TBD - Dan Snyder lawsuit: A complete analysis

[tr1]

Memo to Dan Snyder: Thank you for your stewardship of the Redskins

Gallery

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205483.html?nav=hcmodule

From: Gene Weingarten

Re: Your lawsuit against the Washington City Paper because of an unflattering article about you.

I just want you to know you have my full support in this matter, as I support everything you have done during your stewardship of the Redskins. You rock. I wish you good health and long life and hope you run the franchise for many, many years to come. I say this with utmost sincerity as a lifelong fan of the New York Giants.

I know you are taking some criticism today from carping media types. They seem to think that you are not only behaving like a petty, vindictive bully but also that you are being strategically stupid - by bringing a vast new audience to a three-month-old, otherwise-obscure alternative-media piece, which can be found here.

I understand why you were upset by this article. By unkindly focusing only on the negative aspect of your ownership, the author, Dave McKenna, is suggesting that you are an avaricious, imperious, conscienceless plutocrat with callous contempt for the fans; a man whose Napoleonic, pouter-pigeon swagger conceals a doofus-like understanding of the game and whose pernicious, autocratic meddling has consigned the team to perpetual mediocrity and its players and coaches to a perennial state of harrowing anxiety, all of this starting virtually from the moment you arrived and continuing to this very minute.

This could cause a casual reader to conclude you are the most malign and incompetent owner in the history of organized sports, which is completely unfair. Because of his agenda, McKenna fails to contextualize all of this - neglecting to mention, to use just one obvious example, that former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott used to let her dog poop on the playing field.

But I digress. The point I want to make - and I think I can speak not only for myself but for all Giants fans - is that you have been very, very good to us, and we appreciate it. It's not easy being an ardent supporter of a football team. In this sport, the cliche is mostly true: On any given Sunday, any team can defeat any other team. Such is the nature of this game, which is so often influenced by injuries and so often subject to the effects of intangibles like momentum. This keeps the devoted fan in a constant state of stress. You can't take any win for granted.

But thanks to you, twice a season we can. Nothing is certain, of course, but when a Redskins game approaches, we at least know that we will be facing a team in spiritual disarray, whose players have been assembled largely by whim and impulse and ego, coached by a person as insecure as a teenage girl at a prom, with a nose zit.

It helps. It helps a lot.

After another losing season in which your recently acquired $78 million over-the-hill quarterback got benched and your corpulent $100 million defensive lineman simply refused to play, it is heartening to see you focusing your resources on trying to punish a newspaper.

Yes, it may be a dreadfully arrogant and stupid thing to do. But the point is, you seem to want to do it. And believe me, what makes you happy makes me happy.

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 12:29 AM ----------

Wow...Weingarten...this is brilliant!

:rotflmao:

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 12:34 AM ----------

I'm not sure about that.

First, who started this? This crap has been going on for years.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=snyder+redskins+city+paper#q=snyder+redskins+city+paper+site:extremeskins.com&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=O8ZMTbOiKMOclgfb35HXDw&start=90&sa=N&fp=c6ee28c51d57fabe

If you peruse the links, you'll see that the paper has been attacking Snyder for at least five years.

So, after five years, are you sure it is Snyder who is bullying?

Secondly, Donovan is simply making a statement of fact. And, Snyder's team did provide the paper an opportunity to retract some of the details of the story. The paper chose not to.

Third, any proceeds from the suit is going to charity.

So, who's the bully?

Frankly,

If DS had a couple of SB trophies during his reign, the fans would be more sympathetic.

This whole thing comes off as being pathetic.

When you're in the limelight of the most popular past time in the Nation's Capital, you need to have a thicker skin.

All this does is amplify folks feelings one way or the other.

Oh, and the lawyers win.

[Mark The Homer]

There's already a thread on the WP piece bro. But kudos for not starting another one. ;-)

[Destino]

I agree, especially when they criticized his wife efforts with breast cancer wareness and she being a surviver. What is up with the effigy?

