Dixie Chicks accused of libel - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

John Doe · #46 12-09-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

JD or Benz-LGB > Other Attorneys

BTW. a plaintiff seeking damages for "defamation" type infractions usually has an eye on the depths of the defendant's pockets.

I don't know what your point is

, but my wife and I have represented two very wealthy plaintiffs in "defamation" type actions by the hour with no regard to the Defendant's ability to pay any judgment whatsoever to clear the taint by certain political officials and newspapers of large, closely held assets (privately owned utilities) so they could be sold at pre-slander value. I know of many other libel/slander suits that are done by the hour, merely to get a retraction in the paper or a public apology. Guess you had time to get on JVR before you posted.

MTI · #47 12-09-2008, 04:57 PM

Representing a plaintiff's claim for defamation on contingency is risky business, since the economic damage aspect is typically uncertain . . . whereas the client tends to espouse the "it's not the money, it's the principle of the matter" rhetoric. I've lost track of how much money has gotten flushed "for the principle of the matter."

John Doe · #48 12-09-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Representing a plaintiff's claim for defamation on contingency is risky business, since the economic damage aspect is typically uncertain . . . whereas the client tends to espouse the "it's not the money, it's the principle of the matter" rhetoric. I've lost track of how much money has gotten flushed "for the principle of the matter."

I fail to see how this squares with your "depths of the client's pockets" statement. When someone tells me, "it's not the money, it's the principle of the matter" rhetoric, I charge them by the hour and generally forgo the financial discovery to save them a few bucks.

MTI · #49 12-09-2008, 05:15 PM

My comment was based on experience that most plaintiff's don't seek defamation awards from regular folks, since there is no insurance coverage and then collecting damages on a verdict is not only subject to the whims and whimsy of the trier of fact, but also on the financial ability of the defendant to come up with the money.

Where the defendant has independent means or resources to satisfy an award or enter into a meaningful financial settelement, that economic consideration is easier to figure out.

John Doe · #50 12-09-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

My comment was based on experience that most plaintiff's don't seek defamation awards from regular folks, since there is no insurance coverage and then collecting damages on a verdict is not only subject to the whims and whimsy of the trier of fact, but also on the financial ability of the defendant to come up with the money.

Where the defendant has independent means or resources to satisfy an award or enter into a meaningful financial settelement, that economic consideration is easier to figure out.

That still does doesn't square with the blanket statement you made, but that is my opinion. Also, it doesn't coincide with my experience regarding the Plaintiffs that have come to me with defamation claims.

No coverage to defend, or to indemnify?

My experience is that oftentimes E&O carriers will pay cost of defense and not seek indemnification against covered board members/officers if there is a reason to want to keep the block of business.

BENZ-LGB · #51 12-09-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

waiting for JD or Benz-LGB to chime in....

If you look at the list of celebrities who support the West Memphis 3 you'd not be surprised to see the Dixie Chicks getitng involved in this (BTW, aren't they too old by now to be called "chicks?').

To falsely accuse someone of committing a crime, especially to accuse the victim's relative of commititng the crime, could be actionable libel.

I don't know much about the WM-3 case so I can't offer much else.

I love it when celebrities get involved in the latest cause de jour. It shows how stupid most of them truly are. But celebrities have money and an adoring fan base (and a 1st Amendment right to talk) so they feel compelled to blather on.

Oh well!

t walgamuth · #52 12-09-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Your analysis just fell a few points in my opinion.

Why?

BENZ-LGB · #53 12-09-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

JD or Benz-LGB > Other Attorneys

BTW. a plaintiff seeking damages for "defamation" type infractions usually has an eye on the depths of the defendant's pockets.

Show me a plaintiff's attorney who does not take into account the depth of the defendant's pockets (regardless of what the case is all about) and I will show you an attorney who will eventually end up doing public interest law.

t walgamuth · #54 12-09-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Show me a plaintiff's attorney who does not take into account the depth of the defendant's pockets (regardless of what the case is all about) and I will show you an attorney who will eventually end up doing public interest law.

x2.

BENZ-LGB · #55 12-09-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

I fail to see how this squares with your "depths of the client's pockets" statement. When someone tells me, "it's not the money, it's the principle of the matter" rhetoric, I charge them by the hour and generally forgo the financial discovery to save them a few bucks.

I remember a prospective client sitting across the desk from me. He was carrying on about how it was the principle and not the money that he cared about. While he talked, I kept writing on my yellow pad.

Finally he asked me if i was taking notes.

I told him yes, I am figuring ut how much your principles are going to cost you.

When I showed him my cost estimate, he got up, walked away and I never saw him again.

Botnst · #56 12-09-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Spector is not a citizen?

It certainly appears he is certifiable but what does being a citizen have to do with anything?

I admit she is a bit edgy but so is Clint Eastwood, as an example, and nobody is telling him to shut up.

Would you tell Clint to shut up?

You don't tug on Superman's cape.....

Botnst · #57 12-09-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

If you look at the list of celebrities who support the West Memphis 3 you'd not be surprised to see the Dixie Chicks getitng involved in this (BTW, aren't they too old by now to be called "chicks?').

To falsely accuse someone of committing a crime, especially to accuse the victim's relative of commititng the crime, could be actionable libel.

I don't know much about the WM-3 case so I can't offer much else.

I love it when celebrities get involved in the latest cause de jour. It shows how stupid most of them truly are. But celebrities have money and an adoring fan base (and a 1st Amendment right to talk) so they feel compelled to blather on.

Oh well!

I'm thinking that murdering bastard, Mumia and the clowns who embraced him as a cause célèbre.

Or "Here comes the story of Hurricane; the man the authorities came to blame; for something that he never done....".