:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/33279949/20130404_jla_am8_007.0.jpg)
Hey, remember the whole Bernie Fine thing? No? No idea what I'm talking about?
Ignorance is bliss.
Even though the defamation case against Jim Boeheim has been thrown out not once but twice by lower courts, Mike Lang and Bobby Davis will now take their case to the New York State Court of Appeals and oral arguments will be heard on September 9.
So how can Lang & Davis's lawyer expect to triumph here where they haven't in lower courts? The Daily Orange broke down the 57-page plaintiff's brief to find out what kind of argument they'll be making:
Wang contends that Boeheim’s statements are provable statements of facts. Just because he used "rhetorical flourishes or questions or prefaced his statements with ‘I believe’" does not make his statements an opinion.
Arguing that something beginning with "I believe..." isn't an opinion is the most lawyery thing I've ever heard of.
Meanwhile, Boeheim's lawyers will be arguing that the coach was reacting to the situation in the context of everything else that was happening in the world at that moment.
Cantwell argues that the lower courts correctly determined the context of Boeheim’s statements. Reading the full news articles in which Boeheim’s statements appear make it clear that he was only expressing an opinion as he is frequently described as being "emotional" and "defensive." The brief also states that the Penn State scandal is relevant to context. The Syracuse allegations broke just days after the events at Penn State and the two incidents were frequently discussed together, the brief states.
Using the fact that Jim Boeheim is defensive and ornery as his legal defense just seems perfect.
This is also the moment where I always like to remind you that Mike Lang was "glad" he lost the initial case against Boeheim. Carry on, everyone.