Can you show me what exactly you are talking about?

[skinsnshanny]

So you're still being completely dishonest about the argument on the other side of this, and labeling people as Snyder apologists eventhough nobody is forgiving all of his actions, just saying he does have a legitimate beef on a few things? Yeah, that apologist label is completely appropriate then (rolls eyes)

This post is going to be long. I will attempt to break down law and occasionally i will compare snyders case to the law (but for the most part im breaking down the law, then ill let someone make a case for why snyder wins) I dont think synder wins this case, his best shot is on the forgery issue. I can see it being demurred, though the lawsuit was filed in NY not VA so I dont have as much knowledge as i could. After citing case law, I will provide examples where I can and I will indent them.

In NY, defamation has 4 elements, all of which the plaintiff has the burden of proving. Elements 1,3, and 4 are going to be very hard to prove. 2 is a lock box (as it almost always is). The elements are:

1. A false and injurious statement of fact concerning the plaintiff.

2. Publication to a third party by the defendant.

3. Depending on the status of the plaintiff and defendant, made with malice, recklessness, gross negligence or made negligently or innocently.

4. Special Harm or per se actionability

Church of Scientology Intern. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.Supp. 661, 666 (S.D.N.Y.1991)

Now I will break down each element. I will first state in plain english what the law is and then provide more legal backing.

Element 1: A false and injurious statement of fact concerning the plaintiff.

This elements has 2 essential parts.

A. False Statements of fact.

The statements cannot be opinions. The statements cannot be true. No matter how horrible the statements are, if they are true, they are not actionable.

B.

The statements must be defamatory

. Even if false it must bring a party into hatred, contempt or ridicule by asserting some moral discredit upon his part

A judge will decide if the statements are fact or opinion. A judge will also decide if the statements are capable of being understood as defamatory. If a judge decides they are capable of being defamatory (both degrading and false), a jury will decide if they are.

More legal detail:

A. Factual and False:

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)

Truth is a complete defense to an action to recover damages for defamation, regardless of the harm done by the statement. Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369.

The test to establish falsity is whether the statement as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader or listener from that which the pleaded truth would have produced. Id.

Innuendo and adverse inferences are insufficient to establish libel. Nekos v. Kraus, 62 A.D.3d 1144

When the truth is so near to the facts as published that fine or shaded distinctions must be drawn and words pressed out of their ordinary usage to sustain a charge of defamation, no falsity has been proved. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991);

Accordingly, minor inaccuracies will not render an otherwise truthful statement actionable. Ingber v. Lagarenne, 299 A.D.2d 608, 750 N.Y.S.2d 172 (3d Dep't 2002)

(Defendant proved that the allegations in his letter were substantially true, therefore no triable issue of fact existed to preclude an award of summary judgment)

In analyzing the words to ascertain whether a question of fact exists, the court will not pick out or isolate particular phrases, but will consider the publication as a whole. James, 386 N.Y.S.2d at 874.

Clear and convincing evidence is required to establish the falsity of a statement in a libel claim. DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005).

(The author had written that plaintiff signed a contract with Entertainment Tonight, and that he was paid $1 million for permitting the network to film him on the plane...The court ruled that the statement regarding the payment

was substantially true

, even though the plaintiff did not sign a contract and was paid only $150,000) Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Supp. 2d 258

Expressions of opinion, in contrast to assertions of fact, are privileged and, no matter how offensive, may not be the subject of an action for defamation Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 74 N.Y.2d 586

New York law's analytical approach to the fact/opinion dichotomy is distinctively context-oriented and considered broader, that is, more solicitous toward freedom of expression, than what may be required under U.S. constitutional law. 600 W. 115 St. Corp., 589 N.Y.S.2d at 833.

All statements must be read in the context of the entire communication to determine their actionability. Conversely, certain "harsh words," "vigorous epithets" and "rhetorical hyperbole" are not actionable, because they could not be read as implying statements of facts. Id.

(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)

(Customer engaging in a dispute with his dry cleaner put up signs near plaintiff's place of business stating “Todd Layne Cleaners sucks and is overpriced.”) Todd Layne Cleaners LLC, Maloney, N.Y.L.J. Nov. 8, 2007 (Civ. Ct., New York County 2007

Investigative journalist Jack Newfeld wrote that plaintiff-judge was "incompetent" and "probably corrupt." The Court of Appeals found that calling a sitting judge "incompetent" was a non-actionable expression of opinion because Newfeld set forth certain of plaintiff's acts,

It seems likely that a court would find most, if not all of the statements by the city paper as non actionable, either because they are substantially true, opinions such as Dan being incompetent, or hyperbole such as the picture with the devil horns.

B. Defamatory (this part of the element, bleeds with element 4

The publication will be tested by its effect upon the average reader and the language will be given a fair reading; the court will not strain to place a particular interpretation on the published words

(The court ruled, as a matter of law, that postings that merely announced a job opening did not defame the plaintiffs. An untrue statement that the director's job was vacant could not be reasonably construed as imputing profession or incompetence to her.) School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, 3 Misc. 3d 278, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804 (Sup 2003)

----I think the above case makes it clear that as far as the Six Flags board statement goes, Snyder does not have a strong case. That court held even if the statements were UNTRUE they wouldnt be defamatory.

(In a defamation action by a limited-purpose public figure, the court ruled, as a matter of law, that the headline "unscrupulous operation gouges nursing home" was not defamatory.) White v. Berkshire-Hathaway, Inc., 802 N.Y.S.2d 910 (Sup. Ct., Erie County 2005)

-----Thus, so far there has been no clear and convincing evidence that anything in the paper which was not opinion, was substantially false. Remember minor inaccuracies or difference, will NOT render something false.

Element 2: Publication..clearly met...next

Element 3: Intent. Again this element as 2 parts:

A. Status of the plaintiff

B. Standard of intent that must proved

Basically depending on the Plaintiff and Defendant, different levels of intent have to be proved. When a public figure is involved "malice' is usually the standard.

A. Status of the Plaintiff

:

"Public figures" are those individuals, who while not "public officials," nevertheless, by virtue of their status or by having been thrust "into the vortex" of an important public controversy, command sufficient continuing public interest and have access to the means of counter-argument, so that they can" "expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies' of the defamatory statement." Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d 466, 605 N.Y.S.2d 218, 626 N.E.2d 34 (1993)

(prominent restaurateur and businessman was a "public figure").Chapadeau, 379 N.Y.S.2d 61

(school teacher in small town was not a "public figure");

What is considered a matter of public interest and therefore newsworthy from the public's point of view is, however, interpreted broadly, and can include the personal marital woes of a public figure. Carson v. Allied News Co., 529 F.2d 206, 210 (7th Cir.1976).

Everything about a public figure is arguably of public interest. Pace v. Rebore, 107 A.D.2d 30

The Court of Appeals has ruled that judges should generally defer to a newspaper's editorial judgment when the newspaper concludes that a particular story contains a matter of public concern. The Court refused to "second-guess" a newspaper's editorial determination. Huggins v. Moore, 94 N.Y.2d 296, 704 N.Y.S.2d 904, 726 N.E.2d 456 (1999)

Thus, Dan Synder is most likely going to be considered a public figure and information about him and his businesses, will be considered of public concern.

I will continue on the assumption of him being a public figure and discuss malice.

B. Intent that must be proven: Malice.

Given the public's right to know about and discuss issues of public concern, the law now requires that when the defamatory statement concerns a public official or figure and relates to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with

actual or constitutional malice

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725–726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)

When a public official or other public figure sues for defamation that person must prove "actual or constitutional first amendment malice" on the part of the media defendant—that is, the making of a knowing or

reckless falsehood

by a publisher—before recovery may be had.

Id. At 280

To overcome a media defendant's claim that the published statement was a privileged fair comment on affairs of public interest, a public figure must prove the requisite

actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

Lerman, 745 F.2d at 140–141.

Actual Malice Defined:

‘Actual malice’-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254

Ill will or fraud or reckless indifference to consequences is not sufficient to establish 'actual malice' In its stead, the Court requires defamation plaintiffs to show intentional falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the publication Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,

Sources may have borne plaintiff ill-will but that is not sufficient for 'actual malice' Gross v. New York Times Co., 281 A.D.2d 299, 299

The court correctly noted that mere proof of failure to investigate, without more, cannot establish reckless disregard for the truth. Rather, the publisher must act with a “high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 332,

Essentially Dan will have to prove that the paper knew the statements (facts and not hyperbole) were false or that the paper knew it was almost certain that the statements were false.

This is where the double whammy comes in for Dan. It appears most of what was written is at least arguably substantially true. It will be hard to prove (based on the standards in element 1) that the statements were substantially false. But even if he can prove that, then he must prove that the city paper KNEW they were false....the further away from the truth, the easier this is prove, the closer to the truth, the hard it is.

Element 4: Special Harm or per se actionability

As I said earlier this element seems to blend with part of element 1. Essentially the statements, if factual and false, must be defamatory.

They need to cause 'special harm' basically meaning they significantly injure the plaintiffs reputation. However, there are types of comments that are per se actionable, and then no special harm needs to be proven

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)

If an alleged defamatory statement is considered per se actionable, the law presumes damages and plaintiff need not specifically allege or prove them. Defamation per se, however, does not preclude a defendant from invoking any of the numerous privileges and immunities recognized by the courts. Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 665 N.E.2d 153

If a defamatory statement is not per se actionable, but is, per quod, then plaintiff must plead special damages in order to sustain the defamation action. James v. Gannett, 40 N.Y.2d 415

Special damages must consist of the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value which "must flow directly from the injury to reputation caused by the defamation, not from the effects of defamation," and it is settled law that such damages must be fully and accurately identified "with sufficient particularity to identify actual losses" Privitera, 435 N.Y.S.2d at 405

The charge about forgery could be serious and Dan's best chance at winning this thing. Courts usually take charging one with a felony very serious.

[bedlamVR]

It is not going to be as hard as you think to proove these supposed inaccuacies as false . Normally part of the reason a journalist will approach the subject of an article like this is not to soley give an opportunity for reply but when challenged they can point to that as proof they believed the points in the article were true .

McKena never did that - Which can be used as evidence to suggest he knew his allegations were false but published anyway .

Secondly as for malicious intent . The article had a picture of Dan Snyder as the devil or a demon . Regardless if it was intended or is indeed anti-semetic (which it is - serious those debating this point are morons given the picture was specifically of someone of the Jewish faith and their is president) that shows the publisher intended the article to be malicious . Also with 44 articles in 6 months all negative in tone it will not hard to prove a trend .

The final part of this is that the company behind the paper are direct competitors to Dan Snyders other non football interests and it will be shown or attempted to be shown that McKena's recent campaign was directed for commercial advantage -

I think it is unlikely that Dan Snyder has gone into this action blindly - There were many many other poorly written articles but they went after this one for a reason and despite a handful of disgruntled Redskins fans I think most people see his point .

[Grimm]

Dan Synder killed my dog, and he felt no remorse.

[skinsnshanny]

It is not going to be as hard as you think to proove these supposed inaccuacies as false . Normally part of the reason a journalist will approach the subject of an article like this is not to soley give an opportunity for reply but when challenged they can point to that as proof they believed the points in the article were true .

McKena never did that - Which can be used as evidence to suggest he knew his allegations were false but published anyway .

Secondly as for malicious intent . The article had a picture of Dan Snyder as the devil or a demon . Regardless if it was intended or is indeed anti-semetic (which it is - serious those debating this point are morons given the picture was specifically of someone of the Jewish faith and their is president) that shows the publisher intended the article to be malicious . Also with 44 articles in 6 months all negative in tone it will not hard to prove a trend .

