Bonds suing

by indytaz on Mar 24, 2006 10:05 AM CST Comment 28 comments

I see that Barry Bonds' lawyers are entering a lawsuit to stop the sale of the new book written by the San Francisco writers. Not only that, but to make sure these two writers dont make a dime off the book. Now, according to ESPN's write up about it, (Sorry, I havent learned the tag thing yet since this is my first post), the interesting thing is, they are not suing because of liable or false accusations, they are suing because they say the two writers have illegially obtained grand jury testimony. What does that tell you.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bonds

It tells me that "stop being a jackass" didn't make Bonds' to-do list this year.

I can't wait until he is such old news that he is forced to be exiled to some deserted island where he can wean himself off of the 'roids with an exorbitant amount of peyote and entertain himself by monitoring the shrinking of the muscles in his head.

she

by Sarah Hope on Mar 24, 2006 10:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Right on,

sista.

"Aw, how could he lose the ball in the sun, he's from Mexico!"--Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on Mar 24, 2006 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

S.O.S.

IMO. Nothing new here.

Anyone can have a bad century...

by Kinky Reggae on Mar 24, 2006 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Quote...

... from this article about the lawsuit:

Lisa Johnson, a spokeswoman for publisher Gotham Books, said the publisher supports both authors. "We at Gotham Books are shocked that Barry Bonds would take such a foolish step," she said. "Any respected First Amendment lawyer in America knows that his claim is nonsense."

Yup. Bonds' suit is "nonsense". That's about the nicest thing you could say about it.

It'll be laughed out of court.

by Al on Mar 24, 2006 11:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

you'll note

that gotham and the authors had no idea, in their quotes, what the suit was even about and under what law it was being brought. their comments are essentially null, including the free speech comments. (bonds isn't the government and can't deny anyone their first amendment rights -- it's horseshit to even claim those rights are being jeopardized.)

i'm not a california lawyer -- but it does definitely appear that the authors published information from sealed court documents -- a violation of ca penal code 938.1 which is punishable as contempt of court.

does that entitle them to the profits? damned if i know. but an injunction against the book may well be in the cards.

by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The books lawyers DID know what the suit said

and it IS nonsense. Sealed records, classified documents
grand jury testimony are used all the time in books,
newspapers etc and it is a First Amendent issue. The
only real issue would be if the writers themselves had
personally participated in getting these documents illegally
but that is a case for the govenment which decided not to
pursue this. In fact one of the nuttier aspects is that
Bond's lawyer is asking the court to force the government
prosecutors to in fact indict them for refusing to divulge
how they got the papers. Please tell me what legal
sense it makes a civil case to require the government to
pursue a criminal case?
There is no way for Bonds to stop the book from being sold
or claim the profits ( what he is asking th court) His lawyers
are desperately trying to appease him by bringing a
worthless case which assures he will not have to be
deposed

by jessica on Mar 24, 2006 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

could very well be, jessica

by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

my point. He is not suing becuase the book is telling lies about him. He is not disputting what is in the book, but how that information got into the writers hands. This is what makes the lawsuit stupid, the lawyers know that this is the only way to stop the book because it is factual. And Barry and his lawyers are all but admitting it by suing the writers for were they got the information instead of the information itself.

First Boston, then the White Sox, its now the Cubs turn.

by indytaz on Mar 24, 2006 12:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

But...

... that's exactly what I wrote.

The writers didn't do anything wrong, and the court will find as such.

All Bonds is doing is making his lawyers rich.

by Al on Mar 24, 2006 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not too sure about that

they may well be in contempt of court, yes?

by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How would he go about suing

for what they said about him? Have you ever heard of kitty kelly and her book about the Bush family or Nancy Reagan? Even though I am no fan of either of those, I'm pretty sure what she said in those books was not 100% true, probably not even 50% true.

These guys are going after Bonds, so I don't fault him for trying to prevent from their attempt to get rich off of their stories about him.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

kitty kelley

didn't use sealed grand jury testimony in her book. that's the difference. bonds will ask for a temporary restraining order in california state court to halt distribution of the book on the grounds that its contents are illegal; then he plans to ask a federal judge to institute contempt proceedings against the authors for that same reason.

now, he may not have a leg to stand on -- i don't know. but the premise of his suit isn't to attack anyone's rights.

by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

IF...

... the documents were obtained illegally, then Bonds may have a case.

The fact that the publisher, plus the SF Chronicle, were so vehement in their defense of the authors, make me believe that they are the ones who have a leg to stand on, not Bonds.

We'll see how this plays out in court.

by Al on Mar 24, 2006 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta agree with gaius...

...on this one.

The point of the suit isn't to attack anyone's credibility (or the credibility of the conclusions presented in the book), but to question the means by which the information was gathered in the first place.

Now, I don't know the particulars, so I won't speculate on how this is going to play out; but I DO know that if the authors released information they gathered from sealed grand jury testimony, then they broke the law. Plain and simple.

If, in the opinion of the court, there is the appearance that the authors MAY have done something wrong, then I'd imagine that you'll soon see an injunction issued by state court that prevents further publishing of the book while the issue is hashed out in court. Whether or not the publisher will have to recall or pull all the existing unsold books off store shelves will probably be up to the court, but I wouldn't put it past a judge to order something like that.

Regardless of what happens, we've definitely not seen the last of this issue...

by Santos L Halper on Mar 24, 2006 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was my point

Some commenters above were using the fact that Bonds was not suing for libel, although I believe it would be slander(since it was written) was evidence that he did not dispute the charges made against him.

My reference to Kitty Kelly was intended to show the type of distortions that can be printed without enabling a legal challenge.

Thus I believe that the tactic Bonds' attorney is using is the only viable one he has. I believe he has every right to attack those people who are attempting to profit by tarnishing his record.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

just realized

that I switched libel and slander, but my comments still stand.

"You know what God told the cubs. Don't do anything until I get back!" Pete Rose

by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Copntempt of court...

would be an offense against the Court - not Barry Bonds

Go Cubbies!

by NC Cubs Fan on Mar 24, 2006 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If they are

then it's up to a federal court to deal with them, not Bonds. His suit makes it sound as though he's defending the grand jury system, when n reality he's trying to cover his tarnished ass. How patriotic of him!

Whatever happened to Van Lingo Mungo?

by tom in rochester on Mar 25, 2006 7:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Has anyone heard...

...about the Cubs Babe Ruth Hall of Fame Jersey promotion this year? They are hoping the promotion coincides with Bond's passing Ruth. Why should the Cubs be celebrating this jerk's accomplishments?

I have a feeling that the Giant ownership is hoping Selig comes down on Bonds so they down have to celebrate his steroid induced achievement. They know the fans see the transparency of such a celebration.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on Mar 24, 2006 12:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong

on this, but werent these sealed documents already leaked to the public right after the investigation into Balco. And if the lawyers and such decide not to go after the leaks then, doesnt that then make it public record? If the writers used information that was leaked legially or illegially, but not by them in the first place, then how does the law handle that?

First Boston, then the White Sox, its now the Cubs turn.

by indytaz on Mar 24, 2006 2:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

A few things here

Gotham's quote about the First Amendment is an appropriate response to a libel or slander case (where the ultimate defense is the truth of the allegation), but that is not Bond's claim here.

When I talk with other lawyers about this, they are universally disgusted that the information comes from a grand jury proceeding--that's a big no-no. The rights being protected are for every person testifying to be able to speak freely without fearing exactly what has happened here.

The temporary injunction, as I understand it, is asking the Court to prevent the writers from profiting from and publishing information that was obtained illegally.

I don't know what the law is on this--certainly an interesting case, and not a slam dunk for the authors like it would be if it were a libel or slander case.

by TC Cubby on Mar 24, 2006 3:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Temporary restraining order

was just denied:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2382588

by TC Cubby on Mar 24, 2006 3:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

it is interesting

to see how individual rights and freedoms have come to take such convincing primacy over law and its protections in our society. it isn't as though the sealing of grand jury testimony is done pointlessly.

by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh C'mon

Proscutors leak grand jury testimony so often it is a JOKE
In cased ranging from Massoui ( sure I spelled that wrong)
to the current NYC case of the murdered grad student
the papers ARE FILLED with leaked grand jury info.
Kind of like being "shocked, shocked" that there is gambling
at Rick's place.

It is also worth noting that in addition to suing the authors
of the book Bond's was suing both the Chronicle and
SI for printing excerpts. This is absolutely positively
a First Amendmant case and try to imagine what would happen
if you could successfully sue authors for using "classified" sources. Every corrupt government officical and litigious
celebrity could keep from being exposed

by jessica on Mar 24, 2006 3:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ok Barry was really bitch slapped here

Judge ruled in 50 minutes and set no date for a follow
up hearing. But here is a priceless quote from one of
Bond's lawyers in a their OTHER legal case asking another
judge to hold the writers in contempt
"We are confident that when the public learns that allegations written by the authors as fact are based on unsupported fabrications by extortionists and demonstrated liars, the public will fully understand the extent to which they have been misled,'' Wilkinson said in the letter. She did not elaborate.

Incidently Barry had better be VERY careful what he
wishes for. If he pushes for the reporters to be criminally
charged with failure to disclose how they got the grand jury
testimony ( which is the ONLY thing they can be charged with)
you think the prosecutor might consider going after Barry
for perjury. He should let sleeping dogs lie

FYI The Chronicle has asked the court to declare the suit
frivilous and require Bonds to pay all legal fees.

Barry Bonds helping the public understand
that the First Amendment protects writers who use
grand jury and other "illegal" material is a good thing.
Not up there with Anna Nicole Smith helping strengthen
the role of Federal courts in probate and other cases but
still good

by jessica on Mar 24, 2006 5:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

An extended audio interview...

with Bonds' lawyer is here if anyone is interested. Gave me some insight into what they were thinking in filing this lawsuit. But bring a few grains of salt.

by bison on Mar 24, 2006 10:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

A bit of conversation with a guy

who works in California law is here:
http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2006/03/tar-baby.html

It's only a post and six comments, won't take long to read, but it's interesting to see what hoops Bonds' lawyers will probably need to jump through according to California law.

by helen on Mar 24, 2006 10:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs