The Pirate is funny

[untitled]

[Stallion]

Yeah its going to be funny as hell when he gets a defamation counterclaim in his suit against Craig James. Get this straight you can't wilfully and intentionally repeat defamation even if originally written or stated by someone else which you know to be untrue or reasonably should have known of the untruth of the matter. Dumbasses like you can get away with posting repeated defamation on the internet all day-Mike Leach can't. Yet another reason Mike Leach is an A-Hole and always will be.

[MustangIcon]

Couldn't he claim ignorance as to what it stands for? Some guy came to his book signing and asked him to sign with a certain inscription, which he obliged, without knowing the meaning on the inscription. Seems like a reasonable claim.

I, for one, think he absolutely knows what it stands for.

[untitled]

Yeah its going to be funny as hell when he gets a defamation counterclaim in his suit against Craig James. Get this straight you can't wilfully and intentionally repeat defamation even if originally written or stated by someone else which you know to be untrue or reasonably should have known of the untruth of the matter. Dumbasses like you can get away with posting repeated defamation on the internet all day-Mike Leach can't. Yet another reason Mike Leach is an A-Hole and always will be.

Uh oh, Stallion has sand in his vagina again. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, counsel.

Meanwhile, in Pullman:

[Stallion]

Yeah and I just stated the legal standard for Truth as a Defensse and the requirement of showing the required Malice. In fact, the statement is NOT TRUE. So Leach's Truth Defense would be one of the easiest no-evidence summary judgments for James in the history of litigation because Mike Leach has wilfully and intentionally repeated defamation which he KNEW was NOT TRUE or he repeated it KNOWING that that there were serious doubts as to its veracity(in fact he couldn't come up with a shread of evidence which might even raise a fact issue suggesting that it even might be true))

[BigT3x]

Yeah its going to be funny as hell when he gets a defamation counterclaim in his suit against Craig James. Get this straight you can't wilfully and intentionally repeat defamation even if originally written or stated by someone else which you know to be untrue or reasonably should have known of the untruth of the matter. Dumbasses like you can get away with posting repeated defamation on the internet all day-Mike Leach can't. Yet another reason Mike Leach is an A-Hole and always will be.

Well, at least we can say one nice thing about you. You're obviously not a lawyer.

[Cadillac]

Yeah its going to be funny as hell when he gets a defamation counterclaim in his suit against Craig James. Get this straight you can't wilfully and intentionally repeat defamation even if originally written or stated by someone else which you know to be untrue or reasonably should have known of the untruth of the matter. Dumbasses like you can get away with posting repeated defamation on the internet all day-Mike Leach can't. Yet another reason Mike Leach is an A-Hole and always will be.

Well, at least we can say one nice thing about you. You're obviously not a lawyer.

Really? Where was he wrong? (We have a TON of lawyers on this board lol).

-CoS

[untitled]

Yeah and Leach's Truth Defense would be one of the easiest no-evidence summary judgments for James in the history of litigation because Mike Leach has wilfully and intentionally repeated defamation which he KNEW was NOT TRUE or he repeated it KNOWING that that there were serious doubts as to its veracity(in fact he couldn't come up with a shread of evidence which might even raise a fact issue suggesting that it even might be true))

As an alumnus of SMU, I know the truth about CJ and the Foresaken Five.

Oh, and I have my old BarBri books, too - no need to quote them to me. Lighten up, Francis.

[BigT3x]

Yeah its going to be funny as hell when he gets a defamation counterclaim in his suit against Craig James. Get this straight you can't wilfully and intentionally repeat defamation even if originally written or stated by someone else which you know to be untrue or reasonably should have known of the untruth of the matter. Dumbasses like you can get away with posting repeated defamation on the internet all day-Mike Leach can't. Yet another reason Mike Leach is an A-Hole and always will be.

Well, at least we can say one nice thing about you. You're obviously not a lawyer.

Really? Where was he wrong? (We have a TON of lawyers on this board lol).

-CoS

CJ is a "public figure".

[CoxBizGrad]

Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know what the "CJ..." means that he wrote in the book. Can someone please explain?

[CoxBizGrad]

Like his son, I guess I have been in a closet/shed for some time.

[untitled]

Maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know what the "CJ..." means that he wrote in the book. Can someone please explain?

Here ya go:

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2012/0 ... rs-at-smu/

It's an internet meme that has taken on a life of its own. And since he's such an insufferable douchebox, fanbases around the country are having fun with it.

[Stallion]

If a person is a public figure you have to show malice which is the standard I described above. Its a difficult standard but not particularly in this case. I''d have the counterclaim filed by the end of the day. The more difficult standard is showing that a reasonable person would find it defamatory in the context since initials were used. But the meaning of the context in this case I would say is probably known to tens of millions of people

[BigT3x]

If a person is a public figure you have to show malice which is the standard I described above. Its a difficult standard but not particularly in this case. I''d have the counterclaim filed by the end of the day

You'd have to provide irrefutable evidence (as in a four year, 24 hour surveillance operation that documented CJ's whereabouts during his entire time at SMU) that CJ did not kill those hookers, then prove that Leach was in possession of that irrefutable evidence when he made his statements.

[MeanGreenMachine]

Yeah and I just stated the legal standard for Truth as a Defensse and the requirement of showing the required Malice. In fact, the statement is NOT TRUE. So Leach's Truth Defense would be one of the easiest no-evidence summary judgments for James in the history of litigation because Mike Leach has wilfully and intentionally repeated defamation which he KNEW was NOT TRUE or he repeated it KNOWING that that there were serious doubts as to its veracity(in fact he couldn't come up with a shread of evidence which might even raise a fact issue suggesting that it even might be true))

How do you know it is NOT TRUE? Were you with him every night during the early 80s? Why won't Craig come out and deny this himself?!? I know that if someone accused me of such a horrific act I would deny it! Why does he hide behind his PR and campaign machines? There are too many questions left unanswered. We already know he is a liar and a cheat. He has said for years that he knew nothing about player payments, while admitting this year that he did accept $100 handshakes - proving that his self-righteous drivel was all a massive pile of BS.

Why won't he denounce hooker killing? My goodness, up here at North Texas the life of a hooker still means something. We still care. Their memories will not be forgotten in Denton, Texas by God.