The final part of this is that the company behind the paper are direct competitors to Dan Snyders other non football interests and it will be shown or attempted to be shown that McKena's recent campaign was directed for commercial advantage -

I think it is unlikely that Dan Snyder has gone into this action blindly - There were many many other poorly written articles but they went after this one for a reason and despite a handful of disgruntled Redskins fans I think most people see his point .

You dont understand 'actual malice' in the way it is being used. 'ill will' or your example of being a competitor, will not establish actual malice. It must be knowledge or a high degree of awareness that what was said was false.

Sources may have borne plaintiff ill-will but that is not sufficient for 'actual malice' Gross v. New York Times Co., 281 A.D.2d 299, 299

If you think this is incorrect, or if you think you are correct, thats cool, but please cite some caselaw to present a counter argument. I provided like 50 cases with binding value.

[bedlamVR]

You dont understand 'actual malice' in the way it is being used. 'ill will' or your example of being a competitor, will not establish actual malice. It must be knowledge or a high degree of awareness that what was said was false.

Sources may have borne plaintiff ill-will but that is not sufficient for 'actual malice' Gross v. New York Times Co., 281 A.D.2d 299, 299

If you think this is incorrect, or if you think you are correct, thats cool, but please cite some caselaw to present a counter argument. I provided like 50 cases with binding value.

I really am out of my depth I have a vauge understanding of the Law as it stands in the UK where these kinds of actions may have different meanings .

If you are right then I think it is strange that Daniel Snyder would pick this particular story to go after .

[RFKFedEx]

Remember guys, Danny said that his lawyers told him "we have to do this now" and that Danny "had nothing to do with" the timing of the suit.

So blame it on the lawyers. Snyder's name should be cleared from the matter.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

This post is going to be long. I will attempt to break down law and occasionally i will compare snyders case to the law (but for the most part im breaking down the law, then ill let someone make a case for why snyder wins) I dont think synder wins this case, his best shot is on the forgery issue.

Excellent work here! This is the first response to the lawsuit I've seen that dives into actual case law. Kudos for your thorough research and presentation.

When the truth is so near to the facts as published that fine or shaded distinctions must be drawn and words pressed out of their ordinary usage to sustain a charge of defamation, no falsity has been proved. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991);

Accordingly, minor inaccuracies will not render an otherwise truthful statement actionable. Ingber v. Lagarenne, 299 A.D.2d 608, 750 N.Y.S.2d 172 (3d Dep't 2002)

(Defendant proved that the allegations in his letter were substantially true, therefore no triable issue of fact existed to preclude an award of summary judgment)

In analyzing the words to ascertain whether a question of fact exists, the court will not pick out or isolate particular phrases, but will consider the publication as a whole. James, 386 N.Y.S.2d at 874.

Clear and convincing evidence is required to establish the falsity of a statement in a libel claim. DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005).

(The author had written that plaintiff signed a contract with Entertainment Tonight, and that he was paid $1 million for permitting the network to film him on the plane...The court ruled that the statement regarding the payment was substantially true, even though the plaintiff did not sign a contract and was paid only $150,000) Stern v. Cosby, 645 F. Supp. 2d 258

I think the forgery remark survives the defamation claim on the basis of this case law (from above):

Minor inaccuracies will not render an otherwise truthful statement actionable - Ingber v. Lagarenne, 299 A.D.2d 608, 750 N.Y.S.2d 172 (3d Dep't 2002).

• Lead says "Dan Snyder ... got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications ..."
  
• Actual fact: Dan Snyder was founder and CEO of a company (Snyder Communications) that "got caught" (was sanctioned $3.1 million by the State of Florida, along with Verizon) slamming thousands of customers, by means of forging customer signatures and assents ("forging names") through the telemarketing subsidiary Snyder Direct Services, during 1998 - 1999 under Dan Snyder's watch as SNC CEO ("as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications").

So, the statement in the lead is not literally correct (no one literally caught Dan Snyder personally forging names), the statement is substantially correct (Snyder's company was caught in a multi-year pattern of slamming customers, which involved forgeries, and the thousands of customer complaints to regulatory authorities in that period could not reasonably have escaped Dan Snyder's notice as CEO, whether or not he explicitly ordered the slamming). So, saying that this is defamation is akin to saying that "Michael Corleone killed his brother Fredo" is defamation. He was head of the Corleone family, and a hit was ordered that caused Fredo to be killed. The reasonable conclusion (and actual fact) is that Michael Corleone ordered the hit or consented to the hit, even though he didn't pull the trigger.

In analyzing the words to ascertain whether a question of fact exists, the court will not pick out or isolate particular phrases, but will consider the publication as a whole - James, 386 N.Y.S.2d at 874.

This was the point I was trying to make when I wrote:

McKenna's article also elaborates:

Florida authorities fined Snyder’s pre-Redskins outfit, Snyder Communications, $3.1 million in 2001 after investigators uncovered more slamming in its offices than you’d find stagefront at a Limp Bizkit show.

Anyone reading the entire article would understand that the first statement (made in passing in the lead) is elaborated by the later statement, and such elaboration is at least on equal basis with the first statement. Further, the statements should be taken together and evaluated in totality. You can argue that the statement in the lead is sloppilly written, even intentionally so (to make it personal). You can call that yellow journalism and you can question the objectivity of McKenna. What you can't do is deconstruct an article and cherry pick sentences without their elaboration. The totality of what McKenna wrote on this question would lead any normal reader to conclude, "Snyder's company was fined for slamming, and this slamming occurred prior to the purchase of the Redskins. Since Snyder was founder and CEO at the time, he's responsible (by definition, as corporate officer) for the actions of his company that were later sanctioned." Being "caught" is an ordinary reading of a multi-million-dollar fine by government authorities.

Now, my "normal reader" test may have been over-confident, as it drew this response:

Well, I'm at least of average intelligence and missed it. I didn't realize slamming was the forgery McKenna mentioned until PortlandSkins cleared it up for me yesterday, and I'd even posted a comment on the Cranky Guide asking what McKenna meant by the claim. It was nearly impossible to Google up [for me] by searching for "Daniel Snyder" and "forgery", which didn't give much. Lots easier once you know he means the slamming.

If I'm the judge, the totality of the truth about Snyder in this article vastly overshadows the narrow argument that the remark about "caught forging documents" was defamatory. Also the many frivolous and possibly defamatory remarks in the complaint itself would weigh on my mind.

I would come to these conclusions on first reading:

1. Most of the article is apparently true, because plaintiff is arguing some very trivial points, such as the bit about his wife, and calling the cartoon anti-Semitic.
   
2. Plaintiff is pretty despicable, based on the many true statements in the article (which are not contested).
   
3. The forgeries remark has basis in truth, and is properly described as inaccurate rather than a simple lie.
   
4. If every offensive inaccuracy is allowed to proceed with a full-blown court case, the courts will break down under the caseload.
   
5. Plaintiff has stated flatly in the pleading that he is a public figure, thereby negating the need for a finding of fact on that question.
   
6. Case law gives wide first-amendment leeway for apparent defamation against public figures.
   
7. Defendant has responded with a letter indicating that plaintiff was threatening to use a lawsuit to bankrupt defendant.
   
8. Elements of the pleading are clearly frivolous and editorial in nature, abusing court protection against libel in pleadings, and making a variety of unsubstantiated charges against the defendant in the preamble to the pleading. This is hijacking the court system to make it a mouthpiece for damaging charges against the defendant, which are not actually explicated through formal claims.
   

I would dismiss the case on first motion to dismiss by defendant. I would also lecture the plaintiff about making frivolous claims in pleadings.

