forums

Urban Caught lying..... Surprise!

I'd go over to the Buckeye website and troll them, but I got banned for bringing up two words: Maurice Clarett, when their last HC was dealing with Tattoogate.
 
Advertisement
Screenshot_20180802-093820_Chrome.webp
 
Pickle Richt said:
I'm not a lawyer, and you obviously have a background but I don't see why this would not qualify as a reckless disregard of the truth. This is damning and career threatening. If true, Meyer will never coach again. If false, a man's reputation is potentially shattered over a falsehood. Seems pretty cut and dry, but again, not a lawyer. Your logic for why he would not file the lawsuit makes sense though.
Click to expand...

Reckless disregard of the truth would need Meyer to prove that McMurphy (1) had clear-cut evidence that Meyer did not, in fact, know about the accusations, and (2) nevertheless published the story. Just because a story is damning and ruins someone career doesn't make it defamation.

McMurphy is also protected by the truth. Although this is just my opinion, if Shelley knew, then Urban knew. And a jury will most likely find it hard to believe that she never once mentioned it to him, especially in light of the fact that Meyer sent some of his "mentors" to talk Courtney Smith out of pressing charges in 2009. That demonstrates actual knowledge, and I'm sure with some digging, the same could be said of 2015.
 
Colombie said:
Notre Dame makes sense.

I was thinking LSU because SEC, they won't stick with Orgeron for too much longer, and they want someone who is proven against Saban.

F$U I don't think makes much sense but you never know.
Click to expand...
I think most of us on this board would agree that UF, OSU and ND make up the Anti-Christ Triad of College Football. I despise all three and root against them anytime they play. That said, ND would not in a million years hire a guy with this much negative baggage. Not gonna happen. Not now. Not ever. LSU or any other SEC school (save for Vanderbilt) on the other hand...........................................................................
 
Advertisement
Ghostcane said:
I think most of us on this board would agree that UF, OSU and ND make up the Anti-Christ Triad of College Football. I despise all three and root against them anytime they play. That said, ND would not in a million years hire a guy with this much negative baggage. Not gonna happen. Not now. Not ever. LSU or any other SEC school (save for Vanderbilt) on the other hand...........................................................................
Click to expand...

agree, LSwho would prolly hire him in a minute, they have no standards
 
Katzenboyer said:
Reckless disregard of the truth would need Meyer to prove that McMurphy (1) had clear-cut evidence that Meyer did not, in fact, know about the accusations, and (2) nevertheless published the story. Just because a story is damning and ruins someone career doesn't make it defamation.

McMurphy is also protected by the truth. Although this is just my opinion, if Shelley knew, then Urban knew. And a jury will most likely find it hard to believe that she never once mentioned it to him, especially in light of the fact that Meyer sent some of his "mentors" to talk Courtney Smith out of pressing charges in 2009. That demonstrates actual knowledge, and I'm sure with some digging, the same could be said of 2015.
Click to expand...

That's why I was saying that if his report was true Meyer would be fired and if it was false, with McMurphy straight out saying "Meyer knew" that he was at risk of a defamation lawsuit. Obviously as events have unfolded we've seen that the report is true and Meyer will be fired. Meyer called out McMurphy last week as a hack saying that he made up the Smith story in the first place. It would be pretty easy to prove malicious intent at that point, I would think, as it would have been an obvious retribution attempt to ruin Urban's career. Whether or not it would succeed, who knows it's a moot point because the story is true and he will be fired.
 
Last edited:
This fired coach will never coach again at any level, does he go for it all and become a whistle blower for all things scandal at Ohio State (cover ups, bagmen, etc.) I hope so.
 
Advertisement
Pickle Richt said:
That's why I was saying that if his report was true Meyer would be fired and if it was false, with McMurphy straight out saying "Meyer knew" that he was at risk of a defamation lawsuit. Obviously as events have unfolded we've seen that the report is true and Meyer will be fired. Meyer called out McMurphy last week as a hack saying that he made up the Smith story in the first place. It would be pretty easy to prove malicious intent at that point, I would think, as it would have been an obvious retribution attempt to ruin Urban's career. Whether or not it would succeed, who knows it's a moot point because the story is true and he will be fired.
Click to expand...


It just makes the brain hurt to read your postings. Can't you be content to read the perfectly well-written explanations you have been provided, and then move on?

You are confusing simple things.

There is no such thing as "malicious intent". You have invented a concept that does not exist. According to you, Reporter 1 can write a story, Story Subject 2 can call it false, and then any further reporting by Reporter 1 is "malicious intent" and "an obvious retribution attempt".

No. Not how it works.

As described multiple times above, "actual malice" is a term that refers to a situation when a reporter has knowledge that the accusation is false (or recklessly disregards the knowledge that the accusation is false), and then prints it anyway. It does not refer to "state of mind". For instance, reporters for the National Enquirer may print falsehoods with no "malicious intent", they may actually like the subject of the article, but are merely trying to "sell more newspapers". Lawyers do not have to examine the true feelings of a reporter, though, they simply have to find evidence that the reporter knew the report was false and printed it anyway.

Furthermore, a reporter can continue to report on a story, even if the subject issues a denial. If your theory of "malicious intent" were to somehow be a thing, every subject of every report ever could preemptively deny any negative reports about themselves, and thus convert any future reporting into "malicious intent" and "an obvious retribution attempt".

Finally, McMurphy never "straight out" said "Meyer knew". He published texts from Shelley Meyers that said that she would,and/or had, discussed the issue with Urban Meyer.

Just read the prior postings, accept the knowledge of those who understand the law, and stop injecting your own misguided opinions into the mix. Urban Liar does not have, and will never have, a provable defamation case against McMurphy.

Unless, of course, you believe that McMurphy wrote himself an e-mail saying that he knew the story was false, but was going to print it anyhow (it is a self-published article, thus he did not have to correspond with his editor at a newspaper or TV outlet).

.
 
Back
Top