Another Stupid Lawsuit

17

I am a proud plaintiff's lawyer. I am often frustrated at the negative reputation my profession suffers. Most of the time, that reputation is ill-deserved and unfair.

Then a lawyer files a complaint that makes me cringe, and I am reminded why we have the reputation we do.

Attoney Richard Ancowitz has filed a complaint on behalf of a Rutgers woman's basketball player because Don Imus called her team some "nappy headed ho's."

This is ridiculous. There is no legitimate legal theory that applies to this complaint.

There is no cause of action for being called a name. None. Calling someone a "nappy headed ho" is not slander. It is childish.

It is rude. It is inappropriate. It is unfunny.

It is not a cause of action.

Ancowitz said "[t]his is basically about vindicating my client's good name."

No one knew your client's name until you filed this lawsuit. Most of us still don't.

No one thinks she is a "nappy headed ho."

She probably has very nice hair and I sincerely doubt she has ever sold her body for money.

She has, however, sold her integrity when she filed this complaint. And so has her attorney.

===

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher

836 days ago

Score 3

I just sat for the PA and NJ bars, and I completely agree with this article.

The problem is - what do you do with the bottom of the law school class that graduates and passes the bar exam? Many of them enter government, but a few go into the private sector. Hence, we get these stupid all about the money type of lawsuits.

The funny thing is that most of the money that this settlement will entail - and there will be a settlement, for this is cheaper for Imus - will go to the lawyer and not the Rutgers player. Instead she will get pennies to the dollar, if she is lucky.

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 1

This won't cost Imus a penny. There may be a small settlement, but as an incorporated entity, the settlement will be paid by his insurance.

836 days ago

Score 0

You are assuming he has insurance. :)

JuTMSY4Legend

836 days ago

Score 0

We have a saying where i work... "Do you know what the call the person who graduated first and the person who graduated last in Medical school? Doctor."

JuTMSY4Legend

836 days ago

Score 0

and who minused everyone on this comment section...I will fix if your comment was valid!

Hit By a PitchVarsity

836 days ago

Score 2

It's nice to see a lawyer commenting on a legal issue (I'm a lawyer, too, but I'm not practicing now). Based on what I know, I agree that the lawsuit lacks merit. That said, I'd be happy to make like Tim Donaghy and wager that Imus will give her a nice chunk of $$$ to make her go away.

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 0

Someone as rich/famous as Imus would have to. Just like doctors have malpractice, and whatever you're profession has, celebrities do too. And this is exactly the reason why..money grabbing a**holes.

PSU ROCKSVarsity Captain

836 days ago

Score 1

call me crazy but isnt it legal to say that cause we got freedom of speech

Permalink | Reply

PSU ROCKSVarsity Captain

836 days ago

Score 0

also i want to ask a lawyer isnt it against the law to get a kid in trouble in a shool for cursing beacuase of freedom of speech

Hit By a PitchVarsity

836 days ago

Score 2

This is not legal advice, but the answer is no.

CheezerAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 0

According to my copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, Amendment I states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences."

As I'm not an attorney, I have no idea what this means. My simple interpretation is that Congress cannot create a law restricting your right to say whatever you want. It doesn't say you have the right to say whatever you want.

In addition, this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Two different entities. My understanding is that civil suits will be much more subject to opinion. Look at the OJ Simpson case for an example of when the criminal case failed to convict, but the civil case led to him owing damages.

CheezerAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 0

typo. and = an

CheezerAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 0

I screwed the amendment all up. Sorry folks. It should say. "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

sheesh

I'm gonna go off line for a while and try again later. Evidently, the brain isn't working yet today.

JuTMSY4Legend

836 days ago

Score 0

PSU...you have limited rights...you're not 18...secondly, the school system has a right to censor you...most recently take a look at the "bong hits for jesus" case in alaska...

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 2

Definition of slander: "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation". No offense to your legal expertise, but doesn't calling someone a nappy headed ho when you have no factual basis for that assumption fall under the definition of slander?

Permalink | Reply

836 days ago

Score 0

If you go by your analysis, then everyone at armchairgm has at some point defamed someone else on this site - be it a sports figure or another user. Should all of us be sued for defamation?

You are also only giving half of the defamation defintion. IF you are a public figure, or a private figure involved in a public event, you need more than that definition. For example, if you are a public figure, then you must show that the statement is false and that it was made with malice.

It can be argued that a female college basketball player on a team that is going deep into the tournament is a public figure. At the very least, she is involved in a public event.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

I disagree with your analysis that everyone has at some point defamed someone else. Generally on this site we explicitly express opinions about how we feel about people in the public eye. For example, we say we don't like Barry Bonds because we think he cheapened the game or that we hear he is an ass. Also, I think there is some precedent for something like this. If an actor is called gay in a tabloid they can usually sue and win for defamation when there is no basis to assume that said actor is in fact gay. To call someone a ho may be along the same logical lines if you have no proof that they are in fact a ho. Regardless of whether they are a public figure or not.

