OT: Kitchener Rangers plan to sue The Michigan Daily, Matt Slovin
So this story came out late last night, but the Kitchener Rangers are intending to make good on their earlier threat of Legal Action. One quote that I found interesting was:
“By people out there saying whatever the hell they want, with not having to back it up and hiding behind sources, that damaged us,” said Bienkowski (Rangers Chief Operating Officer). “I don’t take it personal but it’s frustrating. You work pretty hard to build what we think is an outstanding reputation in the CHL and then you have all this sort of stuff.”
Which is complete rubbish. The reputation of the CHL isn't to be tarnished based on one student reporter, especially since this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Hearing their reasoning behind another similar case is ridiculous too.
It’s not the first time the Rangers have been accused of paying to attract players. Three years ago, Notre Dame head coach Jeff Jackson told The Record he heard the Rangers offered $500,000 to American rearguard Cam Fowler, who had committed to attend the school. Fowler’s family denied the allegations but the damage was done. Bienkowski said, in the wake of reports, that the defenceman cancelled meetings with the Rangers and the club was forced to put him back into the OHL draft. Windsor scooped him up and the Michigan native played one season with the Spitfires and never attended Notre Dame.
They threatened legal action against Jackson but never followed up, my guess is now they think they have an easier case. From the story, the Daily and Slovin have yet to respond
Link: http://www.guelphmercury.com/sports/article/757933--rangers-sue-michiga…
A few weeks......and 3 years. That article is from 2009
Opps. :-) Thanks for catching that. Didn't even notice that it was 2009. Well, it's good to see they are making decent headway with that. :-)
Evidently it wasn't much of a crackdown. Just say'n.
What reputation? And as if there was ever a suit against the media for defamation that ever worked, how in the world do they imagine the Daily has more assets than their legal fees will cost?
This is all about scaring people off from reporting what pretty much everyone already knows. If the CHL has an "outstanding reputation," then Comcast is a "leader in customer service."
If you'd like some perspective from the other side of the border (including some interesting discussion but also a generous quantity of myopic self-deception) you can check out this thread on the inaccurately named "New OHL Open Forum."
Don't bother trying to register--I've tried to get on there for years, for entirely legitimate (hockey discussion, very little controversy) purposes, but they don't maintain the site very well.
The last thing you'll ever find at the NOOF is "perspective'
don't paint all of us with the same brush. i used to be a STH for Kitchener, actually live there but i do think this happened. i can see the Rangers offering the money but that's another story.
disclaimer: i've been a member here for a while, just don't post much. its for the football talk. it's coincidental my hockey team is screwing yours. so don't think i'm on here because you can't get on the noof.
i just felt compelled to write that there is at least one ranger fan that thinks a payment was offered to trouba. the same payment that was offered to Landeskog, Skinner, Boedker, Gibson, Unice, and any other high profile player.
It's very doubtful that Skinner got anywhere near what Trouba was offered. CHL teams know they don't need to pay Canadian kids like they do American kids. Skinner most likely got the gold education package and that's it.
They are filing the papers today in an Ontario court. Oh yeah, they are seeking 1 MILLION in damages. http://therecord.blogs.com/rangers_report/2012/07/rangers-seek-1m-in-damages.html
Canadian legal system? I lol'd.
This was just tweeted by the Kingston (OHL) head coach:
RT: @birkas613 Kitchener needs to let this one die. I don't think the CHL is so innocent
that's a Jr B team he's head coach of. the Frontenacs are the OHL team. but even a jr b team would have an idea what goes on at the OHL level.
That's Kingston of the OJHL. Different league. If Todd Gill (OHL Kingston's head coach) had said that, it'd be huge news.
Canadian defamation judgements against Americans are not collectible in the US under the SPEECH Act, have to be re-proven in US court.
So apparently the daily has nothing to worry about right now because even if they're somehow found guilty in Canada, they still have to be found guilty again in the US which is really, really not going to happen
On the other hand, I do have a new Most Hated OHL Team. See ya Plymouth
Proving, once again, that this has nothing to do with actual fact and everything to do with Kitchener's desire to have "good publicity" over this. They're banking on the Daily either cracking or not putting up a big fight in an Ontario Court.
What would really be fun would be a countersuit by the Daily here in the States. Unproductive, but hilarious.
Beaten to the punch by BlueAggie.
