"Vandy whistler says he was told to stop whistling or be ejected"

[Good2BGold]

Yeah, I’m going to stand up for the Vandy fans that were there. We were decidedly not subdued. I know I’m not the only one who lost his voice from all the yelling. It’s hard to sound loud when you are outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1 by the other team’s fans. And obviously they’ve moved the tv microphones away bc of the whistling.

As for Preacher, he was fine yesterday. It really was a good compromise and got rid of 95% of the non-game situation caused “I am here” type whistling. Hope he was still able to enjoy the game despite having to deal with the Omaha police at one point after our big rally. I also hope the compromise extends to home games.

OakparkDore, I didn't mean to malign the fans in attendance, and I apologize if it came off that way. But watching at home, as compared to every other game this season and I have watched all but a couple, the VU contingent was not as loud, and I didn't hear any coordinated cheering and clapping which usually happens when the whistlers are in action. So it was more than just being outnumbered by the MSU fans. The silencing of Preacher Franklin made a difference as far as VU fans' presence on the TV broadcast.

No worries Good2BGold, I didn’t take it that way. I’m just explaining that it was better than it probably sounded on tv. And there was still coordination, though we were a little slow on the early inning Come on JJs while everyone looked at each other.

Glad you're able to me there, man, and support the team.

[commadore]

So are you a lawyer? Because Preacher Franklin was advised by an actually attorney that he could sue if they eject him. And sure you can sue anyone for practically anything, but an attorney would hardly offer that advice if he didn't think Preacher had a legal leg to stand on.

Like I said, a bunch of Vandy Maniacs support this nonsense. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Am I a lawyer? No. Though I could be in a matter of a year or so, if I wanted. Am I a statistician that works with lawyers every single day? Yep. Right now I'm sitting in my office with 4 lawyers down the hall and 7 more paralegals around the corner in their cubicles. No, he cannot sue the stadium for removing him if they deem his whistling as excessive noise. Any attorney that told him that is a moron. You have to have incurred actual damages to sue someone. The only thing Preacher could possibly claim is that he is out the cost of a ticket, and even that goes out the window with any small disclaimer printed on the ticket or agreed upon in the fine print when he purchased the ticket. Do you actually think he is going to hire a lawyer and sue TD Ameritrade over the cost of a single game ticket? If you believe that, you're out of your mind. And I'll go ahead and level with you, I don't think Preacher Franklin has a "lawyer friend". I'd be willing to bet that he made that up for purposes of the story...because that's what people do when it's all about them.

Well, I AM a lawyer and I'd take his case in a heartbeat.

[commadore]

I only noticed it during the 4th inning. That's an improvement.

And by the way, we still won with almost no whistling. That proves it CAN be done.

Yeah, and I noticed the VU crowd was quieter than it had been at any game this season, so we lost something when they bullied Preacher Franklin.

Yeah, I’m going to stand up for the Vandy fans that were there. We were decidedly not subdued. I know I’m not the only one who lost his voice from all the yelling. It’s hard to sound loud when you are outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1 by the other team’s fans. And obviously they’ve moved the tv microphones away bc of the whistling.

As for Preacher, he was fine yesterday. It really was a good compromise and got rid of 95% of the non-game situation caused “I am here” type whistling. Hope he was still able to enjoy the game despite having to deal with the Omaha police at one point after our big rally. I also hope the compromise extends to home games.

I watched every second of the game on tv and after the big inning, the only cheering I heard was Maroon/White and Let's go Dogs. In the 9th I heard the Commodore faithful again.

[HopsLikeHolwerda]

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

You may be the most stubborn and misinformed person I've ever come across on a message board. First, I said "I think" which is definitely not going to hold up in court in a libel case. Second, has Preacher endured any financial hardship or actual damages because of my statement? No. No case. Third, at this point, I could simply argue that Preacher has made himself into a "public figure" and therefore would need to prove that I "knowingly" made a false and defamatory statement about him...which means he would have to prove that I knew he had a "lawyer friend" and said it anyway. Good luck with that. Based on those grounds, feel free to tell him. You really should at least read some legal definitions before spouting nonsense. Feel free to start with the legal definition of "public figure" and then explore "actual damages".

The idea that someone would levy an accusation of libel based on message board posts is probably the funniest and saddest thing I've seen on the internet, and that's saying something.

[HopsLikeHolwerda]

So are you a lawyer? Because Preacher Franklin was advised by an actually attorney that he could sue if they eject him. And sure you can sue anyone for practically anything, but an attorney would hardly offer that advice if he didn't think Preacher had a legal leg to stand on.

Like I said, a bunch of Vandy Maniacs support this nonsense. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Am I a lawyer? No. Though I could be in a matter of a year or so, if I wanted. Am I a statistician that works with lawyers every single day? Yep. Right now I'm sitting in my office with 4 lawyers down the hall and 7 more paralegals around the corner in their cubicles. No, he cannot sue the stadium for removing him if they deem his whistling as excessive noise. Any attorney that told him that is a moron. You have to have incurred actual damages to sue someone. The only thing Preacher could possibly claim is that he is out the cost of a ticket, and even that goes out the window with any small disclaimer printed on the ticket or agreed upon in the fine print when he purchased the ticket. Do you actually think he is going to hire a lawyer and sue TD Ameritrade over the cost of a single game ticket? If you believe that, you're out of your mind. And I'll go ahead and level with you, I don't think Preacher Franklin has a "lawyer friend". I'd be willing to bet that he made that up for purposes of the story...because that's what people do when it's all about them.

Well, I AM a lawyer and I'd take his case in a heartbeat.

On what grounds? I'm not smarting off. I'm genuinely curious.

[commadore]

Am I a lawyer? No. Though I could be in a matter of a year or so, if I wanted. Am I a statistician that works with lawyers every single day? Yep. Right now I'm sitting in my office with 4 lawyers down the hall and 7 more paralegals around the corner in their cubicles. No, he cannot sue the stadium for removing him if they deem his whistling as excessive noise. Any attorney that told him that is a moron. You have to have incurred actual damages to sue someone. The only thing Preacher could possibly claim is that he is out the cost of a ticket, and even that goes out the window with any small disclaimer printed on the ticket or agreed upon in the fine print when he purchased the ticket. Do you actually think he is going to hire a lawyer and sue TD Ameritrade over the cost of a single game ticket? If you believe that, you're out of your mind. And I'll go ahead and level with you, I don't think Preacher Franklin has a "lawyer friend". I'd be willing to bet that he made that up for purposes of the story...because that's what people do when it's all about them.

Well, I AM a lawyer and I'd take his case in a heartbeat.

On what grounds? I'm not smarting off. I'm genuinely curious.

Actually, there are a lot of grounds. The easiest is discrimination. Other people can make all the noise they want, but he cannot. He isn't using artificial noise makers. You may yell and scream and even say things I don't like. Should they throw you out. But over all, the one no one has mentioned, is the free speech argument. And before you call BS, go back and look at what has been sanctioned by the US Supreme Court as free speech. If, as the case went, I can wear a T-shirt to school in the 90s that says "F*** the Draft" then a little whistling is nothing. And there are 100s of cases supporting free speech, as long as it does not cause a panic (like yelling "fire" in a theater).

Some instances where it has been ruled a violation of free speech:
(1) Refusing to allow persons wearing political apparel at or near a polling place;
(2) Refusing trademarks to groups where the trademark disparages racial groups;
(3) Law barring sex offenders from social media
(4) Public employee demoted for exercising free speech at work; and
(5) Suspension of a child for wearing a T-shirt that said "F*** the Draft."
Note that Ameritrade Park is a public facility, thus a government facility. They are, therefore, subject to the First Amendment. Were this a private facility, they could kick out Corbin for arguing with an ump.

[commadore]

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

You may be the most stubborn and misinformed person I've ever come across on a message board. First, I said "I think" which is definitely not going to hold up in court in a libel case. Second, has Preacher endured any financial hardship or actual damages because of my statement? No. No case. Third, at this point, I could simply argue that Preacher has made himself into a "public figure" and therefore would need to prove that I "knowingly" made a false and defamatory statement about him...which means he would have to prove that I knew he had a "lawyer friend" and said it anyway. Good luck with that. Based on those grounds, feel free to tell him. You really should at least read some legal definitions before spouting nonsense. Feel free to start with the legal definition of "public figure" and then explore "actual damages".

The idea that someone would levy an accusation of libel based on message board posts is probably the funniest and saddest thing I've seen on the internet, and that's saying something.

Lots of them out there. See this: https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resour ... efamation/

[HopsLikeHolwerda]

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

You may be the most stubborn and misinformed person I've ever come across on a message board. First, I said "I think" which is definitely not going to hold up in court in a libel case. Second, has Preacher endured any financial hardship or actual damages because of my statement? No. No case. Third, at this point, I could simply argue that Preacher has made himself into a "public figure" and therefore would need to prove that I "knowingly" made a false and defamatory statement about him...which means he would have to prove that I knew he had a "lawyer friend" and said it anyway. Good luck with that. Based on those grounds, feel free to tell him. You really should at least read some legal definitions before spouting nonsense. Feel free to start with the legal definition of "public figure" and then explore "actual damages".

The idea that someone would levy an accusation of libel based on message board posts is probably the funniest and saddest thing I've seen on the internet, and that's saying something.

Lots of them out there. See this: https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resour ... efamation/

Interesting article.

Of note...

"For example, if you were to say “I think you’re a liar,” the courts would most likely see this as a statement of opinion. On the other hand, saying “You are a liar,” would make it sound like you’re trying to pass it off as fact, therefore making it defamation worthy."

Stating that "I'd be willing to bet..." clearly indicates I'm expressing my opinion on the matter and not stating it as a fact in a malicious manner. Thanks for the clarification.

[HopsLikeHolwerda]

Well, I AM a lawyer and I'd take his case in a heartbeat.

On what grounds? I'm not smarting off. I'm genuinely curious.

Actually, there are a lot of grounds. The easiest is discrimination. Other people can make all the noise they want, but he cannot. He isn't using artificial noise makers. You may yell and scream and even say things I don't like. Should they throw you out. But over all, the one no one has mentioned, is the free speech argument. And before you call BS, go back and look at what has been sanctioned by the US Supreme Court as free speech. If, as the case went, I can wear a T-shirt to school in the 90s that says "F*** the Draft" then a little whistling is nothing. And there are 100s of cases supporting free speech, as long as it does not cause a panic (like yelling "fire" in a theater).

Some instances where it has been ruled a violation of free speech:
(1) Refusing to allow persons wearing political apparel at or near a polling place;
(2) Refusing trademarks to groups where the trademark disparages racial groups;
(3) Law barring sex offenders from social media
(4) Public employee demoted for exercising free speech at work; and
(5) Suspension of a child for wearing a T-shirt that said "F*** the Draft."
Note that Ameritrade Park is a public facility, thus a government facility. They are, therefore, subject to the First Amendment. Were this a private facility, they could kick out Corbin for arguing with an ump.

I completely understand the free speech argument. For the Whistler to sue TD Ameritrade for damages, he has to incur actual damages. No court is going to levy punitive damages on TDA/ESPN or the NCAA over the right to whistle. Otherwise, he's simply suing for the right to sit in the seat. In which case, the NCAA, ESPN and/or TD Ameritrade Park will simply tighten the legal disclaimer language in the ticketing protocol in the future and he won't be allowed to do it next time we're in Omaha.

Again, the officials asked him to reduce his whistling and he did. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

[oakparkDore]

Yeah, and I noticed the VU crowd was quieter than it had been at any game this season, so we lost something when they bullied Preacher Franklin.

Yeah, I’m going to stand up for the Vandy fans that were there. We were decidedly not subdued. I know I’m not the only one who lost his voice from all the yelling. It’s hard to sound loud when you are outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1 by the other team’s fans. And obviously they’ve moved the tv microphones away bc of the whistling.

As for Preacher, he was fine yesterday. It really was a good compromise and got rid of 95% of the non-game situation caused “I am here” type whistling. Hope he was still able to enjoy the game despite having to deal with the Omaha police at one point after our big rally. I also hope the compromise extends to home games.

I watched every second of the game on tv and after the big inning, the only cheering I heard was Maroon/White and Let's go Dogs. In the 9th I heard the Commodore faithful again.

Hard to explain that other than that there were a couple hundred traveling Vandy fans (and a few locals rooting for us) and most were cheering as hard as possible. I was under the overhang with the main fan group so obviously it was echoing, but it sure seemed like we would have been audible on tv even without the microphones anywhere near us as noted. Couldn’t you hear the clapping every time we got two strikes on an MSU hitter for instance?

[Versus75]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I can assure you that just about anybody (if not EVERYBODY) can sue just about anybody for just about anything.

Winning the case is another matter. If Preacher paid enough money to your 3 lawyers and 4 paralegals or whoever it is down the hall, they would likely take the cash and file a suit whether or not they expect to win.

Somebody would probably sue McDonald's for brewing coffee that is too hot or file some other frivolous suit.

[commadore]

On what grounds? I'm not smarting off. I'm genuinely curious.

Actually, there are a lot of grounds. The easiest is discrimination. Other people can make all the noise they want, but he cannot. He isn't using artificial noise makers. You may yell and scream and even say things I don't like. Should they throw you out. But over all, the one no one has mentioned, is the free speech argument. And before you call BS, go back and look at what has been sanctioned by the US Supreme Court as free speech. If, as the case went, I can wear a T-shirt to school in the 90s that says "F*** the Draft" then a little whistling is nothing. And there are 100s of cases supporting free speech, as long as it does not cause a panic (like yelling "fire" in a theater).

Some instances where it has been ruled a violation of free speech:
(1) Refusing to allow persons wearing political apparel at or near a polling place;
(2) Refusing trademarks to groups where the trademark disparages racial groups;
(3) Law barring sex offenders from social media
(4) Public employee demoted for exercising free speech at work; and
(5) Suspension of a child for wearing a T-shirt that said "F*** the Draft."
Note that Ameritrade Park is a public facility, thus a government facility. They are, therefore, subject to the First Amendment. Were this a private facility, they could kick out Corbin for arguing with an ump.

I completely understand the free speech argument. For the Whistler to sue TD Ameritrade for damages, he has to incur actual damages. No court is going to levy punitive damages on TDA/ESPN or the NCAA over the right to whistle. Otherwise, he's simply suing for the right to sit in the seat. In which case, the NCAA, ESPN and/or TD Ameritrade Park will simply tighten the legal disclaimer language in the ticketing protocol in the future and he won't be allowed to do it next time we're in Omaha.

Again, the officials asked him to reduce his whistling and he did. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

No, he doesn't. All he has to show is that his right to free speech was violated. The remedy would be to allow him to exercise the free speech or to compensate him for being denied that right. Usually they simply allow the speech, but here, the series would be well over. The court would most likely say he can in the future and here's $100 for your trouble.
You are thinking in terms of Torts. This is Constitutional Law, for which the rules are totally different.

[HopsLikeHolwerda]

Actually, there are a lot of grounds. The easiest is discrimination. Other people can make all the noise they want, but he cannot. He isn't using artificial noise makers. You may yell and scream and even say things I don't like. Should they throw you out. But over all, the one no one has mentioned, is the free speech argument. And before you call BS, go back and look at what has been sanctioned by the US Supreme Court as free speech. If, as the case went, I can wear a T-shirt to school in the 90s that says "F*** the Draft" then a little whistling is nothing. And there are 100s of cases supporting free speech, as long as it does not cause a panic (like yelling "fire" in a theater).

Some instances where it has been ruled a violation of free speech:
(1) Refusing to allow persons wearing political apparel at or near a polling place;
(2) Refusing trademarks to groups where the trademark disparages racial groups;
(3) Law barring sex offenders from social media
(4) Public employee demoted for exercising free speech at work; and
(5) Suspension of a child for wearing a T-shirt that said "F*** the Draft."
Note that Ameritrade Park is a public facility, thus a government facility. They are, therefore, subject to the First Amendment. Were this a private facility, they could kick out Corbin for arguing with an ump.

I completely understand the free speech argument. For the Whistler to sue TD Ameritrade for damages, he has to incur actual damages. No court is going to levy punitive damages on TDA/ESPN or the NCAA over the right to whistle. Otherwise, he's simply suing for the right to sit in the seat. In which case, the NCAA, ESPN and/or TD Ameritrade Park will simply tighten the legal disclaimer language in the ticketing protocol in the future and he won't be allowed to do it next time we're in Omaha.