JuTMSY4Legend

836 days ago

Score 0

we're talking about public figures (wanted or not)

836 days ago

Score -1

From the black law dictionary -

Misrepresentation - N. 2. the assertion so made; an assertion that does not accord with the facts.

I can assure you that not everything here, on this site, has followed all of the facts, and then written an accurate cooment or story on them.

Hence, to go by your definition, then yes, everyone here has committed some form of defamation.

The biggest problem with your analysis is not whether or not it is defamation, but the impact your analysis would have with Freedom of Speech. What you are porposing would have a serious chilling effect on public discourse. Why? Because anything close to being critical or negative would be considered defamation.

Personally, I rather have people talk and make fools of themselves. Thereafter, the marketplace of ideas works its magic. If the person makes a stupid or irrational basis, they lose out - as did Imus. If people like to hear the stuff, it continues on - see rap music and the hip hop culture.

Overall, this, even though it is messy, is way better than trying to eliminate this speech. If you try this, you will ultimately increase it, because you are limiting it to backroom and basements, and resentment toward this situation increase the usage of such language.

So, in the end, what you are doing here, with a defamation suit, is lining the profits of the lawyer that filed it.

Permalink | Reply

836 days ago

Score 0

By the way, as Hit by the Pitch properly disclaimed, none of my comments are legal advice as well.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Neither are mine. It's just my opinion that the lawsuit is not stupid or frivolous.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Imus didn't just make a statement on a stupid or irrational basis, he made a statement that he most likely knew to be wrong. It isn't that we make statements here that don't accord with the facts, we make them based on the facts that we know. They may be a reach for the information that we get, but they are still based on fact. He had no basis to call them hos because they were playing basketball in the public eye. My analysis has no impact on freedom of speech. I think freedom of speech is a great thing, even when its stupid.

Permalink | Reply

836 days ago

Score 1

Oh your analysis does have a significant impact on freedom of speech. Read on own definition and read the defintion I provided for misrepresentation.

What you are proposing is an all-inclusive definition of defamation that pretty much says - if you get anything wrong and it makes a person appear in a negative light, then that is defamation and can be sued upon.

Case in point, say Michael Vick decides against a plea and goes to trial. He is acquited. Under your proposal, Vick can sue everyone who ripped him about his indictment. Being acquited means that, under the law, a person is not guilty. Therefore, Vick can sue everyone who commented about his situation.

Now as far as Imus, he is a shock jock. His job is to make shocking statements over the radio / TV. Just by the job definition, you know that statements being made are going to be wrong.

But there is a marketplace for those ideas. It along side the hip hop culutre and rap music. Personally, I thought Imus was washed up and that rap music sucks. Nonetheless, none of these things should be banned, nor should anyone be sued for defamation over it.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

I totally disagree with what your saying. Vick couldn't rip everyone who said something about his indictment because it was based on a fact. He was indicted. Speculating on something that is known fact is not slander. Making random statements with no basis in fact can be. It's not about whether Imus' statements are wrong or not. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is "wrong" in a factual sense, yet still is illegal.

836 days ago

Score 0

If Vick is acquited, how can you legally claim that what was in the indictment was fact, when he was found not guilty? You cannot legally do so. And under your view of defamation, we are all potential litigants.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Because an indictment has to go through a grand jury where a group of his peers believes there is enough evidence to possibly get a conviction. This isn't a random event or arrest where we all think we know what has happened. Our legal system is saying in Vick's case that they believe it is highly likely that a crime was committed.

836 days ago

Score 1

Grand jury has no impact here. As a common joke goes in law school -you can get a grand jury to indict a turkey sandwich.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Yeah, but a grand jury indicting someone and a random comment with no factual basis have a lot different standing.

836 days ago

Score 0

Not under the legal analysis that you are proposing for defamation. Under your proposal, both would be considered the same.

Steel TownDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Chachi, how do you know he most likely knew the statement was wrong? In a sense didn't you just defame him without any factual basis. It hasn't yet been shown that her hair is not nappy or that she isn't a ho. I could be wrong here, but I do believe that the burden of proof is on her and her lawyer to proove these things. On another note, does anyone have the entire transcript for that day or know how this all went down. I'm interested in the context of the whole conversation, not just one sensationalized line from the show. But I still think Imus is an ass.

KelsdadAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 3

Anyone know if this knucklehead went to the same law school as that Nyfong dude from the Duke case? Must be frat brothers.

Permalink | Reply

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Now there is a man that blatantly made statements he knew to be false.

836 days ago

Score 0

So should Kelsdad now be sued for defamation? Another issue that needs to be brought up would be the impact that all of these millions, and yes, millions, of law suits would do to the judicial process. The court system is already over-burden with cases. What will happen to it when everyone sues for defamation?

