Dixie Chicks accused of libel - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

John Doe · #61 12-09-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Why?

Because you made it Bush's fault, and I don't make any logical or professional analysis of her conduct predicated on whatever her previous opinions were of anyone. And neither will a Judge.

John Doe · #62 12-09-2008, 08:36 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.

Uh, ok, you want names or that I pm you case sites?

John Doe · #63 12-09-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

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.

I think you misunderstood me about the principle part. I'm not going to explain this all night, but there are instances in business, when defamation suits are necessitated to preserve the value of an asset--with no expectation of the collection of a judgment. I realize that all litigation attorneys have not experienced this type of practice, but I have, and it really isn't all that uncommon.

Let me give you a hypothetical, since such cases are often bound by confidentiality agreements if they settle: private owner of an inherited utility wants to sell to a municipality. City Council offers a lowball price, which heiress rejects. Mayor and City Council then circulate rumors that heiress reneged on a (fictitious) prior offer, which are subsequently printed in a newspaper. Rumor stalls other bids on utility because of fears it is overvalued by $10M. Heiress sues on "defamation" type theories with end result that paper runs a specific retraction and all parties admit that the previous deal never existed and they lied because they thought she owed a civic duty to the municipality. Heiress spends a couple of million in attorney's fees and the bids return at market rate. There are many other examples.

t walgamuth · #64 12-09-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Because you made it Bush's fault, and I don't make any logical or professional analysis of her conduct predicated on whatever her previous opinions were of anyone. And neither will a Judge.

I made what Bush's fault?

Besides my comment was more whimsical than legal. What do I know from legal?

John Doe · #65 12-09-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I made what Bush's fault?

Besides my comment was more whimsical than legal. What do I know from legal?

Sorry, I just locked myself in the bathroom and can't find my glasses, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

t walgamuth · #66 12-09-2008, 09:38 PM

Hah!

Botnst · #67 12-09-2008, 09:53 PM

Yes, all equal in law. But I'm not talkin' law here.

In my opinion, wealthy and famous and powerful people have an extra measure of obligation because of that status to be a bit more careful in how and on whom they use their power. It's related to St Paul's admonition, "Of whom much is given, much is expected." By no means do I think that should be a legal argument. But I think it is a moral argument.

Because you can stomp a bug doesn't mean you should.

t walgamuth · #68 12-09-2008, 10:58 PM

Agreed.

BENZ-LGB · #69 12-09-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

I think you misunderstood me about the principle part. I'm not going to explain this all night, but there are instances in business, when defamation suits are necessitated to preserve the value of an asset--with no expectation of the collection of a judgment. I realize that all litigation attorneys have not experienced this type of practice, but I have, and it really isn't all that uncommon.

Let me give you a hypothetical, since such cases are often bound by confidentiality agreements if they settle: private owner of an inherited utility wants to sell to a municipality. City Council offers a lowball price, which heiress rejects. Mayor and City Council then circulate rumors that heiress reneged on a (fictitious) prior offer, which are subsequently printed in a newspaper. Rumor stalls other bids on utility because of fears it is overvalued by $10M. Heiress sues on "defamation" type theories with end result that paper runs a specific retraction and all parties admit that the previous deal never existed and they lied because they thought she owed a civic duty to the municipality. Heiress spends a couple of million in attorney's fees and the bids return at market rate. There are many other examples.

I did not misunderstand your post. I was giving a different take on the "cost of principles" issue.

And yes JD, I do understand the principle of business defamation vis a vis damage to a business' goodwill. It's not exactly the most esoteric area of legal practice.

John Doe · #70 12-09-2008, 11:13 PM

We should abolish the Constitution and replace the National Anthem with Rose Colored Glasses

BENZ-LGB · #71 12-09-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Because you can stomp a bug doesn't mean you should.

Depends, is it a squishy type of bug, you know, the kind that squirts yellow-green stuff, like an infested zit?

Or is it the crunchy type, the one that makes that "scrunch" sound?

John Doe · #72 12-09-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I did not misunderstand your post. I was giving a different take on the "cost of principles" issues.

And yes JD, I do understand the principle of business defamation vis a vis damage to a business' goodwill. It's not exactly the most esoteric area of legal practice.

I don't mean to insinuate that you don't understand slander of a business........ but in my hypothetical it was an individual that was the plaintiff and her own personal resources funded the litigation, outside of the corporation that she controlled.....

Anyway, my point is that I don't think a blanket statement can be made about libel/slander cases always involving a deep pocket. That's all.

I shouldn't be here this late anyway, but I'm waiting to hear if my duck camp was hit by a tornado and or flood earlier this afternoon and email is going to be the only way my man what checks on it can reach me because the power is out and there is no cell coverage in the area

And on the overall post, I don't think the legal system should treat the Dixie Chicken any different than anyone else, or it isn't working. If a "lesser individual" wants to draw attention to his/her cause, they just need to be smart enough to pull it off. Nobody gives out 'celebrity' except for maybe the Royals in the UK. Or the Kennedys