Again, the officials asked him to reduce his whistling and he did. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

No, he doesn't. All he has to show is that his right to free speech was violated. The remedy would be to allow him to exercise the free speech or to compensate him for being denied that right. Usually they simply allow the speech, but here, the series would be well over. The court would most likely say he can in the future and here's $100 for your trouble.
You are thinking in terms of Torts. This is Constitutional Law, for which the rules are totally different.

I understand the reparations part. And I understand the remedy. And I agree with your assessment. My point is simply, is it worth suing some entity to gain $100...when you know that they'll fine-tune the disclaimer language around the ticketing protocol in the future? ESPN has the right to do that since they own the broadcast. And the NCAA has the right to do that if it diminishes the enjoyment of other paying customers. Their rights to the event and the content can effectively cover the issue without the issue of the Park being public or privately-owned coming into play. This is turning into an interesting legal discussion, which I rather enjoy, and I appreciate your candor. In short though, I don't see any instance in which abiding by the rules of the event and facility can cause an infringement on his 1A rights. My guess is he agreed to the event conditions when purchasing the ticket...whether he missed the fine print or not is another discussion. Otherwise the legal ticketing disclaimers would not be so common. As someone who buys a lot of concert tickets, tho'e disclaimers outline a lot of things you can't do at a concert...even in a public space. And based on the statement from the tourney official, if someone is yelling incessantly and refuses to stop, they can asked to leave as well.

[commadore]

I completely understand the free speech argument. For the Whistler to sue TD Ameritrade for damages, he has to incur actual damages. No court is going to levy punitive damages on TDA/ESPN or the NCAA over the right to whistle. Otherwise, he's simply suing for the right to sit in the seat. In which case, the NCAA, ESPN and/or TD Ameritrade Park will simply tighten the legal disclaimer language in the ticketing protocol in the future and he won't be allowed to do it next time we're in Omaha.

Again, the officials asked him to reduce his whistling and he did. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

No, he doesn't. All he has to show is that his right to free speech was violated. The remedy would be to allow him to exercise the free speech or to compensate him for being denied that right. Usually they simply allow the speech, but here, the series would be well over. The court would most likely say he can in the future and here's $100 for your trouble.
You are thinking in terms of Torts. This is Constitutional Law, for which the rules are totally different.

I understand the reparations part. And I understand the remedy. And I agree with your assessment. My point is simply, is it worth suing some entity to gain $100...when you know that they'll fine-tune the disclaimer language around the ticketing protocol in the future? ESPN has the right to do that since they own the broadcast. And the NCAA has the right to do that if it diminishes the enjoyment of other paying customers. Their rights to the event and the content can effectively cover the issue without the issue of the Park being public or privately-owned coming into play. This is turning into an interesting legal discussion, which I rather enjoy, and I appreciate your candor. In short though, I don't see any instance in which abiding by the rules of the event and facility can cause an infringement on his 1A rights. My guess is he agreed to the event conditions when purchasing the ticket...whether he missed the fine print or not is another discussion. Otherwise the legal ticketing disclaimers would not be so common. As someone who buys a lot of concert tickets, tho'e disclaimers outline a lot of things you can't do at a concert...even in a public space. And based on the statement from the tourney official, if someone is yelling incessantly and refuses to stop, they can asked to leave as well.

We have come full circle and that is why, as a lawyer, I tell people that sometimes it just isn't worth it. If they told him in March he couldn't whistle, he could have gone to court ahead of time and won. But after the fact, is it worth anything to say "I won." It is just like these TV lawyers who say "don't take the insurance settlement, I can get you twice as much." Yeah, but the you take 50% and I am back to where I started and it took longer. You have to weigh ALL the factors. At any rate, in my opinion, the Whistler ha a case, but it would most likely ring as a hollow victory.

[EllistonVU]

So are you a lawyer? Because Preacher Franklin was advised by an actually attorney that he could sue if they eject him. And sure you can sue anyone for practically anything, but an attorney would hardly offer that advice if he didn't think Preacher had a legal leg to stand on.

Like I said, a bunch of Vandy Maniacs support this nonsense. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Am I a lawyer? No. Though I could be in a matter of a year or so, if I wanted. Am I a statistician that works with lawyers every single day? Yep. Right now I'm sitting in my office with 4 lawyers down the hall and 7 more paralegals around the corner in their cubicles. No, he cannot sue the stadium for removing him if they deem his whistling as excessive noise. Any attorney that told him that is a moron. You have to have incurred actual damages to sue someone. The only thing Preacher could possibly claim is that he is out the cost of a ticket, and even that goes out the window with any small disclaimer printed on the ticket or agreed upon in the fine print when he purchased the ticket. Do you actually think he is going to hire a lawyer and sue TD Ameritrade over the cost of a single game ticket? If you believe that, you're out of your mind. And I'll go ahead and level with you, I don't think Preacher Franklin has a "lawyer friend". I'd be willing to bet that he made that up for purposes of the story...because that's what people do when it's all about them.

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

His reputation for what? Is he running for governor? Does his new album drop next week?

What is his "claim to fame" other than being threatened with removal from a college baseball game and looking like a guy at the annual biker rally in Stergis?

[Good2BGold]

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

You may be the most stubborn and misinformed person I've ever come across on a message board. First, I said "I think" which is definitely not going to hold up in court in a libel case. Second, has Preacher endured any financial hardship or actual damages because of my statement? No. No case. Third, at this point, I could simply argue that Preacher has made himself into a "public figure" and therefore would need to prove that I "knowingly" made a false and defamatory statement about him...which means he would have to prove that I knew he had a "lawyer friend" and said it anyway. Good luck with that. Based on those grounds, feel free to tell him. You really should at least read some legal definitions before spouting nonsense. Feel free to start with the legal definition of "public figure" and then explore "actual damages".

The idea that someone would levy an accusation of libel based on message board posts is probably the funniest and saddest thing I've seen on the internet, and that's saying something.

Well, you can say whatever you want about me, Hops, but at least I'm not on here bashing a very loyal Vanderbilt fan and suggesting that he's a liar. That would be you.

[Good2BGold]

Am I a lawyer? No. Though I could be in a matter of a year or so, if I wanted. Am I a statistician that works with lawyers every single day? Yep. Right now I'm sitting in my office with 4 lawyers down the hall and 7 more paralegals around the corner in their cubicles. No, he cannot sue the stadium for removing him if they deem his whistling as excessive noise. Any attorney that told him that is a moron. You have to have incurred actual damages to sue someone. The only thing Preacher could possibly claim is that he is out the cost of a ticket, and even that goes out the window with any small disclaimer printed on the ticket or agreed upon in the fine print when he purchased the ticket. Do you actually think he is going to hire a lawyer and sue TD Ameritrade over the cost of a single game ticket? If you believe that, you're out of your mind. And I'll go ahead and level with you, I don't think Preacher Franklin has a "lawyer friend". I'd be willing to bet that he made that up for purposes of the story...because that's what people do when it's all about them.

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

His reputation for what? Is he running for governor? Does his new album drop next week?

What is his "claim to fame" other than being threatened with removal from a college baseball game and looking like a guy at the annual biker rally in Stergis?

I'm not sure what his plans are, I don't know if he intends to run for public office or release an album next week, but he was quoted in the news media as saying a lawyer had advised him he could sue if they ejected him, and I'll take his word that an attorney advised him of that, more than I would believe you.

[EllistonVU]

Your claim Preacher lied may well constitute libel by you against him, and I'm going to be certain to point out your comment to him. Check with your office mates about that. But regarding what he could sue for, he could claim they harmed his reputation, which they have, because this has become a national story as a result of the strong-armed tactics of the officials at TD Ameritrade.

His reputation for what? Is he running for governor? Does his new album drop next week?

What is his "claim to fame" other than being threatened with removal from a college baseball game and looking like a guy at the annual biker rally in Stergis?

I'm not sure what his plans are, I don't know if he intends to run for public office or release an album next week, but he was quoted in the news media as saying a lawyer had advised him he could sue if they ejected him, and I'll take his word that an attorney advised him of that, more than I would believe you.

You saying you don't believe me? Well, that's grounds for a defamation suit. You need to get the whistler's (cough-cough) "lawyer" to defend you in this one. I have the guy from the bus bench ads who says "justice is your right... and we demand it." If you can't get the whistler's (cough-cough) "lawyer" to defend you in this one, look up the firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. The retainer might seem a little steep, but better than getting fleeced by my guy.