Bonds suing
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 |
28 comments
Comments
Bonds
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.
by Sarah Hope on Mar 24, 2006 10:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Right on,
by cubbiejulie on Mar 24, 2006 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
S.O.S.
by Kinky Reggae on Mar 24, 2006 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Quote...
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
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
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
Exactly
by indytaz on Mar 24, 2006 12:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
But...
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
by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How would he go about suing
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.
by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
kitty kelley
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 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...
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
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.
by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
just realized
by Will71081 on Mar 24, 2006 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Copntempt of court...
by NC Cubs Fan on Mar 24, 2006 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If they are
by tom in rochester on Mar 25, 2006 7:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Has anyone heard...
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.
by cubfan4life on Mar 24, 2006 12:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm wrong
by indytaz on Mar 24, 2006 2:53 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A few things 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
by TC Cubby on Mar 24, 2006 3:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
it is interesting
by gaius marius on Mar 24, 2006 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh C'mon
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
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...
by bison on Mar 24, 2006 10:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A bit of conversation with a guy
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
Very interesting...
I note that Bonds and his lawyers are also pursuing this issue in federal court. The law there may be different.
by Al on Mar 24, 2006 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















