+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Holy Shit Saints (/Thread-NFL-Holy-Shit-Saints)
RE: Holy Shit Saints - AsylumGuido - 04-24-2012 05:18 PM
(04-24-2012 03:54 PM)pauliwood Wrote: Go back and read what I wrote again because you clearly misunderstood it.
What I said was you should try to put as much distance between your team and Loomis as possible. I really don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
And as far as suing ESPN, well that's just crazy talk.
Why would I want to put any distance between Loomis and the Saints? He is one of the best cap managers in the business.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - Drathdon - 04-24-2012 05:20 PM
(04-24-2012 10:01 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: What was your warning meant to do? Did you want me to stop being a Saints fan? Did you expect me to stop supporting my team? I have spent the last 45 years being a daily Saints fan and I will never back down one iota.
I just wanted you to take the blinders off and prepare for the incoming shitstorm. I wish someone had warned me when I spent 3 months trying to rationalize and defend Vick when "there wasn't any evidence directly linking him" yet.
I expect you to stay a fan (and would not respect you if you didn't), but denial will hurt more than acceptance.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - JDaveG - 04-24-2012 05:22 PM
(04-24-2012 02:58 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Don't forget that Louisiana's civil law is based upon Napoleonic Code and is vastly different than that from the other 49 states. I would trust someone who has legal expertise in this unique state.
This isn't a Louisiana issue. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that in order for a public figure (like Loomis) to prove libel or slander against a media entity, he must prove actual malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That's not a Federal question -- it's a Constitutional issue. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. I don't give a flying rip what Louisiana's laws are -- they won't be able to prove a defamation case against ESPN unless they can prove that ESPN acted with actual malice.
Nice try, though.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - RFlagg - 04-24-2012 05:28 PM
(04-24-2012 05:22 PM)JDaveG Wrote: This isn't a Louisiana issue. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that in order for a public figure (like Loomis) to prove libel or slander against a media entity, he must prove actual malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That's not a Federal question -- it's a Constitutional issue. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. I don't give a flying rip what Louisiana's laws are -- they won't be able to prove a defamation case against ESPN unless they can prove that ESPN acted with actual malice.
Nice try, though.
![[Image: tumblr_lwsmr5igjf1qdi51h.jpg]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwsmr5igjf1qdi51h.jpg)
RE: Holy Shit Saints - JDaveG - 04-24-2012 05:31 PM
(04-24-2012 05:28 PM)RFlagg Wrote:
![[Image: tumblr_ld9oixtKN81qet5fio1_500.gif]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld9oixtKN81qet5fio1_500.gif)
RE: Holy Shit Saints - ATLBound - 04-24-2012 05:34 PM
BOOM! but awaiting an article from the Picayune that says otherwise...lol
RE: Holy Shit Saints - pauliwood - 04-24-2012 05:43 PM
(04-24-2012 05:18 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Why would I want to put any distance between Loomis and the Saints? He is one of the best cap managers in the business.
Because he is about to be federal indited.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - AsylumGuido - 04-24-2012 05:48 PM
(04-24-2012 05:22 PM)JDaveG Wrote: This isn't a Louisiana issue. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that in order for a public figure (like Loomis) to prove libel or slander against a media entity, he must prove actual malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). That's not a Federal question -- it's a Constitutional issue. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. I don't give a flying rip what Louisiana's laws are -- they won't be able to prove a defamation case against ESPN unless they can prove that ESPN acted with actual malice.
Nice try, though.
I know I said ESPN initially, but I am really expecting action against the ex-employee that supposedly fed the ESPN reporter, Barr, this story.
But, it is interesting that Barr is a reporter that worked in Atlanta and Minneapolis. Maybe a little malice might not be out of the question.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - AsylumGuido - 04-24-2012 05:51 PM
(04-24-2012 05:43 PM)pauliwood Wrote: Because he is about to be federal indited.
How so? This allegedly happened back in 2004. The federal statute of limitations is five years. Louisiana has a six year statute. Both have expired. Lawyer Dave can verify this.
RE: Holy Shit Saints - pauliwood - 04-24-2012 06:01 PM
(04-24-2012 05:51 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: How so? This allegedly happened back in 2004. The federal statute of limitations is five years. Louisiana has a six year statute. Both have expired. Lawyer Dave can verify this.
So the Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching a probe into this matter for no reason then? Come on man this is the FBI that has gotten involved. This will not end well for Loomis, they will find something.