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

No. Kelsdad has atleast some reasonable standing to think that the lawsuit is frivolous much like Nyfong's case against the Duke players.

836 days ago

Score 1

So if Imus said "I made my statement based on how they looked playing the game the other night," does he not have reasonable standing to think what he said?

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

No, because no reasonable person would believe that he could make that assumption based on your average women's basketball game. If they were all turning tricks in the stands at half-time, yes. If it was like any other game, it would be a hard sell.

836 days ago

Score 0

You know, I turned on the Rutgers-Tenn game. You know what I thought - I thought that players from both team look like men. I then shut off the TV.

Imus made a statement that referred to the Rutger team as nappy headed, you know whats. I made a statement that players from both teams looked like men.

Under your definition, my opinion, which I just wrote above is defaming. The players were females, not males. Hence my statement is false, and I should be sued.

As far as a reasonable person, well, a reasonable person is going to formulate an opinion on the appearance of others. This is what Imus did. His opinion was stupid, but so was about 95% of whatever else he ever said on the radio. Nonetheless, a defamation should not be brought on what he said.

ChachiOSUDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 0

Also, you didn't say they were men, you said they looked like men. That is an opinion based on a fact, their appearance.

836 days ago

Score 0

So you are telling me because Imus did not use the phrase "look like" before nappy headed, he is subject to a defamation lawsuit?

KelsdadAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 1

I grew up in an inner city area in the northeast. In my day, we'd call our wifes/spouse "old lady".

Buddy: "Hey, wanna grab a beer after work?"
Me: Sounds good, but let me call and check with the old lady first.

It's a term. She could be 20 years old, but is referred as the old lady.

The term "nappy hair" refers to the hair of African Americans. There are care products which actually state this on the label, "for the care of nappy hair".

African American men will call themselves the "n" word, and they call their significant others "ho's", as a term of generalization, like "old lady"

Can the 25 year old wife of my neighbor sue me for saying, "nice to finally meet John's old lady?" Of course not, because its a generalization.

Imus was wrong to say what he did, but no one should/could be able to sue him because he was speaking in a common, slang term which is used in general conversation by a large part of the population.

Permalink | Reply

BlueCarpVarsity Captain

836 days ago

Score 1

"Satire" is not actionable. "Opinion" is not actionable. "Name calling" is not actionable. Imus' comments are protected by all of these. Does anybody actually think he was serious when he made the stupid statement? He was kidding. (And I'm not even going to get into whether or not the players are "public figures," because it is almost impossible to win a defamation suit if they are, even if you assert something as fact that you KNOW to be wrong. In such a case, the plaintiff has to prove "actual malice" to win. And yes, there are entire law books hundreds of pages long discussing all of this, but I enjoy the discussion here, anyway.) Thanks, gang.

Permalink | Reply

CheezerAll-Star

836 days ago

Score 0

I screwed the amendment all up. Sorry folks. It should say. "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." sheesh

Permalink | Reply

PSU ROCKSVarsity Captain

836 days ago

Score 0

personally this person is just trying to get easy money cause they dont want to work for it

Permalink | Reply

Ea34Div-I Stud

836 days ago

Score 0

Imus was stupid to what he did, really stupid. I mean, how on earth could he think that what he was saying would be ok? That said, this woman is now just exploiting this situation for her own financial gain. How come the school never took legal action against Imus? Because they are smart enough to know that there no grounds on which they could do so! This woman has been conned by an opportunistic, scumbag attorney to file this suit and aim for a quick out-of-court settlement. He'll get paid (probably more than she will) and will have another "victory" to add to his merketing material.

Permalink | Reply

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

836 days ago

Score 1

Actually, he has a pretty solif foundation for this suit. As a plaintiff's lawyer you know that Per Se defamation means that she does not have to prove actual damages. There are only a few categories of per se defamation but Imus' comments fits in to two of them. Calling her a Ho both imputes the chastity of a woman and it also suggests the commission of a crime, both of which qualify as defamation per se. However, the problem that she has is that Imus' comments were group defamation. He did not mention her name individually and courts have been reluctant to recognize group defamation.

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

835 days ago

Score 0

But wouldn't Imus' comments have to be directed at her individually? If he is speaking generally to a group, without specifically mentioning a name or physical attribute which references to the individual, then there are no grounds for the suit, or am I missing something in the translation?

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

835 days ago

Score 0

No, that is basically the problem. Look at it this way, If he said "All Democrats are nappy headed ho's" I could not sue for defamation because I am not readily identifiable as a Democrat. She has a better chance because the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team is a much smaller group. Still, she is going to have a hard time proving that Imus was speaking of her in particular and this, as opposed to whether calling someone nappy headed, or a Ho, will be the fatal flaw.

JMoffatWaterboy

834 days ago

Score 0

rutgers needs to drop it....they shouldnt get crap out of this lawsuit

Permalink | Reply

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Another_Stupid_Lawsuit"

This page was last modified 14:20, 16 August 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.