[Chants]

I walked away from McKenna's November 2010 thinking that Dan Snyder forged names and then his company was fined for it. Now I am learning that Dan didn't forge anything only after folks her have explained in much detail what actually happened.

If Dan didn't forge anything, Mr. McKenna should not have said that he did. And no "totality", "context" or "nuance" argument should save him in this case because nothing Mr. McKenna later writes in his article actually contradicts his false statement.

[ncr2h]

I walked away from McKenna's November 2010 thinking that Dan Snyder forged names and then his company was fined for it. Now I am learning that Dan didn't forge anything only after folks her have explained in much detail what actually happened.

If Dan didn't forge anything, Mr. McKenna should not have said that he did. And no "totality", "context" or "nuance" argument should save him in this case because nothing Mr. McKenna later writes in his article actually contradicts his false statement.

Did you read the case law? It's posted in this thread. After reading the case law, do you believe that what was written will be found to be inaccurate? I don't.

EDIT: and you also haven't learned that Dan didn't do anything. What you learned was that Dan may or may not have been the one doing the forging. There is a difference.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Is there a reason that the only two analysts they could find to do this "complete analysis" are two people who used to work for the company being sued BY Snyder? lol ...There must be literally hundreds of people who have experience in law that could provide better and more unbiased analysis, wouldn't you think?

In other words, if Redskins.com claimed to do a "complete analysis" of the lawsuit, and then used two ex-employees of Snyder who had a good relationship with him and still do...how many here would howl in disgust at the idea that their analysis should be given any validity whatsoever?

[skinsnshanny]

Did you see the post on page 2 of this thread?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Did you see the post on page 2 of this thread?

"The" post? lol...is there only one post on page 2? Care to elaborate which post pertains to my comment? Because I didn't see one.

[Dan T.]

In other words, if Redskins.com claimed to do a "complete analysis" of the lawsuit, and then used two ex-employees of Snyder who had a good relationship with him and still do...how many here would howl in disgust at the idea that their analysis should be given any validity whatsoever?

I agree with your point. However, I wonder if you could even find two-Snyder ex-employees who still have a good relationship with him.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I just gave some money to the City Paper defense fund. I'll give some more every time one of Snyder's little trolls tries to defend him on this website.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/legaldefense

I'd be careful if I were you...you might go bankrupt ...

---------- Post added February-5th-2011 at 10:42 AM ----------

I agree with your point. However, I wonder if you could even find two-Snyder ex-employees who still have a good relationship with him.

...I'm sure Vinny still likes Snyder. ...There's got to be at least one other out there.

[skinsnshanny]

"The" post? lol...is there only one post on page 2? Care to elaborate which post pertains to my comment? Because I didn't see one.

There must be literally hundreds of people who have experience in law that could provide better and more unbiased analysis, wouldn't you think?

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343956-TBD-Dan-Snyder-lawsuit-A-complete-analysis&p=8145536&viewfull=1#post8145536

There is your post providing better and unbiased analysis. I hope you see it now.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343956-TBD-Dan-Snyder-lawsuit-A-complete-analysis&p=8145536&viewfull=1#post8145536

There is your post providing better and unbiased analysis. I hope you see it now.

Ah, that's what you were meaning lol ...My point, though, wasn't that...it was to ask how "appropriate" should it be to ask two people basically from the defendant's camp to do that analysis to begin with.

[skinsnshanny]

Fair enough. Though its to be expected. You ever see a republican or democrat sided newspaper talk about the healthcare case?

But i posted the real legal analysis in a new thread, hopefully it gets good discussion.

[Chants]

Here's what McKenna wrote:

"That's the Dan Snyder that got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications... ."

Then, fourteen pages later, McKenna wrote:

"Slamming: The illegal practice of switching a customer's telephone service without authorization. Florida authorities fined Snyder's pre-Redskins outfit, Snyder Communications $3.1 million in 2001 after investigators uncovered more slamming in its offices than you'd find stagefront at a Limp Bizkit show."

Taking the totality of those two statements, I'm still walking away with the impression Dan forged names. What I am not walking away with is this:

"The totality of what McKenna wrote on this question would lead any normal reader to conclude, "Snyder's company was fined for slamming, and this slamming occurred prior to the purchase of the Redskins. Since Snyder was founder and CEO at the time, he's responsible (by definition, as corporate officer) for the actions of his company that were later sanctioned." Being "caught" is an ordinary reading of a multi-million-dollar fine by government authorities."

McKenna wrote Dan forged names, and with greater specificity he wrote that he did so as a telemarketer. Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't, then McKenna has screwed the pooch on this one.

[skinsnshanny]

Here's what McKenna wrote:

"That's the Dan Snyder that got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications... ."

Then, fourteen pages later, McKenna wrote:

"Slamming: The illegal practice of switching a customer's telephone service without authorization. Florida authorities fined Snyder's pre-Redskins outfit, Snyder Communications $3.1 million in 2001 after investigators uncovered more slamming in its offices than you'd find stagefront at a Limp Bizkit show."

Taking the totality of those two statements, I'm still walking away with the impression Dan forged names. What I am not walking away with is this:

"The totality of what McKenna wrote on this question would lead any normal reader to conclude, "Snyder's company was fined for slamming, and this slamming occurred prior to the purchase of the Redskins. Since Snyder was founder and CEO at the time, he's responsible (by definition, as corporate officer) for the actions of his company that were later sanctioned." Being "caught" is an ordinary reading of a multi-million-dollar fine by government authorities."

McKenna wrote Dan forged names, and with greater specificity he wrote that he did so as a telemarketer. Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't, then McKenna has screwed the pooch on this one.

When someone talks about Kenneth Lay and Enron. Or says "Lay cheated many people out of millions of dollars", do you draw the same distinction?

[ncr2h]

Here's what McKenna wrote:

"That's the Dan Snyder that got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications... ."

Then, fourteen pages later, McKenna wrote:

"Slamming: The illegal practice of switching a customer's telephone service without authorization. Florida authorities fined Snyder's pre-Redskins outfit, Snyder Communications $3.1 million in 2001 after investigators uncovered more slamming in its offices than you'd find stagefront at a Limp Bizkit show."

Taking the totality of those two statements, I'm still walking away with the impression Dan forged names. What I am not walking away with is this:

"The totality of what McKenna wrote on this question would lead any normal reader to conclude, "Snyder's company was fined for slamming, and this slamming occurred prior to the purchase of the Redskins. Since Snyder was founder and CEO at the time, he's responsible (by definition, as corporate officer) for the actions of his company that were later sanctioned." Being "caught" is an ordinary reading of a multi-million-dollar fine by government authorities."

McKenna wrote Dan forged names, and with greater specificity he wrote that he did so as a telemarketer. Either he did or he didn't. If he didn't, then McKenna has screwed the pooch on this one.

I mean, it's pretty clear that you haven't read the case law that was presented on page 2 of this thread. It's fine that you think Mckenna screwed the pooch on this one, but you have to realize that there is more to this than what YOU think. There are precedents that the courts will follow. And the general idea of the precedents seems to be that newspapers have to publish something that they blatantly knew was completely and utterly misleading. Something along the lines of: Snyder runs an illegal prostitution ring. The difference between Snyder and Snyder Communications, the company of which he is the majority owner, is so small that what Mckenna said is more or less accurate.

Please read the case law on page 2 of the thread.

[GoCommiesGo]

"The" post? lol...is there only one post on page 2? Care to elaborate which post pertains to my comment? Because I didn't see one.

Post #29 where it was broken down with case law attached.

[Chants]

But McKenna didn't write "Dan Snyder cheated many people out of millions of dollars." If he did, he'd be on safe ground. The term "cheated" is a vague enough term that constitutional protection would be found under New York Time v. Sullivan.

McKenna wrote that Dan forged names as a telemarketer, a clear act that either happened or did not.