the plaintiff accuses the defendant of remarks that fall into a certain category that in itself dictates harm. The only thing Snyder would not have to prove is 'special harm' IF all the other elements are proved and the court agrees that the remarks (if false and statements of fact published with malice), fall in said category

The plaintiff must still prove that the remarks are in fact false, further he must prove it with clear and convincing evidence, and since he is claiming defamation per se, he must prove the remarks fall in one of the categories: (he must prove all other elements as well, except for special harm)

Under New York law, words are per se defamatory if they falsely impute criminal activity, impute an offensive disease, would tend to injure a party's trade, occupation or business, or impute unchastity or homosexuality. Angio-Medical Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 720 F.Supp. 269, 272 (S.D.N.Y.1989)

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 04:29 AM ----------

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbe...==&system=prod

I've said in the other threads that I think Snyder does build a compelling case, because McKenna alleges certain things against Snyder which clearly he doesn't control (peanuts, beer in bathrooms, toy prices, are on the vendors), misrepresents the purpose of Snyder's wife's airtime on channel 8 as being solely there as Snyder's mouthpiece, when in fact that and her comment about Snyder at the end (prompted by a reporter, not by her) were completely unrelated to her actual puprose for being there.

The fact McKenna never once in the 44 articles written about Snyder ever attempted to contact Snyder for his side shows a major lack of journalistic integrity. Not to mention a professional paper would never issue something with those silly pictures on it, racist or not.

I have yet to see the people displeased with Snyder on this actually break down the grievances he lists and explain why they are silly.

1. If redskins.com is owned by Snyder or a business he owns and if it listed the robot at or even near said price, that will be a true statement, thus not actionable. Further if Dan has no involvment in redskins.com, he will have to prove that McKenna actually knew that when he published the article.

2. Nowhere in the article does it say Mrs. Snyders 'sole purpose.' You have added that. A court will not usually go past the plain and usual language written.

"Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved. Well, maybe his wife can find evidence of Snyder’s growth and evolution. I can't."

---You have extrapolated past what is written. It would be a stretch to add 'sole purpose' into that statement. Further, while one cannot dismiss statements of fact as opinions, simply by prefacing it with "in my opinion', his comment not being able to find evidence, is clearly a statement of opinion.

3. Peanuts: "What Snyder was selling to fans at FedExField." Here you do have an express statement that Snyder was selling (unlike the beer, in my comment above). However, immediatly under that he says " During the 2006 season, vendors offered shelled nuts in royal blue and white 5 oz. bags adorned with the Independence Air logo. Problem: The airline had gone under about a year earlier."

--Clarifying that it was the vendors who offered the nuts, will most likey render this statement TRUE. The statement must be substantially false by clear and convincing evidence. This looks to be a loser, especially if Dan, in anyway, contracted for the sale of those nuts. (which i assume he did) and if he didnt, he would have to prove thet McNenna Knew that, A very large burden.

The forgery claim is the strongest by far. Courts do not let you falsly accuse someone of a crime and get away with it. However, the statement doesnt directly claim it was a felony and its very possible McKenna did know that, but it does appear to the the strongest.

The rest of the case, pretty weak imo. His best chance is the fact that you add all the previous articles with this one. However He has not entered those into evidence yet.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 04:36 AM ----------

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."

Public high school teacher sued teachers' union for defamation. The court ruled that statements contained in a written resolution from the union that referred to the principal as "Principal from Hell" and "Satan" were not actionable, given that they were nothing more than exaggerated hyperbole. Roth v. United Federation of Teachers, 787 N.Y.S.2d 603 (Sup 2004)

Snyders best claim is the forgery comments. Claiming someone committed a crime is serious and courts are usually pretty strict on it. The other issues, I really dont see.

[skinsnshanny]

[/color]

I just read the complaint and wonder if its customary to include some of the details that he did about his philanthropy and other good work he's done in the community. Is that standard practice for defamation law suites? It seems like he's trying to plead his case in the complaint.

Defamation usually requires proof of a damaged reputation. If you build up your rep, it is easier to show it was damaged.

[GoCommiesGo]

[/color]

Defamation usually requires proof of a damaged reputation. If you build up your rep, it is easier to show it was damaged.

Out of curiosity would it be possible in your opinion for the paper to file a counter suit if Snyders case gets thrown out or ruled against?

[Glenn X]

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.

Yeah, because it's not like we don't get to debate this particular topic enough. Just like with race relations. The establishment media always tells us that we need to "discuss the matter more," but only along their conventional, leftist lines. However, you're right that the debate about American Indian mascots is dominated by whites, though not the kind to which you're alluding. No, just like with debates about race relations, the mascot debate is dominated by white leftists looking for a new pet victimological project to flack.

As for the lawsuit business, it looks like Snyder may have a case -- so far as the forgery claim that was made against him goes. But the stuff about that satirical pic of him being motivated by Judenhass? Sorry. Not buying it. In fact, this strikes me as just another example of the type of false accusation of bigotry that has become all too nauseatingly common in our society.

[skinsnshanny]

No need to wait for the suit to get thrown out. if at any time Synder or his lawyers make a statement to the public claiming the paper to be a liar or something of that regard, they can counter sue. Though then the burden will switch to the other side to prove the counter claim and make the litigation more expensive.

The measure can be taken though kind of like a counter threat.

[RFKFedEx]

the mascot debate is dominated by white leftists looking for a new pet victimological project to flack.

As were desegregation debates in the 50s.

[skinsnshanny]

As for the lawsuit business, it looks like Snyder may have a case -- so far as the forgery claim that was made against him goes. But the stuff about that satirical pic of him being motivated by Judenhass? Sorry. Not buying it. In fact, this strikes me as just another example of the type of false accusation of bigotry that has become all too nauseatingly common in our society.

What really strikes me as odd is how the complaint listed the agent orange comment. If one is to read how it is written in the article vs how it is written in the complaint, its not even close. Its an embarrassment to the lawyer who wrote that section.

Everyone in the legal profession, trade, school, etc, knows there is waay to much bad lawyering and bad suits. The courts are bogged down as they are, it costs tax payer money, and it isnt right.