I would really enjoy a countersuit by the Daily as well. It would hilarious if they somehow won a countersuit for defamation because that's pretty much what Kitchener is trying to do here, push the little guy out of the way and declare "AHA! SEE! We would never pay players! See! The daily took it back so we're right!"
These legal threads are really stupid and basically just exercises in ego-stroking for the lawyers on this board.
The Michigan Daily getting sued clearly falls under on-topic rules for discussion on MGoBlog. Aside from that, you could say the same thing about football posts being ego-stroking exercises for football players/coaches, statistical analysis being ego-stroking material for those good at math, ect.
I'm not sure why you always complain about news being posted if it involves the legal system, but have no complaints for any other news posted on the board.
Gee, I dunno, it could be because it has nothing to do with sports. Or it could be because the same information is repeated over and over again, very little of it being insightful. Sorry, I find people beating their chests over their professions to be extremely annoying. This thread is little more than a circle jerk for the MGoLawyers.
Maybe you could make a circle jerk thread for professional haunters.
The article was relevant. The thread on the legal issue is not.
I prefer to think of it as insightfulness from people who are in a profession that I know nothing about
But if you wanna be a negative nancy then go right ahead
Are they even aware that the Daily is a college student newspaper, not a professional news outfit? (Don't get me wrong, I love the Daily, but I mean really...)
If you follow me on Twitter (@twharry), you've already heard all of this, so ignore. If not, this is what I found:
- Kitchener has no case under US law. The threshold as I understand it is that Slovin had to have believed what his source said was true when he wrote the article. If he did, then he's in the clear. Whether the allegations are true or not is irrelevant if this case were being heard in the US.
- Kitchener filed in Canada, so the above doesn't matter.
- Canada has some of the worst, most restrictive libel laws in the western world. The burden of proof lies with the accused, so the defendant is already assumed to be guilty going into the case.
- In Canada, you can be found guilty of libel or defamation even if what you said was true.
- Slovin's article adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Canadian Association of Journalists ethics guidelines, and that plays a role in determining whether or not someone is guilty of libel in Canadian courts.
- The Canadian Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto rejected the actual malice standard common in the rest of the English-speaking world. The court opined that there was no evidence that rejecting actual malice had any sort of chilling effect on Canadian journalism. It was a very unpopular decision (and rightfully so - under this ruling, whistleblowers could be sued) and Canadian legal scholars are trying to fix it.
- Canadian courts usually require affadavit proof of publication within the province where the libel is alleged. So unless the Daily is published in Ontario, I don't see how a Canadian court could have jurisdiction.
- None of the above really matters. Under the SPEECH Act, foreign libel judgments are unenforceable in US courts unless they are re-tried in an American court and found Constitutional. So Kitchener can sue Slovin/Daily and Slovin/Daily could choose not to fight the case at all, Kitchener could win the case and they won't get a single dime of the judgment because they would have to then bring the case before a US judge and win that as well. And under US law, I don't see how there's a case.
So why is Kitchener suing? I think there are a few reasons.
First, they're trying to find their leak. These stories keep coming out, and they want to know who is spilling the beans. I think they suspect Trouba's agent/advisor.
Second, I think they want to intimidate the media to keep them from reporting these stories in the future.
Finally, I think they saw a college kid and a student newspaper and thought this would be a cake walk. They bluffed by saying that they might sue, trying to get the Daily to retract. When the Daily called their bluff, they were too immature, petty and insecure to shake it off.
Kitchener has really screwed the pooch this time.
I agree with your first two points about why Kitchener is suing, but not so much your third point. As others have said, this is about p.r. If the Canadain court allows the case to proceed, it sounds like Kitchener would likely prevail because of the way the law is written in Canada and why would anyone invest money in fighting an unenforceable settlement? Then Kitchener can go around trumpeting that they've won a million dollar settlement against those meanies who are making up lies about them. It doesn't matter that the results won't mean dippity doo because it's not really about the law at all; it's about public opinion.
Besides, even if the Daily has to pay, it will come down to something like this: "I do have to fine you. That will be a thousand dollars Canadian, or 10 American dollars if you prefer.".
- In Canada, you can be found guilty of libel or defamation even if what you said was true.
I am having a hard time grasping this concept in relation to Canada. They don't believe that the truth shall make you free?
Nope. It's Canada.