Posted on 03/24/2006 12:46:43 PM PST by GeorgiaDawg32
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Attorneys for Barry Bonds asked a federal judge Friday to hold in contempt of court the authors and publisher of a book that claims the San Francisco Giants slugger used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
Bonds' attorneys sent a letter Friday to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston demanding that the writers, publisher Gotham Books, the San Francisco Chronicle and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts of the book "Game of Shadows," be held liable for possessing and publishing "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."
"The true victim is not Barry Bonds, but the sanctity and integrity of the grand jury process," attorney Alison Berry Wilkinson wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
So, Bonds's attys aren't disputing the claims in the book, but are going after the authors on a technicality?
Generally, when a person chooses not to file a libel/slander suit, you can pawn it off as saying that they don't want to pay the expense of litigation....but even that excuse doesn't fly here.
It appears that they are suing over "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts." used in the book.
I'm all for it :)
This is not a suit to stop the publishers from printing falsehoods, but is an action to stop them from publishing the truth.
Considering your screen name, I completely trust your assessment of this situation.
Isn't it a bit late for that, since the book is already in the stores?
DENIED!
SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge on Friday denied a bid by Barry Bonds' lawyers to block the authors and publishers from making money on a book claiming the San Francisco Giants' slugger used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
Bonds' attorneys say the book's authors, publisher Gotham Books, the San Francisco Chronicle and Sports Illustrated, which published excerpts of the book, should be held liable for publishing "illegally obtained grand jury transcripts."
But Judge James Warren said free speech protections shielded the defendants from such accusations and that he thought Bonds' lawsuit had little chance of success.
The book, "Game of Shadows," by Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, is based partly on grand jury testimony from a federal investigation into the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, or BALCO, where Bonds and several other major league players allegedly obtained performance-enhancing drugs.
The book hit shelves on Thursday, the same day Bonds' attorneys said they would sue the writers, Gotham, the Chronicle and Sports Illustrated.
It is entirely a PR move.
It leaves an impression with the fans that Bonds is fighting the allegations in the book. It makes it appear as if Bonds is suing the publishers for printing falsehoods, but his lawyers are simply using a tactic to bring attention to the matter without subjecting their client to the risk of being deposed.
It gives the Giants and their flagship, KNBR, the cover to continue to lionize this juiced-up fraud as he closes in on the Babe.
Bonds struck out.
This is no technicality, and I've wondered about it ever since the SF Chronicle printed portions of secret grand jury testimony last year. It is a crime to leak grand jury testimony; why can the media print such testimony and get away with it?
I am NOT defending Bonds for juicing; whatever happens to him, he's brought it on himself.
On the other hand, the secrecy of grand jury testimony is one of the foundations of our criminal justice system; for the press to knowingly disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings for their own gain is a disgrace.
If Bonds gets banned from baseball and the Hall of Fame for his actions, so be it. On this issue, however, I hope he wins. The Chronicle (and the authors of this book) have shown an utter disregard (if not contempt) for grand jury secrecy, and ought to be slapped down for it.
Agree. Someone committed a crime without any consequence thus far.
Out of curiousity, why is a leak(s) in the grand jury testimony Bonds' issue? If this is criminal, why isn't the DA going after the leakers? I plead ignorance here...how is this offense open to a civil suit by Bonds?
There is a series of statutes in California that entitles a private citizen to pursue a civil claim against someone who profits from activity that is in violation of law -- it is referred to as the Unfair Competition Act. Bonds is seeking to force the authors of the book to give up their profits from the book ("disgorgement of ill-gotten gains") attributable to their knowing use of grand jury transcripts that they have no right to have.
The prosecution authority (I believe it was federal) may be investigating the leak; heck, the prosecution may have BEEN the source of the leak (though I don't know that to be true). On the other hand, once the SF Chronicle printed relevant portions of the transcript, going after a major media outlet for a criminal violation would have involved a major first amendment battle over whether a major media outlet has the right to print what otherwise would be "news" if based on leaked grand jury testimony. First amendment battles are long, expensive and difficult to win.
The beauty of Bonds' claim is that he only needs to show that they profited from printing information that they legally were not entitled to have (a much lesser standard which should not involve the first amendment).
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.