I have a feeling the suit would not be slander/libel. I think David Spada was burning the midnight oil this weekend looking up the words "tortious interference with a contract".

I think Vann needs to call Murph when the Duke is on, to find out what Joe CrispyCremo thinks.

New to the board here, but I can tell you Mike would have to submit the tape in question and since the station is unwilling to replay it, I doubt that he would or could move forward with a case at this time.

Even if he filed under "tortious interference with a contract", while easier to prove then Slander / Libel, it is still very hard to prove. Not to mention that these letters didnt have a signature on them from what I have been told, that is another loophole and assuming that they were emailed, well, the law on that just get so hazy, the courts dont really want to waste their time.

The last comment is that a well off person going after some common Joe, good luck if it goes to trial, which it wouldnt and no judge is going to side with Mike without that tape.

Given the choice, I rather have Ronnie Woo-Woo represent me. Calling Murph would just give me a headache..lol.

Is there such thing as a counter suit?

I am not a lawyer, never been sued, never sued anyone, so just have no idea other than Judge Wopner years.

Isn't the reason some public figures don't sue is because part of the whole process opens their lives up for public consumption?

_________________
""I am now done at the Score."
Mike North, June 24, 2008

On a serious note, can someone with some law experience tell me why (or why not) this would be actionable in court? Is is because there was a reportedly misquoted passage in the letter to the sponsors and management? Or is it because it is being discussed on the message board?
If I were to write a letter to North's sponsors telling them I would not patronize their establishment because they advertise on a show that is a "bunch of garbage," would I potential face legal trouble? I guess I am wondering if it is the specifics involved in the letter that has legal action being talked about.

_________________
You cannot make me care about the WNBA.

In another thread, Good, Dolphin stated that Attorney Spada would be furiously looking up "Tortious Interference with Contract." I will save him the time.

Clarage v. Kuzma
342 Ill.App.3d 573, 795 N.E.2d 348
Ill.App. 3 Dist.,2003.

"In order to state a cause of action for tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) defendant's awareness of the contractual obligation; (3) defendant's intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach; (4) subsequent breach caused by defendant's unlawful conduct; and (5) damages."

I have some experience with this, but it has always been 2 business competitors. I presume that it would apply to our 3 brethren. However, was the exercise of one's right to contact a business and express displeasure with the content of a show that they sponsor "unjustified?" I don't think so. Also, there seems to be no indication that the sponsors have cancelled their account. Therefore, there wouldn't appear to be damages.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI