McQuaid to sue Kimmage? for €6000!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage writes for The Sunday Times whose owners are not enjoying a good time at the moment and their legal team is up to their necks with the 'hacking scandal'.

I imagine he ran it by them and they said not now. But L'Equipe are they not named or their journalist?
Kimmage doesn't write for the Times. He was let go.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
MarkvW said:
They're suing Kimmage for a relatively small sum and, from his statements in the article, Kimmage is planning on making no attempt to legally defend the lawsuit. You would think that Kimmage could just tell them to pound sand and let them go to the trouble of trying to collect their judgment.

But McQuaid and Verbruggen don't just get money if they win the lawsuit--they get a finding of fact that--because of certain specific things that Kimmage said--that Kimmage defamed them. If, after the lawsuit, Kimmage says those same specific things again then McQuaid and Verbruggen can sue Kimmage again (for a lot more money, perhaps) and Kimmage is going to be precluded from arguing that the statements are not defamatory.

Don't let the small amount cause you to think that this is insignificant. It is a plain attempt by the UCI to choke off a media critic.
Don't know about Swiss law but Counselor are you aware in most jurisdictions of the world default judgments can be set aside?

I would have my doubts that both Verbruggen and McQuaid, in their personal capacities and not on behalf of the UCI, can commence legal action against a Swiss non resident who allegedly defamed them in Swiss non resident and circulating newspapers.

What they are doing is called "forum shopping" with one intent to inconvenience the defendant to prepare and file a defense.

Armstrong took action against the Sunday Times because the newspaper was a resident of the UK and Uk's libel laws are the toughest in the world.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Velodude said:
Don't know about Swiss law but Counselor are you aware in most jurisdictions of the world default judgments can be set aside?

I would have my doubts that both Verbruggen and McQuaid, in their personal capacities and not on behalf of the UCI, can commence legal action against a Swiss non resident who allegedly defamed them in Swiss non resident and circulating newspapers.

What they are doing is called "forum shopping" with one intent to inconvenience the defendant to prepare and file a defense.

Armstrong took action against the Sunday Times because the newspaper was a resident of the UK and Uk's libel laws are the toughest in the world.
Thanks for the penetrating insight. Obviously under your analysis Kimmage has nothing to worry about! Well good for him, then!
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage has no defense, WTF are you talking about??

UCI are not corrupt?? You reall believe that BS, or are you speaking again from your yellow corner?
Thanks for putting words in my mouth! I knew I could count on you!
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
Kimmage doesn't write for the Times. He was let go.
But the contractual obligations, if any, would still exist if the Sunday Times published the article with Kimmage's name as an employed journalist.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
Problem being is proving it.

The donation alone doesn't prove much.

Kimmage would have to fly in Tyler & Floyd to Zurich but even then those two only have what Lance told them.

He could call Saugy but I don't think he'd bring much to the table.

Only the Feds & Interpol have the power to extract documents from various sources to get some form of evidence.

Paul doesn't have time or money or even the authority for all of that!

It's McQuaid attempting to silence the bulldog before the *** hits the fan in the US....
But being a civil case one would expect the standards of proof would be lower.

Just from McQuaid's reported screw up of changing facts about the timing and purposes of "donations" compared to Verbruggen's input of being only large amounts of cash then Armstrong's SCA floundering you present sufficient doubt that all funds from Armstrong to the UCI were accounted.

Depending upon Swiss law again, McQuaid & Verbruggen in filing evidence in support of their claims may open themselves up to be cross examined.

Kimmage could also subpoena box loads of UCI records that could embarrass Verbruggen & McQuaid past statements of fact to the media.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Velodude said:
But the contractual obligations, if any, would still exist if the Sunday Times published the article with Kimmage's name as an employed journalist.
Quote from Velonation piece linked above (post 11 by RR):

Kimmage states that the case appears to relate to an interview he gave l’Equipe during the summer, plus the French translation of the interview transcript with Floyd Landis that the website NYVelocity.com carried in January of last year. “They also mention the Sunday Times, but I don’t see how this actually covers anything from the Times piece,” he said.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
MarkvW said:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth! I knew I could count on you!
Well, could you clarify exactly what you meant?
As when I read your post that is what I assume you meant - and I do not think Benotti put "words in your mouth".

I though their question was accurate.

MarkvW said:
If they have filed suit, and if Kimmage doesn't defend, they win the lawsuit by default. Kimmage has stated that he's not defending because he cannot afford to defend. There is also the possibility that Kimmage is not defending because he has no defense and that he can't back up his statements. Perhaps it is a combination of the two.

I am surprised that Kimmage is not defending, and especially that he is not getting media funding to help him in his defense! From a media perspective the trial would be the greatest drama. I would have thought think it might be worth the investment in funding Kimmage's defense.
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage has no defense, WTF are you talking about??

UCI are not corrupt?? You reall believe that BS, or are you speaking again from your yellow corner?
 
Velodude said:
But being a civil case one would expect the standards of proof would be lower.

Just from McQuaid's reported screw up of changing facts about the timing and purposes of "donations" compared to Verbruggen's input of being only large amounts of cash then Armstrong's SCA floundering you present sufficient doubt that all funds from Armstrong to the UCI were accounted.

Depending upon Swiss law again, McQuaid & Verbruggen in filing evidence in support of their claims may open themselves up to be cross examined.

Kimmage could also subpoena box loads of UCI records that could embarrass Verbruggen & McQuaid past statements of fact to the media.
Interesting to note that once LeMond passed on his lawyers free of charge to Floyd then the UCI suit was never submitted against him.

Alas..

This will cost money even if Kimmage had a open and shut case - 50k just to go to trial. All documents have to be submitted before proceedings. The UCI would stall Kimmage's requests and lot of legal back and forth would go on. The UCI has unlimited funds. They can fight the case to the end of time if they wish - Kimmage cannot.

UCI 1 Kimmage 0
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Quote from Velonation piece linked above (post 11 by RR):

Thanks. Should have read that link.

Pat & Hein could be in dangerous waters if they obtain judgment, default or otherwise, against Kimmage and the Fed case against Armstrong later exposes that bribes were paid to McQuaid & Verbruggen.

In all jurisdictions that I know of judgments obtained by fraud can be set aside without a statute of limitations period.

Armstrong has that problem with the Sunday Times settlement as settlements are deemed judgments.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thehog said:
Interesting to note that once LeMond passed on his lawyers free of charge to Floyd then the UCI suit was never submitted against him.

Alas..

This will cost money even if Kimmage had a open and shut case - 50k just to go to trial. All documents have to be submitted before proceedings. The UCI would stall Kimmage's requests and lot of legal back and forth would go on. The UCI has unlimited funds. They can fight the case to the end of time if they wish - Kimmage cannot.

UCI 1 Kimmage 0
"UCI 1 Kimmage 0"

For what that is worth?? It will hardly impede on his life. He writes about a lot more than cycling nowadays.

No doubt he will take great pleasure putting to prose the whole shennagians when it comes out in the feds trial.
 
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage writes for The Sunday Times whose owners are not enjoying a good time at the moment and their legal team is up to their necks with the 'hacking scandal'.

I imagine he ran it by them and they said not now. But L'Equipe are they not named or their journalist?
Not anymore he doesn't.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Wonderboy has more twitter accounts then Floyd Landis. His speedo wearing alter ego

Juan Pelota @juanpelota

Shouldn't Pat and Hein know Irish plumbers don't have that kind of money?
 
hfer07 said:
I mean..... a 6K lawsuit? really? are PM & HV that foolish nowadays? the 6k will be spent on attorney's fees by the first week....
It doesn't cost them anything in the fees. The UCI (i.e. the federations) are picking up the tab.

Its not about the money.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
thehog said:
It doesn't cost them anything in the fees. The UCI (i.e. the federations) are picking up the tab.

Its not about the money.
Then the UCI Congress would put the argument that the UCI has been damaged and should be party to the proceedings.

Think Hein & Pat have acted alone to avoid UCI involvement and pitching for higher damages. Plus UCI may internally lobby for an investigation into the Verbruggen/Armstrong relationship as suggested years ago.

The low damages is strategic for Kimmage not to defend.

If Hein & Pat entered into judgment on default it could be a ticking time bomb if subsequently the Feds v Armstrong find that bribes had been paid to McQuaid & Verbruggen. It would be judgment obtained by fraud a la Sunday Times

My bet is that on default McQuaid & Verbruggen would use the time limits imposed by the Swiss Court before entering into judgment.

Edit: Missed it but UCI are in the mix for 8,000. Wonder if the management committee and Congress know about this action? They did not know about the findings of the Vrijman Report before it was prematurely released.
 
