RealGM

You know, I've been sort of ... losing interest in the Redskins for awhile, but I'm starting to now actively hate them because of Dan Snyder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc- ... _blog.html

I can't believe that after the kerfluffle his initial douchebaggery created he CONTINUED with the lawsuit.

Dude is just the platonic ideal of a douchebag.

I could giving a flying fudge about Snyder, but I gotta strongly disagree with you Zonk. One of the main purposes of having courts is to resolves disputes in a civil and orderly fashion. That's what this is. If a case isn't worthy of the court, the judge can make that determination. In fact, some courts empower judges to impose penalties on folks who bring frivolous cases to the court. If a case isn't frivolous, then I find it hard to criticise someone for using the court system for a purpose that it was intended.

I don't think the court system was intended to abridge free speech. The worst part of Snyder's suing is he admits his attempt was not to win the case, but to get a response due to the desire to avoid litigation.

If you are using a lawsuit to resolve a dispute, that is justified. If the purpose of the lawsuit is to threaten the defendant with legal fees, that is an abuse of the legal system. In some cases, a judge can make a plaintiff pay the defendant's court costs, but that is not a guaranteed outcome.

verbal8 wrote:I don't think the court system was intended to abridge free speech. The worst part of Snyder's suing is he admits his attempt was not to win the case, but to get a response due to the desire to avoid litigation.

If you are using a lawsuit to resolve a dispute, that is justified. If the purpose of the lawsuit is to threaten the defendant with legal fees, that is an abuse of the legal system. In some cases, a judge can make a plaintiff pay the defendant's court costs, but that is not a guaranteed outcome.

I don't know any of the details of the case and don't have any interest whatsoever in what they are, but... I assume the case is about slander. I certainly hope free speach doesn't include the right to libel or slander people. And whether or not there was libel would be up to the court system to decide. Right?

Yeah, you have to read the article. Basically Snyder's lawyer says "We know this case has no merit but we have deep pockets and you don't, so you have to do what we say or bankrupt yourselves defending this absolutely baseless lawsuit."

More fuel for the fire:

Take the time Redskins general counsel Dave Donovan went to his first away game at the St. Louis Rams’ domed stadium. Snyder and Schar saw him calling his wife and family on his cell phone to say how cool it was to be in the stadium before the game. They called the head of security and asked him to send two cops and “arrest” Donovan, saying it was illegal to use a cell phone in the stadium.

Donovan was escorted across the field. It wasn’t until he got to the other sideline that they told him it was a joke.

“We were laughing so hard we almost peed in our pants,” says Snyder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc- ... _blog.html

Zonkerbl wrote:Yeah, you have to read the article. Basically Snyder's lawyer says "We know this case has no merit but we have deep pockets and you don't, so you have to do what we say or bankrupt yourselves defending this absolutely baseless lawsuit."

Courts allowing a case to go to trial doesn't mean the case really has merit, any more than than a guilty or innocent verdict means that defendant is really guilty or innocent.

I've been following this case in other articles, and this one further cements my opinion. I agree with your summary above. A rich man using his money to stifle free speech. I rarely even watch football anymore, and I never watch Snyder's team. To me, he ruined it. And he seems a total jerk. And he'll probably sue me.

And this is the first time I've ever posted in this forum. Pretty cool.

I don't think he sucks as an owner although this right here is definitly another example of where he doesn't have everything I would want in an owner.

Zonkerbl wrote:Yeah, you have to read the article. Basically Snyder's lawyer says "We know this case has no merit but we have deep pockets and you don't, so you have to do what we say or bankrupt yourselves defending this absolutely baseless lawsuit."

Thankfully, I have the right to not read the article, and I'm really happy to exercise that right.

Did this get thrown out?

[edit: No, Snyder dropped it. Good for him, I guess :eyeroll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... _blog.html

]

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's a quote from a letter from former Redskins chief counsel David Donovan to CityPaper:

“Mr. Snyder has more than sufficient means to protect his reputation,” Donovan wrote at the time. “We presume that defending such litigation would not be a rational strategy for [a company] such as yours. Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper.”

So basically they said win or lose we intend to bankrupt you. He may be legally entitled to do this but it's just a mean, petty thing to do, an abuse of power. This is why poor people hate rich people.

I was astonished when Synder filed this lawsuit. The City Paper is puny. Almost no one even read this article -- until Snyder filed the lawsuit.

Don't care what he does, sounds like he was just bored. I'd rather have an owner who's willing to spend money on his team rather than an owner who sits back and just collects the $ for himself. Now granted it hasn't worked out at all for us, but at least he's trying.

I think Dan may have finally learned how to be an effective owner of a sports franchise.

Lets not forget, this was his first crack at something like this.

After all these years, I finally feel like this team is rebuilding the right way. I really like the young talent they have and I like the coaching staff.