M Live: Western Michigan Booster sues

Whoa...

The lawsuit article said the allegedly defamatory rumor was posted on 9/13/13. I went to the thread to see what it was, and there is a big gap showing no posts between 9/11 and 9/21. Looks like all that was deleted, and one of those sued, "Desertbronco", is banned.

(02-07-2015 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The lawsuit article said the allegedly defamatory rumor was posted on 9/13/13. I went to the thread to see what it was, and there is a big gap showing no posts between 9/11 and 9/21. Looks like all that was deleted, and one of those sued, "Desertbronco", is banned.

The Deadspin article linked on the MAC board thread on this gives more details. It contains the 'f' word so if you work in a sensitive environment, open it somewhere other than at work.

http://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-su...1684191151

Also, the following post by GTS is probably worthy of being repeated here:

(02-06-2015 07:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  FWIW: I get all kinds of dumb*** legal threats and demands, practically weekly. 99.9% of it is meritless, bogus, and sometimes not even directed at the right site. The most humorous to date is a doctor who practiced at the University hospital for Cincinnati without license, was convicted of malpractice, and fled to Malaysia. She threated to sue me under United Nations law. YEA.

I usually demand contact from a barred attorney, or, if they are not legally represented, at least a copy of a government issued ID to know I am dealing with who they claim they are. 9 out of 10 times that alone is enough for them to never email me again. But this Fleck-gate thing was one of those 1 in 10. I am a hardcore libertarian, and a stickler for civil liberties. I actually demanded a subpoena before I turned over any private information about the posters in question. Once I was dutifully served that subpoena ... that was all she wrote. I then have to turn over poster's IP/email/etc or I go to jail.

So I don't want anybody to get the impression I sit around giving away poster's info in my spare time. I actually go (and went) well out of my way to demand that I be legally compelled to turn over any private info. But once that high hurdle is cleared (happened only once in 12 years now) I have to turn it over.

What a joke. Does she still work there? What damages could she possibly monetize? No way she wins this lawsuit and in fact I would countersue now that their names have been brought out in public.

(02-07-2015 10:49 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a joke. Does she still work there? What damages could she possibly monetize? No way she wins this lawsuit and in fact I would countersue now that their names have been brought out in public.

Theory of counterclaim?

I wouldn't call it a joke. Defamation of character can be very serious.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Damn, this really sucks for GTS to be put thrust into all of this.

I remember reading part of that thread before but for a different reason.

(02-07-2015 03:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Damn, this really sucks for GTS to be put thrust into all of this.

I remember reading part of that thread before but for a different reason.

I appreciate GTS efforts to protect the identity of posters on the site. At the same time, I don't feel bad that his efforts could not protect somebody from the consequences of libel. They have nobody to blame besides themselves.

Any damage to someone's character would be much higher after a lawsuit about it, I would think.

What damages can they claim? Even if someone were to call me dumb ----, I haven't suffered any loss.

I don't get it.

(02-07-2015 05:33 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  What damages can they claim? Even if someone were to call me dumb ----, I haven't suffered any loss.

I don't get it.

That was my thought too. Were the posts really THAT bad?

From what I gathered he claimed the lady was sleeping with the head coach. That's pretty extreme.

(02-07-2015 02:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 10:49 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a joke. Does she still work there? What damages could she possibly monetize? No way she wins this lawsuit and in fact I would countersue now that their names have been brought out in public.

Theory of counterclaim?

Well if her accusation is worthy of monetary damages then so is theirs if the verdict ends up being in their favor instead of hers. In order to collect on that verdict, they would need a countersuit in place. Thus, I would countersue for the exact same reasons. Their names have been brought out into public light in an egregious manner.

She isn't attempting to truly get money out of this I don't think, she just wants to do the same to them as they did to her. Counterclaim.

(02-07-2015 03:02 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I wouldn't call it a joke. Defamation of character can be very serious.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Public officials have all kinds of things said about them. Do they sue every time? Now if it was someone in the media actually reporting said action as true THEN you have a reason to sue. This is anonymous names on an internet chat board saying that things are true. That doesn't make them true and that does not warrant a 25,000 dollar reward. That is ridiculous AND it is a joke.

This isn't defamation of character. It is a twisted attempt to sell this as defamation of character because the b**** is mad.

They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

That is a trend for this poster.

(02-07-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

That is a trend for this poster.

True