Alleged (note 'alleged') roid-monger Barry Bonds, the recent career home run king, announced that he contracted with two Bay-area lawyers to track down miscreants who would besmirch his good name. The accused juicer threatens to sue Curt Schilling or anyone making false statements about him or his large head.
A local Bay-area TV station(CBS5) first carried the story:
Now that Barry Bonds has passed Henry Aaron to become baseball's all-time home run king, he's threatening to sue anyone who makes false or misleading statements about him, two Bay Area attorneys said Monday.
Attorneys John Burris of Oakland and Todd Schneider of San Francisco said Bonds has retained them "in connection with legal issues arising from the myriad of false statements attributed to him by players, the media and others."
The attorneys, who are veteran civil rights litigators, said they believe "such statements are defamatory and have legal consequences."
Bonds, clearly a public figure faces long odds on suing anyone for 'misleading statements'. Normal libel and slander lawsuits, hard to prove anyway, require even more conditions for a public figure (expertlaw.com).
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
The elements of defamation include:
- A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
- Damage to the plaintiff.
When the plaintiff is a public figure this burden is added:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
According to The San Jose News, Bonds' old attorney, -- Michael Rains (maybe feeling some jealousy?) -- revealed that Bonds intends to pursue Curt Schilling, who as you recall, loves to call out Bonds (and here).
Bonds began seeking civil rights representation three weeks ago after pitcher Curt
Schilling criticized the slugger in an interview with HBO's Bob Costas.
"This is directed at Schilling more than anybody," said criminal defense attorney Michael Rains, who is representing Bonds in a grand jury investigation stemming from the Balco case.
"Schilling said some things that were inappropriate and potentially defamatory. I know it was upsetting to Barry. We talked about the issue and I know he was talking to some civil lawyers to put people on notice that he has someone defending him."
This could be very interesting if Bonds' attorneys sue Schilling. They then must prove that Schilling made false accusations against Bonds, and that Schilling harbored malice in his sinister motives. As Schilling stated Bonds cheated on baseball and on his spouse, Bonds must prove these statements false.
The best defense against defamation suits is the truth. Wouldn't we all love to know the truth about Bonds?
(more on the attorney's announcement after the jump)
...More on the Bonds' lawyers statements. They load up on the age old defense tactic of attacking the accusers to discredit them:
Burris and Schneider said "it is shocking and offensive to Barry's civil rights" to have such a lengthy investigation "when the chief witnesses are an alleged former girlfriend who is seeking to exploit her relationship with Barry by 'telling all' to Playboy and a disgruntled former business partner whose cheating Barry reported to the FBI."
Burris and Schneider said they "strongly believe that this investigation should be closed down and the lead investigator should be investigated himself for gross misconduct."
In a phone interview, Burris said, "Barry's major concern is statements that have been attributed to him that are false and go to alleged criminal conduct."
Burris said Bonds is concerned that the alleged false statements by witnesses would taint the jury pool if he ever is indicted by a federal grand jury and that "it would appear that he is admitting to something."
Burris said Bonds didn't speak out while he was pursuing the home run record, which he finally achieved last week, because "he was highly focused on setting the record and didn't want to break his concentration."
Bonds' silence until now "was never an admission" of wrongdoing, Burris said.
"According to The San Jose News, Bonds' old attorney, -- Michael Rains (maybe feeling some jealousy?"
Explain to me why Rains would feel any jealousy that Bonds retained civil rights lwayers. Rains is a criminal defense lawyer, whose plate is rather full I'm sure.
The others are civil rights attorneys.
Attorneys specialize in narrow areas of the law. Rains may feel he has little or no competence in this arena.
Are you sure it's not some jealousy or envy or bias that you are showing?
Posted by: Charles Slavik | 08/14/2007 at 16:42
I don't remember what exact neurons were firing when I wrote that Rains might be jealous. Probably he isn't. However, I did think it was odd that Rains gave away some of the game plan about going after Schilling. It is routine for an attorney to give away another attorney's game plan?
Good point about the specialization.
Jealosy on our part? Of Bonds' attorney? Not unless he is really rich.
Envy? Of Bonds' attorney? Of Bonds' athletic ability. (sure).
Bias? Sure we have bias. Just that we aint telling :-)
thanks for the comment.
Posted by: GRG | 08/14/2007 at 19:06
Sorry, hanging out with the young people too much and adopting their IM lexicon...JK = Just Kidding.
I'm not sure we know their game plan as much as that they are warming up in the bullpen ready to take the field.
I often wondered why he wasn't more aggressive in this regard, as Armstrong and Clemens have been in the past, and thought "well, maybe he's waiting until he breaks (back then it was if) the record."
I remember thinking that it didn't have much of a chance of happening, but different strokes...I suppose.
He and his attorneys may just go after the adulterer comments and leave anything remotely close to PED comments alone, who knows?
He's given sworn testimony on his PED use in the past (leaked grand jury testimony), his accusers, specifically Schilling, have no direct knowledge of PED use by Barry, that I'm aware of, or that they've cited.
I'm not sure if in a libel case, they would be allowed to call other witnesses (such as Greg Anderson) to rebut Barrys denial or if the burden lies soley on how they arrived at the substance of their comments given what was "known" at the time.
It would be seem to be hard for Schilling to defend his comments after he was almost universally condemned for being erroneous and out of line in making them. And he did do a quick "moon-walk" bactrack afterwards. Not sure how much that would play in to proving subsequent damage to Bonds.
It could just be Barry in effect drawing a line in the sand and saying to his detractors, "From now on, watch what you say." And we don't waste a minute of court time on it.
Although yes, I would watch it.
Posted by: Charles Slavik | 08/15/2007 at 10:13
The worst thing Barry Bonds could do is listen to Gary Radnich and others who already have him tried and convicted, based on allegations, and no proof, nor Barry admitting to anything. I’m not even a fan of Barry Bonds, and think he should have stayed on the field for the fan party held to celebrate his record breaking Home Run; however that’s a separate issue, and it’s plain to see that the Government is using the tired old Martha Stewart ploy of acquisition of perjury with the hopes that Barry Bonds will now recant what he testified to earlier at the Grand Jury. Barry needs to keep consistent with his earlier Grand Jury statements to the tee, and he’ll be home in time for dinner. If he changes one thing he said previously, than he’ll be getting three hots and a cot for a long long time. Remember… the government and others can think what they want about weather Barry took steroids or not, and I’m not even sure if he did; however proving whether he did or not, is quite another thing. If Barry where taking various legal vitamin regiments while maintaining that he was not aware that he was taking any illegal substances, than it’s game over for the governments case, as it’s weak, weak, weak, weak, weak, to the point of being almost laughable; however it’s humorous to see how the media is buying into the governments trap and treating Barry like he lied when that’s not been proven one iota. No matter how much documentation, appointment, calendar paperwork the government has, it could apply to all the legal substance appointments that Barry and others kept, which would make his Grand Jury testimony sound, unless he were stupid enough to change it for any reason. P.S To Barry; learn some etiquette and treat your fans better, and although this fan is unable to give any legal advice, and none of the above is to be construed as such, your legal team might wish to read this post A.S.A.P. Good Luck …
Posted by: Anonymous | 11/16/2007 at 02:43