|
Instead of throwing out a catchy
introduction for this opinion/article like I used to do in my former life
as a sports journalist, I'm going to make an opinionated statement. Here
goes. What's with the litigious individuals in our society? Ok, that seems
like a rhetorical question coming from someone who makes his modest
living as an attorney, and I'll admit I've seen some odd lawsuits in my
time, and even participated in one here and there (don't get me started)
but now, in my opinion, we are at the point in the boxing universe where
the ground is starting to shake and open up, and if you look closely
enough, you might even see some characters making various deals with the
devil himself, clad in a tuxedo, claiming to be a man of wealth and taste
(Writer's note: You gotta love those Rolling Stones -And no, that devil
comment was not directed at anyone in particular, just a comment on the
state of affairs of boxing today).
Don't get me wrong, in my opinion, I've believed for
some time that Don King's primary motivation for remaining in boxing
is money. Green. Almighty dollar. Cash. Bling. Ok, and maybe Power, and
world-wide Recognition as well. Motivation for Don King was never a
problem. He motivated himself to the top of the boxing universe, where he
has reigned supreme to this day. I marvel at that, and give credit where
credit is due. Nobody can really touch King when it comes to promotion, be
it self or otherwise. Need more proof' Chavez. Ali. Frazier. Holmes.
Holyfield. Rahman. Trinidad. Oh, and that Tyson fellow. All champions. All
promoted by King at some point in time. Any way you slice it, he's the
King of promotion. And now the King is hiring himself some big name
heavyweights to do battle against Disney, ESPN, ABC, and Florida Cable
Carrier Advocate Communications in one of the most unlikely rings in the
country, Broward County Courthouse.
King has retained the services of clean-up hitting
lawyer 'Giant Killer' Willie Gary, a superb trial attorney who has a
reputation of trying complex cases against corporate giants , usually
resulting in big dollar verdicts. Gary will certainly be a force to be
reckoned with in combating this perceived injustice on behalf of King.
Joining the party is Bruce Rogow, a nationally renowned first amendment
specialist and trial attorney who will render his expert assistance with
respect to King's First Amendment rights as a public figure. The lawsuit
is claiming 2.5 billion dollars on the basis of a previously aired 'highly
defamatory and reckless broadcast' against King on a 'SportsCentury' show
which they claim depict King in a false light. Before we get to what was
actually said about King, (which you may feel free to agree or disagree
with) I'll give you a layman's basic state of the law. In order to sue for
a defamatory communication, you need a few things to occur. You need:
A false statement about an individual, or a statement
made with reckless disregard as to its truth or untruth;
This statement needs to be communicated to a third
party; AND
This statement must be understood AND BELIEVED by
said third party;
Which tends to lower the reputation/place in false
light the impugned party in question.
(Personal note-- For any attorneys reading this,
while it's not the actual legal definition, it's pretty close, and
made to be understood by everyone. If you don't believe me, pull out
those law school books and notes and re-read the definition you wrote
down. It's going to look something like the above.)
The stakes get raised when the person/people making the
comments are a newspaper, and the person they are allegedly defaming is a
noted public figure. Often, courts have held that this type of
dissemination of information against a private individual gives rise to a
First Amendment problem, and thus, a lawsuit. If every newspaper wrote
questionable stories about Tom Smith from down the street, then nobody
wanted to talk to or hire or be around Tom Smith, then Tom Smith, as a
private citizen, certainly has a right to sue the paper for the damage to
his reputation. And did I fail to mention that truth is an absolute
defense to a defamatory action' If what was said about Tom Smith, private
citizen, is true, and can be proved, then, 'the truth shall set you free.'
But it's almost always difficult to prove if something was said in a
defamatory light, which almost brings us up to date.
However, if you're talking about a public figure, then
you, as the public figure, need to prove the statements were made with
'Actual Malice,' which is another legal definitional hurdle. In order to
understand Actual Malice, just think about what the words really mean. You
actually intended harm to come to this person by making these false
statements against him. This is what Don King is trying to prove in his
2.5 billion dollar lawsuit. He's trying to prove that the 'SportsCentury'
piece which aired about him was in fact made with 'reckless broadcast
journalism and blatant disregard for the truth.' So what were the comments
which raised King's ire' According to the lawsuit news reported to date,
the program made references and accused King of being 'a snake oil
salesman and a shameless huckster.' Furthermore, the program claimed King
underpaid Ali by over one million dollars, threatened to break the legs of
former client Larry Holmes, and that he cheated former pro Meldrick Taylor
out of one million dollars, then threatened to have him killed.
Ok, so all these comments have led to the lawsuit. How
those comments could be considered as being made by ESPN with 'actual
malice' is not clear to me at this point, but I'm sure King's lawyers will
do their best to clarify for the Court exactly how malicious the comments
were as the litigation progresses. And while everyone focuses on the bad,
let's not forget King also is quite the philanthropist, having established
the Don King Foundation, which has donated millions of dollars to various
organizations and charities. He is an outspoken advocate of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NCAAP), Martin Luther
King, Jr. Foundation, and United Negro College Fund (UNCF). He has also
contributed significantly inside the ring, promoting some of the greatest
fights known to boxing history.
So here's another question. Why would King take it to
this level? The newspapers and media outlets are like the fourth branch of
government. As this fourth branch, they are allowed to disseminate
information to the public in order that the public be more informed. And
have certain protections in the dissemination of that information to the
public. The Founding Fathers of our nation saw to that. So what does King
hope to achieve by this soon-to-be-much-publicized suit against the
network conglomerates' More money' Maybe. More recognition' Perhaps.
Clearing up the allegations against him brought on by the program' Wouldn't be the first time a public figure might want to do this in a
public forum. King is 72 years young, and still going strong in the fight
business. In fact, it's likely that this lawsuit will only give him more
spotlight, which King excels at thriving in, and he will find a way to
come out smelling like roses, even if he voluntarily drops this lawsuit,
which does not look like a possibility on the horizon. This isn't the
first time Don King has sued someone, nor is it the first time he's been
involved in a lawsuit. That's truth, and most people are aware of that.
But hey, this lawsuit doesn't tarnish boxing's already
sullied reputation, it just adds to it. Look on the bright side, King's
lawsuit against the networks is the best heavyweight fight boxing fans
have seen in some time! Give me King vs. Networks over a
Klitschko/Ruiz/Byrd/Mesi/Whomever fight any day of the week. HBO can do
the commentary, and I look forward to who will have the upper hand with
respect to ring generalship. Someone call Orlando Cuellar and Buddy
McGirt, and tell them to bring some additional cutmen, this one's going to
get bloody before it's all said and done. I'm going to sit back, watch,
wait, and see what happens when the smoke clears.
1-15-2004
Here is a copy of the King lawsuit as released by DKP:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., CASE NO. _______________________
and DON KING,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC.,
ABC CABLE NETWORKS, ESPN, INC., and
ADVOCATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
(d/b/a ADVANCED CABLE COMMUNICATIONS),
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., and DON KING, individually, sue
Defendants, WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC., ABC CABLE NETWORKS, ESPN, INC., and
ADVOCATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (d/b/a ADVANCED CABLE COMMUNICATIONS), and
allege:
1. This is an action for damages that exceed $15,000.00.
2. At all times material, Plaintiff DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., was a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware,
with its principal place of business located at 501 Fairway Drive in the
City of Deerfield Beach, Florida.
3. Plaintiff DON KING is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. KING
is
the Chief
Executive Officer of DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC.
4. Upon information and belief, WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC., is a Delaware
corporation, having its principal place of business at 500 South Buena
Vista
Street, Burbank, California 91521. WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC., owns and
controls ABC CABLE NETWORKS, which is a California corporation, located
and
doing business at 3800 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, California 91505. ABC
CABLE NETWORKS, upon information and belief, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of
WALT DISNEY COMPANY, INC.
5. ABC CABLE NETWORKS owns and controls ESPN, INC., a sports network,
which
is a Delaware corporation, located and doing business at 935 Middle
Street,
Bristol, Connecticut 06010. As such, ESPN, INC., is a wholly owned
subsidiary of ABC CABLE NETWORKS.
6. ADVOCATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of
business
in Broward County, Florida.
7. ADVOCATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., is a cable and satellite system that
broadcasts ESPN through its cable television service to residents in Coral
Springs, Florida.
COUNT I
DEFAMATION
8. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 -
7 above.
9. The Defendants, on May 14, 1002, with malice and/or reckless disregard
for the
truth, published the following false and defamatory statements about DON
KING and DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., on the program Sports Century:
(a) That DON KING is a "snake oil salesman, a shameless huckster and
worse.
Not even the master of hype, P.T. Barnum, had more mischief up his sleeve
than fight promoter DON KING . . . .";
(b) That DON KING "went crazy and he threatened to kill . . . ." Jack
Newfield following a press conference;
(c) That DON KING threatened to break the legs of Larry Holmes, one of
King's fighters;
(d) That DON KING paid Holmes $20,000.00 less than the monetary amount
Holmes was entitled to receive;
(e) That DON KING cheated Meldrick Taylor, another fighter, by only paying
Taylor
$300,000.00 of the $1,300,000.00 Taylor was entitled to receive for a
rematch with Julio Cesar Chavez pursuant to contract;
(f) That DON KING threatened to have Meldrick Taylor killed;
(g) That DON KING's involvement with a charity boxing exhibition for
Forrest City Hospital resulted in the hospital only receiving $1,500.00 out of the
$85,000.00 received in ticket sales;
(h) That DON KING underpaid Muhammad Ali by $1,200,000.00;
(i) That DON KING lied in order to ensure Greg Page would sign a
contractual
agreement with King as his promoter by telling Page that prior to his
father's death he told King "I want to leave Greg in your hands, Don";
(j) That DON KING convinced doctors at a hospital to invest in a movie
about
his life and that King left the hospital two weeks later "with a cashiers
check for $250,000.00." Although "[T]he movie never got made" . . . . [T]he
doctors never got their money back."
10. The published statements set forth above were false, defamatory,
published
maliciously and/or with reckless disregard for the truth. Their further
broadcast by ADVOCATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.: Is actionable because ADVOCATE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., failed to exercise due care to prevent the false and
defamatory publication of the statements set forth above. As a result,
DON
KING and DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC.'s business reputation has been injured
and the Plaintiffs have lost contracts, financing opportunities, job
opportunities, suffered delay in obtaining job opportunities and have been
deprived of profits that would have otherwise been obtainable.
11. In December 2004, Plaintiffs served Defendants with written notices
pursuant to Section 770.01 of the Florida Statutes, specifying the
statements that were false and defamatory and demanding corrections and a
retraction of the above described statements. Defendants have failed to
publish corrections and a retraction as of the date of the filing of this
Complaint.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the publication of the falsehoods
set forth above,
the Plaintiffs, DON KING and DON KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., have suffered
damages to their reputation and business interests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment for damages and costs and for such
other and further relief as may be just and proper.
COUNT II
DON KING'S FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
13. Plaintiff, DON KING, hereby incorporates by reference the allegations
set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 7 above.
14. The Defendants, on May 14, 2004, on Sports Century, published
statements
that
intentionally and recklessly portrayed DON KING in a false light by
stating
that KING "killed not once but twice"; that he "hunted down" a man and
"beat him to death over $600.00"; and that the "United States Attorney's
office in New York tried for years to nail King, spent millions of dollars
investigating him. They couldn't nail him. He is smarter than everybody
else. He's smarter than the prosecutors. He was smarter than Rudy
Giuliani."
15. The publication of the facts set forth in paragraph 14 was done with
actual
knowledge of the false light in which DON KING would be cast and with
reckless disregard for the effect the publication would have. ADVOCATE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., failed to exercise due care to prevent the
publication
of the false light statements.
16. The Defendants, on May 14, 2004, on Sports Century, published
statements
that
intentionally and recklessly portrayed DON KING in a false light by
creating
an inference and innuendo that DON KING was dishonest and engaged in
illegal
activities including physically endangering others in order to succeed in
his profession. These published statements include:
- Lou Dibella: "by his con."
- Mike Marley: "this guy could sell surfboards in Iowa. . . ." "he's one
of the greatest hustlers in the history of the world."
- Don Elbaum: "We put together four fighters to box ten rounds in an
exhibition. We did $85,000 which was a tremendous amount of money for an
exhibition. The hospital got $1,500 out of $85,000.
- Warren Flagg: "Don didn't get convicted because Don didn't personally do
that stuff. He always instructed somebody else to do it."
- Unidentified Male: "If the partnership gleaned hundreds of millions over
the next decade, the split was less than even."
- Unidentified Male: "Giachetti told me he was calling from a phone booth
on
the corner, and that he was afraid for his life. He truly believed Don
King, through underworld connections, had put out a contract."
- Clarence Rodgers: "one time a fighter challenged Don to a fight, and Don
stood up and was prepared to do it. And then I think in the back of this
fighter's mind . . . hey, this man killed somebody, so maybe I better
leave
him alone."
- Unidentified Male: "Don King killed not once, but twice. In 1954 it was
ruled justifiable homicide when he shot a man who stole the receipts of
one
of his numbers houses. But 12 years later, when the 34 year old was
involved in a second killing, he would face serious consequences."
"King believed Sam Garrett owed him $600. King hunted Garrett down in a
bar
on Cedar Avenue in the middle of the day. He pulled Garrett out of the
bar
and beat him to death."
As a direct and proximate result of the statements set forth in paragraphs
14 and 16 above, DON KING was cast in a false light and has suffered
damage
to his right to privacy and his reputation in the community.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff DON KING requests judgment for damages, costs and for
such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
REQUESTED RELIEF
(a) For judgment against the Defendants on Count I of Plaintiff's DON KING
and DON KING PRODUCTION, INC.'s Complaint for compensatory and all other
damages recoverable by law;
(b) For judgment against the Defendants on Count II of Plaintiff DON
KING's
Complaint for compensatory and all other damages recoverable by law;
(c) That all costs of this action be taxed against the Defendants;
(d) For pre-judgment interest; and
(e) Jury trial is demanded.
|
