Posted on 10/15/2009 6:08:55 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
Having been on civil jury, “everything or anything” is not necessarily admitted as it still has to have some thread of relevance. Only Denny Crane gets to play a case your way.
Checketts was President and CEO of the Knicks from 1991 to 1999 (I think). During his tenure he was also made CEO of Madison Square Garden which covered the Knicks, the Rangers, The New York Liberty, Radio City among others. He was generally criticized for not winning much regardless of the very high payrolls of his teams. He has also been attacked for his somewhat callous firing of GM Ernie Grunfeld, a NY favorite.
Bookmark and Save.
Much of our society has been brain washed and lack self reasoning skills!
Elementary School Indoctrination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzfiTSZaAZA
Photo
Sand Hill Venable Elementary Indoctrination Camp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcNfajMA4zQ
I Pledge Allegiance to Obama?? - January 29, 2009, 07:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMVXFbOZYEk
Outright egregious slander “published” against a public figure doesn’t hold. Truth is the best (and only) defense. And “they” don’t have the truth on their side. Media Research Center put out a release, showing they’d written MSNBC and CNN, offering the opportunity to ‘put up or shut up’ and they didn’t put up.
Remember the CNN story that ended up with several producers fired? (I’m thinking Peter Arkett, among others) .. the parties named in the story got significant out of court settlements, and CNN had to run a retraction every hour for a couple of days.
Ask Alger Hiss or OJ. And I’ve served on juries too.
Yeah, but Rush has to prove a negative-—impossible. Even if he proves it, he then has to prove malice, and Jackson et al will say it was nothing against Rush, just politics. Then you have to prove that they didn’t know it was false, and they just say, “I thought the source was credible.” It’s 180 degrees different than a tabloid that says “Wayne Newton has mob contacts.” There you can make the defendant prove what he DID say, not try to make a defendant prove what the PLAINTIFF says. I think it’s a can of worms, but let’s have some lawyers weigh in on this.
Rush now discussing the situation, not only did Checketts approach him, but told Rush he was well aware of the kind of flak a Limbaugh-inclusion would bring.
Sounds like a set-up from the gitgo.
That is patently false, first off, this has nothing whatever to do with politics, secondly, they made vehement statements about how they knew Rush said this and Rush said that, the purpose to deny Rush the ability to buy in to an NFL franchise. Malice aforethought on this one.
Neither am I, but either they say they actually heard what they claim from Rush himself, which they cannot because he did not say them, or they say they heard it or read it somewhere -- this is hearsay, I do not believe that can stand as defense.
These NFL players, they are simply proving they are racists. Goodell and Checketts, cowards. But Sharpton and Jackson, they did their usual in order to deny Rush the ability to buy in to an NFL team, the same way they pushed for Imus to lose his job, they made vehement public statements, where they had no vested interest, in order to secure a particular outcome.
The law may not think so, I understand how things work, but that on its face, common sense says MALICIOUS.
It’s pretty clear from his commentary today that no legal action is pending against anyone.
Dave “Chicken” Checketts.
To have him tell Rush that he was fully aware of what kind of blowback would happen when it was discovered Rush was included, that was all taken care of, and then fail to back him up, that is just so bad. And really, Soros is in his group? So these people, they won’t let a man whom is being lied about fund a franchise, but they’re more than happy to let a guy who confessed to sending Jews to their death, oh, that’s okay?
BTW, it looks like the Rams are boycotting winning. They're 0-5.
I wouldn’t have chosen Hiss not OJ as examples, but then again I don’t write books.
If he didn't want to be associated with Rush, why did he ask Rush to join him in the deal? Rush didn't approach him, he approached Rush and even after Rush told him what would probably happen he told Rush that he had it wired, the deal would go through and that he would stand by Rush no matter what. Well, the no matter what happened and he didn't even make a stand for Rush, just dropped him like a hot rock. Want a link? Go to Rush's Radio program right now, he is, or was, talking about it.
Levin just played clips of Sharpton’s radio show (who knew he had one?) Sharpton opened by speaking of the campaign he started against Rush on Monday. Yeah, he IS that dumb.
Last night O’Reilly had on 2 lawyers, from different backgrounds, yet both acknowledged that Rush had a cause of action, and now damages (tho he talked that down today on his own show). One of the lawyers said he should go for it or it would never end; the other said lawsuits would keep the issue in the foreground. But in both cases they were very clear that the slanders against him are actionable.
Rush himself seemed to be disinterested in law suits but he may rethink. Or, Rush being Rush, come up with something far more devastating to his opponents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.