Cannot believe the UCI have endorsed this.

Perhaps another way of drawing out Landis or any other sources and the evidence they may have?

If JP is tweeting and patting McQuaid & Hein on the back then something is up...

Even if McQuaid and Hein were right it still a frivolous law suit. How does exactly prove that they've been damaged?

I wish it would go to court but the intent is obvious to tie up Kimmage and hit his finances...... nasty people those UCI.

If I was Kimmage I would keep with "this is protecting the omerta" line in the press.... and the donation that cannot be quantified.


Velodude said:
Then the UCI Congress would put the argument that the UCI has been damaged and should be party to the proceedings.

Think Hein & Pat have acted alone to avoid UCI involvement and pitching for higher damages. Plus UCI may internally lobby for an investigation into the Verbruggen/Armstrong relationship as suggested years ago.

The low damages is strategic for Kimmage not to defend.

If Hein & Pat entered into judgment on default it could be a ticking time bomb if subsequently the Feds v Armstrong find that bribes had been paid to McQuaid & Verbruggen. It would be judgment obtained by fraud a la Sunday Times

My bet is that on default McQuaid & Verbruggen would use the time limits imposed by the Swiss Court before entering into judgment.

Edit: Missed it but UCI are in the mix for 8,000. Wonder if the management committee and Congress know about this action? They did not know about the findings of the Vrijman Report before it was prematurely released.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
I listened to the Irish radio interview with Paul Kimmage followed by Pat's lame excuses.

As far as the Armstrong "donations" to UCI or Verbruggen or McQuaid Kimmage has a valid defense against a cause of action for defamation.

He was not the publisher of the alleged defamatory material. It was Floyd Landis in his emails which then ended up in various publications including RadioShack's website before Kimmage commented.

Verbruggen & McQuaid would be required to prove against Kimmage that he was aware Landis' statements were untrue.

Very difficult to prove untrue if Tyler Hamilton corroborated Armstrong's bribe boasts and Saugy from Swiss lab admits Armstrong had a "suspicious" EPO result.

Then you have McQuaid and Verbruggen all over the place explaining the timing, amounts, methods and purposes of Armstrong's donations.
 
thehog said:
It doesn't cost them anything in the fees. The UCI (i.e. the federations) are picking up the tab.

Its not about the money.
The Hog has called it right.

The point is to use Kimmage as the example to all others writers. It's a threat intended to generate fear among sportswriters. Don't write anything bad about the UCI or we're going to sue you personally and that will cost the lowly writer lots of money just to establish the writer's strategic options.

If Kimmage engages in the action, he'll be out probably 100,000 euro. Since the UCI is funding the action, they can afford to endlessly drag proceedings out generating hundreds of thousands of euros in legal fees without a trial ever happening.

This is a very common tactic in the U.S. between businesses. It's a smart move by Pat and Hein. They had lots of help coming up with this one. This sport is getting worse every day.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The Hog has called it right.

The point is to use Kimmage as the example to all others writers. It's a threat intended to generate fear among sportswriters. Don't write anything bad about the UCI or we're going to sue you personally and that will cost the lowly writer lots of money just to establish the writer's strategic options.

If Kimmage engages in the action, he'll be out probably 100,000 euro. Since the UCI is funding the action, they can afford to endlessly drag proceedings out generating hundreds of thousands of euros in legal fees without a trial ever happening.

This is a very common tactic in the U.S. between businesses. It's a smart move by Pat and Hein. They had lots of help coming up with this one. This sport is getting worse every day.
I fully agree with what you're saying, but I can't help but marvel at how shortsighted such a strategy is. Any sport depends upon its sportswriters to engage its public. Alienating sportswriters limits publicity and hurts the sport overall, I'd think.

It also tends to indicate that the UCI is a proprietary little fiefdom run by a few small people, and not much of a "big time sport."
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
MarkvW said:
I fully agree with what you're saying, but I can't help but marvel at how shortsighted such a strategy is. Any sport depends upon its sportswriters to engage its public. Alienating sportswriters limits publicity and hurts the sport overall, I'd think.

It also tends to indicate that the UCI is a proprietary little fiefdom run by a few small people, and not much of a "big time sport."
+1
I can't see the longterm use of this action. It might scare the small time writers on the short-term, but I see only damages on the long run
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS